From 2013 to 2022, the number of university students in China has increased from 26.475 million to 40.248 million, with an increase of 52%. Generally speaking, a university with 10,000 students consumes approximately 771,000 kg of grain and 384,000 kg of vegetables annually (Liu, 2022). Consequently, Chinese universities, with their rapidly growing population, face a higher food supply demand. Simultaneously, imbalanced dietary habits and food waste pose serious challenges in Chinese universities (Chao et al., 2021). Studies have revealed that 32.62% of Chinese university students have a low intake of vegetables, fruits, beans, milk and drinking water, indicating an imbalanced dietary state (Ding, 2016). And food waste exists in more than 70% of Chinese university campuses, with an average student food waste of about 130 grams per meal, surpassing the urban population’s average of 93 grams (Qian et al., 2021). Furthermore, insufficient green spaces within Chinese universities commonly suffer from a lack of diverse landscape types and limited functionality (Ha and Kim, 2021; Liu et al., 2021). This restricts opportunities for students to connect with nature, exercise, and alleviate stress (Yin et al., 2023). Given the challenges of high food demand, imbalanced diet, serious food waste and low-quality campus green space in Chinese universities, it is urgent to explore a comprehensive strategy to alleviate food supply pressure, promote healthy dietary concepts, reduce food waste, enhance green space quality and foster the healthy and orderly development of universities campuses.

As an effective approach to addressing issues such as inadequate food supply, imbalanced diets, food waste, and poor environmental quality brought about by campus development, edible campuses have always attracted the attention of researchers. According to the Edible Campus Project at the University of California, an edible campus can be defined as a concept that utilizes campus space for cultivating food, growing crops, and creating opportunities for cooking and education. It may also be known as a school garden or farm, catering to various educational levels.

An edible campus can alleviate high food demand. Roggema (2021) confirmed that the Zernike campus in Groningen can bring 230,000㎡ of production area by using the roof, facade, and ground space for agricultural planting. This can satisfy 100% of the vegetable supply for teachers and students on campus. According to the calculation of Zhang et al. (2018), a vertical farming building covering an area of 5,000㎡ on campus can bring a vegetable production capacity of 1,065,000 kg per year. An edible campus can help improve dietary elements such as fruit and vegetable consumption. Schreinemachers et al. (2020) have indicated that when combined with campus farming and supplementary home farming interventions, student vegetable consumption can increase by 15%–26%, effectively raising the proportion of vegetables in their diet. In addition, Davis et al. (2015) pointed out that an edible campus can promote healthy eating habits through interventions in students’ eating behaviours. Furthermore, an edible campus can effectively reduce campus food waste. Torrijos et al. (2021) proposed utilizing edible campus composting facilities to manage campus food residues and produce organic fertilizers, facilitating the recycling of campus organic matter. A study by Erälinna and Szymoniuk (2021) showed that the edible campus at the University of Turku, Finland, can effectively reduce food waste among students by holding food and agriculture education activities. Moreover, an edible campus also improves the quality of campus green space, thus meeting students’ recreational and social needs. Cahyanti et al. (2019) highlighted that the edible campus at Universitas Gadjah Mada provides students with opportunities to engage in activities such as touching, observing, thinking, and playing by incorporating multifunctional spaces like compost areas, aeroponic farming area, biogas area, cow farm, recreation area, and composite area. Amiri et al. (2021) demonstrated that students who participate in an edible campus experience significant increases in their love for nature, emotional well-being, stress relief, social skills, and sense of belonging to the campus.

Current research on edible campus focuses on its benefit, and design. Benefit research involves a wide range of disciplines and has yielded numerous findings. These include economic benefits, such as crops output (Robinson et al., 2017); health benefits, such as improving physical and psychological conditions (Taylor et al., 2017); ecological benefits, such as biodiversity improvement (Fischer et al., 2019); social benefits, such as promoting social interaction between teachers and students (Laaksoharju et al., 2012); and education benefits, such as imparting agricultural knowledge (Schreinemachers et al., 2017). Research on edible campus design involves integrating agriculture with the campus built environment, such as vertical agriculture (Zhang et al., 2018) and hydroponic roof (Jans-Singh et al., 2020; Ledesma et al., 2020); the design of campus waste recycling systems, such as cafeteria kitchen waste reuse systems and circular food systems (Cahyanti et al., 2019; Erälinna and Szymoniuk, 2021; Torrijos et al., 2021); and multi-subjects collaborative design approach, such as organizing students and medical school patients to collaborate in designing campus garden (Dantas et al., 2018). Generally, design research provides scientific and standardized guidance for the practice of the edible campus, and helps explore new strategies for its construction. Studying the correlation between design and benefits of an edible campus can promote these benefits and enhance the value of such campus through effective design (Nadal et al., 2018). However, there are few studies on the correlation between the design and benefit of an edible campus.

Therefore, this paper firstly obtains the design factors and benefit factors for an edible campus through literature review. On this basis, taking the South Campus of Hebei University of Technology in China as a case study, this paper analyzes the correlation between design factors and benefits of an edible campus, explores the underlying causes, and discusses the future design directions for the edible campus.

We obtained 102 papers through literature search and screening. Based on in-depth reading and analysis, we extracted entries related to edible campus design and categorized them for summarization. And then, we grouped and classified entries with similar meanings. Finally, we found that existing research on edible campus design focuses on five aspects: size, space function, facility configuration, planting and crop varieties, and technology application. Furthermore, based on the literature reviewed, we subdivided the design factors for each aspect and constructed a design factor matrix, as shown in Table 1.

Firstly, the size of an edible campus. The minimum construction area of an edible campus at the University of Turku in Finland is 10 × 10㎡ (Erälinna and Szymoniuk, 2021). And the minimum area of an edible campus in Italy is 4 × 4㎡ (Pulighe and Lupia, 2016). Conversely, the minimum area of an edible rooftop is generally 50㎡ (Ledesma et al., 2020). Royer et al. (2023) pointed out that if the planting space is too small, urban agriculture will exhibit fragmented characteristics. By combining the above research with the size classification used in Chinese community garden research, this paper divided edible campus sizes into four types: less than 100 m², 100 ~ 500 m², 500 ~ 1,000 m², and greater than 1,000 m² (Ding, 2020). Secondly, the space function of an edible campus. Typically, planting (Guitart et al., 2014), cooking (Saeumel et al., 2019), learning (LaCharite, 2016), socializing, and recreation (Danks, 2010) are essential functions of an edible campus. The design of the edible campus at Universitas Gadjah Mada also included functions such as animal farming and resource recycling, while incorporating photovoltaic panels for energy production to sustain the campus (Cahyanti et al., 2019). Thirdly, the facility configuration of an edible campus. Planting and maintaining facilities are the foundational infrastructure that an edible campus must have in place. These facilities encompass planting beds, composting facilities, tool sheds, and irrigation systems (Bucklin-Sporer and Pringle, 2010). Goodyear et al. (2016) recommended the installation of protective nets and fences around edible campuses to prevent wildlife interference with agricultural activities on campus. Bucklin-Sporer and Pringle (2010) argued that installing educational facilities such as outdoor blackboards and entertainment service facilities such as tree stumps, hay bales, and display walls in edible campuses can create a rich variety of activities. Wei et al. (2019) proposed that setting up rainwater collection facilities such as sunken floors and small reserved reservoirs, as well as resource recycling facilities like rooftop photovoltaic panels, in edible campuses can reduce surface runoff and achieve resource recycling. However, Ghosh (2023) pointed out that photovoltaic equipment may have drawbacks in preventing light penetration and hindering crop growth. Fourthly, the planting and crop varieties of an edible campus. Crops are essential for an edible campus, such as fruit trees, vegetables, grains, etc. (Sen et al., 2022). Additionally, flowers planting (Goodyear et al., 2016), herb planting (Dantas et al., 2018), poultry farming and livestock farming (Danks, 2010) are common agricultural activities among Dalhousie University School of Agriculture, Saint Paul University School of medicine, and other American edible campuses. Conversely, Pradhan et al. (2023) expressed concerns about poultry farming and livestock farming, pointing out that improper management of livestock manure can lead to potential risks of zoonotic pathogen contamination. Fifthly, the technology application of an edible campus. Compost (Chandra and Diehl, 2019), soil cultivation (Danks, 2010), aquaponics (Trombadore et al., 2019), greenhouse (Jans-Singh et al., 2021) and container planting (Dantas et al., 2018) are common agricultural technologies in an edible campus. Zhang et al. (2018) proposed the application of hydroponics and aeroponics for vertical farming in an edible campus. However, Pradhan et al. (2023) questioned the use of technologies such as hydroponics and aeroponics, believing that these applications not only consume a large amount of water and energy but also affect production by increasing the risk of diseases. Wei et al. (2019) suggested using rainwater collection and reclaimed water cycle technology in school roof gardens. Januszkiewicz and Jarmusz (2017) proposed a method of facade planting technology using building facades for an edible campus. In contrast, Aggarwal et al. (2024) pointed out the high costs associated with facade planting but also proposed a solution strategy to improve investment returns by developing high-yield, space-efficient crop varieties.

Considering the particularity of Chinese university campuses, this paper extracted elements of campus space design based on the review of existing literature. Chinese university campuses generally encompass public teaching area, academy teaching area, sports activities area, residential area, and logistics office area (Song and Zhou, 2006; He, 2010). The built environment elements on the campus include buildings, landscapes, and roads, which can be further subdivided into building systems (such as building facade and building roof), landscape systems (encompassing central landscape, boundary landscape, building complex landscape, building courtyard landscape, road landscape, square landscape, and marker landscape) (Tu, 2007), and road systems (including carriageway, pedestrian road, and car park) (He, 2006).

Based on the above elements, this paper establishes an edible campus design matrix, as shown in Table 1. Among them, spatial location refers to the specific construction site of an edible campus, and spatial carrier refers to the specific built environment elements integrating with agriculture. This matrix includes three levels of design factors, with a total of 52 design indicators at the third level. The indicator interpretation is the analysis and explanation of the third level indicators.

According to the research process outlined in section 3.1.1, we divided the benefits of an edible campus into 5 categories: economic benefit, ecological benefit, educational benefit, social benefit and health benefit. An edible campus can bring direct economic benefits such as agricultural product supply (Chaparro et al., 2009), as well as additional economic value by providing jobs, increasing opportunities for business operations, and driving sales (Ferguson et al., 2019). Based on research on the commercial value and return on investment of an edible campus in Phoenix, Zhang et al. (2018) predicted the commercial value and return on investment of vertical agriculture in 24 canteens at Huazhong University of Science and Technology, suggesting that edible campuses can reduce cafeteria procurement costs and achieve an annual profit of $92,000 after reaching breakeven. Wells et al. (2018) showed that the combination of an edible campus and school kitchens can help low-income families relieve food stress. Yang et al. (2016) believed that the integration of campus roof agriculture and photovoltaic panels can reduce energy funding investment. An edible campus can also help improve biodiversity and the utilization of water resources (Attwater et al., 2016; Mnisi et al., 2021). Vazquez et al. (2020) confirmed that composting and reusing organic waste in an edible campus can achieve the purpose of material recycling. Ledesma et al. (2022) found that thermally integrated rooftop greenhouses (iRTG) can reduce classroom heat load by 42%. Kim et al. (2020) highlighted the positive contributions of an edible campus roof project at Seoul National University in relieving the campus microclimate and indoor thermal environment. The education benefit brought by an edible campus is considered very important (Turner et al., 2016; Cramer et al., 2019). The research of Leuven et al. (2018) showed that edible campuses have led to a 26% increase in students’ accurate knowledge regarding the importance of consuming more vegetables. A study by Taniguchi and Akamatsu (2011) confirmed that the Japanese Edible Campus Program can increase the appreciation for local fruits and vegetables among teachers and students. Wang (2013) demonstrated that campus roof agriculture can promote a green, low-carbon lifestyle. An edible campus enhances public service awareness and personal interaction ability (Jakubec et al., 2021). Kim et al. (2014) found that an edible campus can improve interpersonal relationships and increase the likelihood of making friends. Moreover, Utter et al. (2016) confirmed that adolescents who participated in an edible campus had better physical fitness and a healthier diet. Research by Chawla et al. (2014) showed that participation in an edible campus can help stabilize emotions, release stress, and enhance psychological resilience, thereby improving mental health.

Based on the above research contents, this paper establishes an edible campus benefit matrix, as shown in Table 2. This matrix includes 2 levels of benefit indicators with a total of 25 benefit indicators.

Regarding spatial location, the residential area serves as the space where students engage in outdoor activities most frequently. Conducting a series of edible campus activities such as planting, maintenance, harvesting, and cooking in this area easily attracts more participants, thereby spreading the concept of labour education and agriculture education and achieving the effect of environmental education. On the other hand, the sports activities area belongs to the active zone, and the shouts and cheers generated by the sports activities can interfere with the edible campus education activities. Similarly, the noise from the large-scale model tool room and mechanics laboratory located in the academy teaching area of the South Campus of Hebei University of Technology will also affect the education activities of an edible campus. Therefore, the sports activities area and academy teaching area were negatively correlated with environmental education benefits. Student A said: “We often conduct mechanical and material experiments in the civil engineering academy, which will generate a lot of noise and affect the effect of an edible campus environmental education”.

With respect to spatial carrier, the building roof is a relatively independent space and is less disturbed by the external environment. By utilizing the building roof for various farming experiences, agricultural education, and other edible campus activities, participants can fully immerse themselves in these activities with their mind and body, thereby enhancing the educational significance of an edible campus. Student B said: “Roof space is very independent and quiet. And the transformed edible campus roof also offers pleasant scenery. If I take part in educational activities on the building roof, I will feel relaxed, fan and focused”.

As for size, the larger the construction area of an edible campus, the more planting and crop varieties and technology application it can have (Yang et al., 2016). A variety of grains, flowers, herbs, farming animals, and new technologies can provide students with more agricultural knowledge, breeding knowledge, and scientific knowledge. Therefore, the environmental education benefits of an edible campus in a large-sized space are better.

Regarding space function, when the configuration ratio of learning function is higher, the environmental education benefits will be better (Amiri et al., 2021).

With regard to facility configuration, a safe edible campus space is the prerequisite for ensuring the normal development of educational activities (Bucklin-Sporer and Pringle, 2010). Therefore, having proper safety facilities can promote the education function. Student C said: “During environmental education activities, we will carry out fruit and vegetable picking, processing, and cooking, and we need safety facilities to avoid possible accidental ingestion, water and electricity hazards.” On the other hand, entertainment service facilities can lead to excessive entertainment activities, thereby interfering with educational activities and negatively impacting environmental education. Student D said: “If you play and learn at the same time in an edible campus, neither of them can achieve good results”.

In terms of technology application, container planting is easy to operate and display, making it a convenient tool for promoting and popularizing edible campus education activities. Therefore, container planting can effectively promote environmental education.

As for spatial location, Stepansky et al. (2022) pointed out that long-term participation in planting activities and social activities is a necessary condition for cultivating participants’ physical and mental health in an edible campus. However, the mobility of teachers and students in the public teaching area is relatively high, making it difficult to ensure their participation in an edible campus. Therefore, public teaching areas are negatively correlated with physical and mental health. Teacher A said: “Teachers and students who go to the public teaching area spend most of their time in class and have no time to participate in an edible campus, thus it is difficult to improve their physical and mental health”.

Regarding spatial carrier, a larger central landscape area can extend the duration of participants engaging in farming activities and exercising their bodies (Liu et al., 2018). At the same time, combining the productive landscape with the ornamental landscape in the central landscape can enhance the healing effect. Therefore, the central landscape can promote physical and mental health.

With regard to space function, more planting function can provide more opportunities for teachers and students to exercise (Oh et al., 2020). While, the energy production function based on photovoltaic panels and wind turbine may bring noise (Wang et al., 2014), waste water, waste gas and soil pollution detrimental to the health of the participants (Qi and Zhang, 2017), therefore energy production function is negatively correlated with physical and mental health benefits.

Regarding facility configuration, an edible campus equipped with educational facilities such as informational boards promoting a balanced diet and outdoor classrooms for teaching therapeutic knowledge, can assist teachers and students in developing a proper understanding of dietary concepts (Bhatt et al., 2008). It can also guide them to connect with nature, and achieve emotional stability and stress release. Therefore, there is a positive correlation.

With respect to planting and crop varieties, feeding, stroking, and cleaning animals can effectively relieve personal stress, loneliness, and anxiety, thereby improving mental health (Grajfoner et al., 2021). Therefore, raising sheep and poultry in an edible campus can promote physical and mental health. However, aquatic crops are more likely to attract mosquitoes, fleas, and flies than land crops, which can endanger the health of teachers and students (Luo et al., 2014). Thus, it can negatively impact physical and mental health benefits. Student E said, “My hometown is a paddy field planting area, and during the summer, there are a lot of mosquitoes attracted to aquatic plants, which can bite people”.

In terms of technology application, respondents generally believed that traditional and well-known growing techniques, such as soil cultivation and compost, are more beneficial to the health of teachers and students, although related studies confirmed the opposite (Catanzaro and Ekanem, 2004). Student F said, “I lived in the countryside when I was a child. I think that using soil and compost can grow greener and healthier agricultural products, which will bring better physical and mental health effects”.

Regarding space function, increasing the proportion of socializing functions can promote communication activities between teachers and students (Corbolino et al., 2020), which in turn promotes social interaction.

With respect to facility configuration, entertainment service facilities, such as stage and kitchen, not only provide social places for teachers and students but also attract more teachers and students to exchange (Danks, 2010). Therefore, entertainment service facilities can promote social interaction.

As for technology application, facade planting can increase the aesthetics of an edible campus and provide some shading, which helps attract teachers and students to gather and communicate, so the facade planting can promote social interaction. Generally, container planting can be mastered and completed by a single person, which reduces the likelihood of teachers and students gathering and interacting, so container planting is negatively correlated.

Regarding spatial carrier, it has been found that large landscape areas favour plant and animal migrations, resulting in higher biodiversity (Han and Keeffe, 2021). Thus, building an edible campus in a central landscape can increase species richness, since central landscapes are usually larger in size. Therefore, central landscapes are beneficial to the ecological protection of an edible campus.

With respect to size, constructing an edible campus in a large space can increase the green area, thereby connecting fragmented landscapes in the campus and facilitating the migration of animals and plants (Ioja et al., 2014). Therefore, a large-sized space can promote the ecological protection of an edible campus.

As for space function, excess planting function may increase the input of fertilizer and the use of mechanical equipment, both of which can result in higher greenhouse gas emissions (Liang et al., 2021). These behaviours can negatively impact the ecological effect of an edible campus. Therefore, there is a negative correlation between planting function and ecological protection.

Regarding facility configuration, resource recycling facilities, such as water circulation and waste recycling, can alleviate the burden on the ecological environment (Cahyanti et al., 2019). Therefore, improving resource recycling facilities can promote ecological protection.

With regard to planting and crop varieties, compared with vegetables and other herbaceous plants, fruit trees have a better carbon sequestration effect and can enhance biodiversity (Nowak et al., 2013; Johnson and Handel, 2016). Therefore, planting fruit trees can promote ecological protection. Aquatic crops can purify the water environment (Bich et al., 2020), so planting them is positively correlated. However, planting grains is more likely to cause soil hardening and soil fertility loss (Picasso et al., 2011), which has a negative impact on ecological environmental protection. Additionally, the cultivation of flowers requires higher light, humidity, and soil fertility compared to ordinary crops. This leads to increased energy, water, and fertilizer consumption, resulting in excessive resource usage (Falla et al., 2020). Therefore, planting flowers poses a threat to the ecological environment of an edible campus.

In terms of technology application, aquaponics utilizes the nutrient cycle system formed by crops and aquatic animals, which can reduce the input of resources such as water and fertilizer, and minimize waste output (Schröter and Mergenthaler, 2019), thereby alleviating pressure on the ecological environment. Hydroponics, on the other hand, offers clean planting, saves fertilizers, and reduces water consumption (Pomoni et al., 2023). Therefore, it can effectively utilize resources while promoting ecological protection. Because of its high mobility, flexibility, and controllability, container planting can minimize encroachment on green space, save the use of resources like water and fertilizers, thereby protecting the ecological environment. In summary, the use of aquaponics, hydroponics, and container planting can all promote ecological protection.

Regarding spatial carrier, large and concentrated planting spaces can produce high yields at low cost (Roggema, 2021), thus promoting economic output. On the other hand, the construction of pedestrian roads is challenging, and the space area allocated for pedestrian roads is relatively small, which makes it difficult to balance income and expenditure and is not conducive to the economic benefit (Robinson et al., 2017). Therefore, pedestrian roads show a negative correlation.

With respect to space function, more planting functions can result in larger planting area (Zhang et al., 2018), so increasing planting function can promote economic output.

As for planting and crop varieties, compared with vegetables, herbs have higher economic value (Dirks and Orvis, 2005), so planting herbs can increase economic benefits. Additionally, flowers generally command higher prices compared to grains, fruits, and vegetables, so planting flowers can promote economic benefits.