Comparative evaluation of play environment design elements in autism schools using AHP and GRA

Research background and significance

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a complex neurodevelopmental condition generally defined by two core features in diagnostic manuals such as the DSM-5: (1) persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction across multiple contexts (Criterion A), and (2) restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities (Criterion B)¹. While many children with ASD benefit from targeted educational interventions, not all require placement in autism schools; estimates vary widely depending on individual needs and local educational policies². In China, approximately 0.7% of children aged 6–12 are diagnosed with ASD, amounting to around 2 million children, with 160,000 new cases annually³. This growing prevalence underscores the global urgency of optimizing spatial play environments to better support the cognitive, emotional, and social development of children with ASD..

As a regional application, this study examines autism schools in the Yangtze River Delta Region, where strong policy frameworks and investment provide a distinctive testing ground for autism-friendly design. Despite the increasing number of autism diagnoses, creating supportive environments remains a critical issue. Research has emphasized the role of well-designed educational spaces in accommodating the unique sensitivities of autistic children to environmental changes, yet some gaps remain in the design of autism-friendly spaces⁴.

Play environments are crucial for creating inclusive educational settings for children with ASD, influencing their cognitive, emotional, and social development^5,6. However, few studies have integrated multidisciplinary perspectives that combine architectural design, sensory experiences, and social interactions, and even fewer have systematically evaluated how various design elements contribute to the effectiveness of these environments⁷. While expert evaluations remain valuable for assessing autism-friendly design⁸, research increasingly underscores the need to incorporate autistic individuals’ lived experiences for more authentic insights^9,10.

To address these gaps, this research introduces an integrated AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) -GRA (Grey Relational Analysis) framework, employing AHP to weight key design elements based on expert judgment and GRA to compare play environments across four case schools. The primary objective is to develop a comprehensive evaluation framework that yields actionable insights for optimizing these environments to better support the development and well-being of children with ASD. As a regional application, the framework is tested in autism schools across the Yangtze River Delta Region, where strong policy support and investment provide a distinctive context for examining autism-friendly design¹¹.

Therefore, this study is guided by the following research questions:

• What are the relative priorities of key design elements in creating an optimal play environment for children with ASD?

• How do the play environments of selected autism schools in the Yangtze River Delta perform when evaluated against these prioritized criteria?

• What insights can the integrated AHP-GRA framework provide for creating more evidence-based, autism-friendly spaces?

By exploring these research questions and validating the AHP-GRA framework in the context of autism school play environments, this study intends to bridge the divide between theoretical design principles and practical application. It not only aims to identify which design elements are most critical for autistic children’s development but also to offer a clear, replicable approach for stakeholders—including school administrators, architects, and special education practitioners—to assess, refine, and build play spaces that are truly responsive to autistic children’s needs. Subsequent sections will first review relevant theoretical foundations and existing research on autism-friendly design to contextualize the study, then detail the selection of case schools and the step-by-step implementation of the AHP-GRA methodology, before presenting and discussing the results to derive actionable conclusions.

Theoretical foundations for designing play environments for children with ASD

The play environment plays a pivotal role in supporting the development of children, fostering cognitive, emotional, and social growth through various interactions with both physical and social spaces¹². This concept has been extensively explored within child development and educational psychology¹³. Well-designed play environments significantly impact children’s learning processes, helping them construct an understanding of the world through active exploration and interaction¹⁴. However, despite Piaget’s general insights on play, the unique challenges faced by children with ASD necessitate more tailored environmental designs¹⁵.

For children with ASD, the effectiveness of play environments is influenced by the physical layout and the social context¹⁶. They often face sensory processing challenges, making design decisions crucial to their engagement¹⁷. It is essential to create safe, accessible, and stimulating spaces that cater to a variety of sensory and social needs¹⁸. In addition, some autistic children exhibit differences in motor coordination, requiring spatial accommodations or specialized equipment¹⁹. When combined with potential reliance on structured routines or visual schedules, these motor and social distinctions necessitate carefully planned layouts to foster confidence and reduce anxiety²⁰.

Table 1 clarifies further distinctions between autistic and non-autistic children’s play requirements, focusing on sensory, spatial, and social factors.

Table 1 highlights the distinctive differences in play needs between autistic and non-autistic children, particularly in terms of sensory sensitivities, spatial preferences, and social engagement. These contrasts underscore the necessity for structured, predictable, and sensory-responsive environments in autism education, setting the foundation for subsequent design considerations.

Additionally, while global studies emphasize sensory-friendly approaches and structured routines, regional contexts such as the Yangtze River Delta may require local adaptations—such as incorporating Chinese cultural symbols or addressing space limitations in urban schools—to ensure designs remain both relevant and feasible.

Henri Lefebvre’s theory of the social production of space offers a valuable framework for understanding how physical environments can influence social behaviors and inclusivity. Lefebvre divides space into three dimensions: perceived space, conceived space, and lived space²¹. Although Lefebvre’s work is not autism-specific, it can be adapted by emphasizing clear zoning and navigable layouts to reduce sensory overload and facilitate structured movement. This approach is particularly beneficial for children with ASD who often struggle with social communication.

In addition to Lefebvre’s spatial theory, Mitsuru Senda’s “Game Construction” theory highlights the importance of dynamic and flexible environments that encourage creativity, exploration, and social engagement²². While Senda’s focus is on general child development, his emphasis on interactive and adaptable spaces can be extended to autism-friendly design by incorporating more explicit strategies for sensory modulation and social skill development²³.

Building upon these theoretical insights, the Sensory Theory of Autism, initially proposed by Rimland and expanded by Delacato and Lovaas, underscores the importance of sensory experiences in shaping the built environment for children with ASD²⁴. These findings were later developed into Magda Mostafa’s ASPECTSS™ framework²⁵, an approach specifically geared toward autistic children that minimizes sensory overload and promotes integration through features like controlled acoustics, predictable layouts, and low-contrast color schemes.

These theoretical perspectives establish a foundational understanding of how spatial and environmental factors shape the play experiences of children with ASD, and point out the design principles and key design elements of autism-friendly, thus transforming them into tangible and evidence-based design strategies.

Autism-friendly design principles and key design elements

Designing play environments for children with ASD requires a nuanced understanding of their multifaceted needs. This section merges insights from general theories (e.g., Lefebvre, Senda) with autism-specific frameworks (e.g., Mostafa’s ASPECTSS™) and contemporary socio-cultural approaches. Four key principles—Safety and Accessibility, Stimulation and Sensory Integration, Flexibility and Inclusivity, and Social Interaction and Community Building—address the core challenges faced by autistic children, from perceiving potential dangers to managing social interactions.

Table 2 categorizes key design principles derived from influential scholars and practitioners in spatial design, play environments, and autism research. Each principle is linked to relevant challenges faced by autistic children and the corresponding environmental solutions proposed by experts. This structured approach clarifies the relationship between expert contributions and autism-friendly design strategies.

As synthesized in Table 2, theoretical perspectives ranging from Lefebvre’s triad of space, Senda’s notions of play construction, and Mostafa’s ASPECTSS™ framework collectively inform the core design strategies. Together, they emphasize zoning, flexibility, sensory regulation, and cultural adaptation as essential elements for autism-friendly play environments.

Table 3 translates these theoretical foundations into six practical design elements—Safety, Sensory-Friendly Features, Facilities, Personalization, Interactive Elements, and Cultural Symbols—which structure the subsequent evaluation framework. This mapping ensures that abstract theories are operationalized into measurable indicators.

Safety and accessibility

Safety is paramount for children with ASD, who may have difficulty perceiving potential dangers²⁶. Creating hazard-free environments involves non-reflective surfaces, clear zoning, and physically delineated boundaries to minimize confusion²⁷. Accessibility requires navigable spaces for children of varying abilities, including ramps, handrails, and unobstructed pathways¹⁸. In high-density contexts like the Yangtze River Delta, effectively distributing space and avoiding overcrowded layouts are critical¹⁹.

Key design elements

Zoning

Zoning involves dividing the play environment into clearly defined areas—such as active play zones, quiet zones, and transition zones—to help children with ASD understand and predict the type of activity taking place in each area. Clear zoning reduces confusion, lowers the risk of sensory overload, and offers safe retreats when needed^21,27. One successful example is implementing color-coded “quiet corners” and “active areas” in a Shanghai special education school, enabling children to visually distinguish space functions.

Layout

A logical and unobstructed layout, featuring clear pathways and visual cues, enhances navigability. For children with ASD, having a predictable flow of space can lower anxiety and facilitate independent exploration²⁸. Wide corridors, consistent color coding, and straightforward signage contribute to accessibility.

Size

Adequate space allocation helps avoid overcrowding and reduces potential sensory stress²⁹. Ample circulation areas also ensure that children with varying mobility needs can comfortably move within the environment.

Safety features

Physical safety elements such as non-slip flooring, rounded edges on equipment, and soft-impact materials are crucial in preventing injuries²⁶. Since children with ASD may have difficulty perceiving danger, these features help maintain a secure setting²⁷.

Stimulation and sensory integration

Children with ASD often present distinct sensory profiles. While they can benefit from enriched sensory experiences, sudden or excessive stimuli may induce overload^30,31. Incorporating natural elements (e.g., water features, greenery) helps calm heightened sensory responses³², while controlled lighting or acoustic treatments maintain a more predictable environment³³.

Key design elements

Sensory-friendly features

Focus on optimizing the immediate sensory environment to reduce discomfort and anxiety³⁴. This involves interventions that directly address potential irritants, such as lighting intensity, noise levels, or strong visual contrasts. For instance, incorporating dimmable fixtures, selecting low-saturation color palettes, and using acoustical treatments can create a calmer, more comfortable setting³⁵. Additionally, introducing natural elements like water features or greenery provides varied but soothing stimuli, promoting engagement without overwhelming the senses^32,36.

Sensory consistency

Emphasizes predictability and uniformity across the environment to reduce sudden or unpredictable changes in sensory stimuli³⁷. While “sensory-friendly” measures minimize discomfort, “sensory consistency” aims to maintain a coherent and stable sensory experience, preventing abrupt shifts that might trigger anxiety or confusion³⁸. For example, using the same flooring material or maintaining a consistent color scheme helps children anticipate and adapt to their surroundings more easily, thus supporting smoother transitions between different areas²⁷.

Flexibility and inclusivity

Flexibility in play design enables both structured and free-play options. For children with ASD, a flexible environment can accommodate fluctuating needs related to mood, sensory thresholds, or social readiness²². Inclusivity refers to designing for all abilities and providing equitable access to each zone, acknowledging that not all children have the same developmental trajectory³⁹.

Key design elements:

Facilities

Providing a variety of play equipment suitable for different ages and abilities can encourage participation from all children¹⁶. These facilities may include adjustable-height surfaces, modular or reconfigurable play structures, and multi-sensory stations that cater to different engagement levels^22,40.

Personalization

Personalization options offer autistic children the chance to shape their own environment, thus enhancing their sense of control and comfort⁴¹. Examples include adding customizable features (e.g., movable cushions, art boards) or allowing children to select colors or themes for smaller “nooks” within a space²⁶.

Social interaction and community building

Social development can be challenging for children with ASD, who might find interpreting non-autistic social norms difficult. Here, “social norms” refers to mainstream expectations of communication and behavior, which can differ significantly from autistic norms²⁰. Designing for social engagement requires group activity areas, interactive installations, and clear communication-friendly spaces—that is, areas with visual supports, minimal noise, or structured prompts to facilitate cooperative play¹⁹.

Key design elements

Interactive elements

Incorporating multi-user installations, such as collaborative art walls, water/sand tables, or technology-enhanced play stations, encourages cooperation and communication⁴². By participating in shared tasks, autistic children can practice social skills in a structured yet engaging context¹⁹.

Cultural symbols

Integrating familiar cultural symbols—such as local motifs, regional color palettes, or traditional iconography—can bolster a sense of belonging and acceptance⁴³. This approach not only acknowledges the broader community context but also helps children connect with the space on a deeper, more personal level²⁰. In the Yangtze River Delta, local motifs and color palettes might be used to create a familiar atmosphere, fostering a sense of community and belonging among autistic learners⁴⁴.

By synthesizing these four principles and their related elements, educators, architects, and policymakers can evaluate and enhance play environments more systematically. This integrated approach captures the multi-dimensional nature of ASD—physical safety, sensory modulation, inclusivity, and social engagement—thus supporting children’s holistic development.

Moreover, employing these design principles in tandem with local cultural considerations ensures that best practices identified in international research are appropriately adapted to the context of the Yangtze River Delta⁴⁵.

Building on the design principles and corresponding elements outlined above, this study operationalizes them as the Main Proposed Scales (principles) and Subscales (elements) for systematically evaluating autism-friendly play environments. Specifically, the four design principles—Safety and Accessibility, Stimulation and Sensory Integration, Flexibility and Inclusivity, and Social Interaction and Community Building—function as the overarching scales. Each principle is further dissected into subscales (e.g., zoning, layout, sensory-friendly features, cultural symbols) that capture the nuanced facets of autism-friendly design. This structured approach directly addresses the research questions posed earlier, which seek to identify, prioritize, and compare the effectiveness of design indicators in supporting the development and well-being of autistic children.

Research gaps and methodological approaches

While the theoretical and principle-based literature offers valuable guidance, a significant gap remains in the systematic, quantitative evaluation of how these design elements perform in real-world settings. Existing studies tend to be qualitative, case-based, or focused on single disciplines. There is a notable scarcity of research that provides a replicable model for prioritizing design criteria or for comparing the effectiveness of different autism-friendly environments across multiple sites^46,47.

This gap points to a methodological limitation. Without standardized tools to weigh the relative importance of—for instance—safety features versus sensory customization, or to benchmark existing spaces against ideal models, design and policy decisions may rely on subjective judgment rather than evidence-based consensus.

To address this, multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods offer promising pathways. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is particularly effective for structuring complex decisions involving qualitative criteria. It decomposes a problem into a hierarchy, enabling experts to perform pairwise comparisons and derive objective weightings for each element. AHP has been widely applied in environmental and sustainability assessments⁴⁸, but its application to autism school design remains limited. Its strength lies in transforming expert knowledge into quantifiable priorities, thus providing clarity on which design elements are most critical.

Similarly, Grey Relational Analysis (GRA), a core component of Grey System Theory, is designed to evaluate systems with incomplete or uncertain information. It measures the degree of similarity between a given case and an ideal reference sequence, producing a relational grade that allows for comparative ranking. GRA has been used in environmental quality evaluation and policy effectiveness analysis⁴⁹, demonstrating utility in contexts where data is limited but comparative insight is needed.

Critically, few studies have integrated AHP and GRA within the domain of educational environment design. The combination of these methods is a novel approach in this field: AHP determines what matters most by establishing weighted priorities, while GRA assesses how well different cases meet those priorities through a systematic comparative framework. This integrated AHP-GRA methodology can fill a critical void by offering a structured, transparent, and data-informed process for evaluating and benchmarking autism-friendly play environments—moving beyond theoretical principles toward actionable, evidence-based assessment and decision-making.

By applying this combined methodology, this study not only responds to identified theoretical and practical gaps but also introduces a replicable model for future research and policy development in the design of supportive learning environments for children with ASD.