SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF THE L.N. GUMILYOV EURASIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY CAMPUS USING SPACE SYNTAX

2026

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.51488/1680-080x/2026.3-14
Data confidence 85 high
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

University campuses are complex spatial systems comprising educational buildings, public spaces, and pedestrian networks. Their spatial configuration influences movement and accessibility, yet its relationship with actual pedestrian movement remains insufficiently explored in Kazakhstan. This study analyzes the spatial structure of the L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University campus using Space Syntax and compares configurational measures with observed pedestrian movement. The methodology combines axial analysis and field observations. An axial map of 24 lines was constructed in DepthmapX. Four indicators were analyzed: Connectivity (mean 2.58; maximum 7), global Integration (Rn) (0.733; 1.102), local Integration (R3) (1.244; 2.636), and normalized Choice (0.301; 1.016). Pedestrian movement was recorded along all 24 lines during three observation periods, resulting in 72 five-minute observations. Results show that central routes with higher integration and connectivity form the structural backbone of the campus, although their correspondence with observed movement varies between routes. Spearman’s rank correlation analysis revealed weak and statistically non-significant associations between mean pedestrian flow and Connectivity (ρ = 0.225, p = 0.291), global Integration (Rn) (ρ = 0.080, p = 0.711), local Integration (R3) (ρ = 0.072, p = 0.739), and normalized Choice (ρ = 0.065, p = 0.762). These findings indicate that configurational properties alone do not explain variations in pedestrian movement and should be interpreted together with functional and contextual conditions. The combined approach can support campus planning and provide a basis for future research involving longer observation periods and additional university campuses.