The Influence of Outdoor Activities and Campus Landscape on University Students’ Subjective Well-Being during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

COVID-19 is reshaping the relationship between humans and their living environment, potentially generating a profound impact on human physical and mental health and quality of life. The objective of this study was to explore how outdoor activities and the campus landscape impacted the subjective well-being (SWB) of Chinese university students in the pre-COVID-19 era (before December 2019) and during the COVID-19 era (from December 2019 to early December 2022). This study collected 439 valid questionnaires from students at a Chinese university, with the questions focusing on the frequency and length of time that university students of different genders, grades, and abilities to cover their living expenses participated in outdoor activities in the pre- and COVID-19 eras, as well as the changes in their SWB. Paired sample t tests revealed a significant decrease in SWB during the COVID-19 era compared with the pre-COVID-19 era, while independent sample t tests and a one-way ANOVA showed that changes in the SWB of university students pre- and during COVID-19 were not related to their gender or their ability to cover their living expenses, but were related to their grades. Hierarchical linear regression showed that outdoor activities in the COVID-19 era had a significant effect on mitigating the decline in students’ SWB. These results suggest a proactive way to increase resilience to future public health challenges and other crises of human life safety.

1. Introduction

1.1. The Impact of COVID-19 on University Life

The World Health Organization (WHO) confirmed the existence of the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), a virus that can cause a new coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and whose pandemic status was confirmed in March 2020 [1]. At its peak, it had spread to about 210 countries [2]. COVID-19 brought about a health crisis and a national governance crisis in some countries, which, in turn, developed into an economic and social crisis [3].

As a worldwide public health issue, the COVID-19 outbreak had significant impacts on all aspects of most people’s lives. Many countries took decisive measures to restrict the free movement of people to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2. As a result, offline teaching in universities worldwide was generally affected, which forced global higher education to face the challenge of transformation to online teaching and learning at home to replace the previously offline-based teaching methods.

The strategy of mainly online and blended teaching has, to a large extent, ensured that students’ learning progress has advanced as scheduled, but university students’ academic performance may still be affected due to negative factors: the uneven quality of online teaching; low teacher–student classroom interaction; difficulty in measuring actual attendance; some students’ low interest in online classes and doubts about their effectiveness; poor self-control [4]; changes in living conditions, lifestyles, and study patterns; the inability to participate in social activities; and worries about COVID-19 [5]. All such factors may have had an impact on university students′ psychological states.

Due to COVID-19, online teaching and learning from home became the primary method of teaching and learning for university faculty and students, changing the basic pattern and fundamental face of higher education, with a significant impact and influence on the university life of the university student population. During this period, university students experienced a general increase in stress and in the frequency of sedentary behavior [6], and a significant decrease in physical activity.

As the epidemic prevention and control situation improves and enters the post-COVID-19 era, higher education in various countries has gradually returned to normal as epidemic prevention and control measures have become normalized. During this period, higher education in various countries has turned into a more integrated teaching and learning model, with a closer relationship between online and offline teaching and learning [7]. Many universities regulated the return of students to campus in batches. Upon return, to avoid the effects of the incubation period, students were advised to stay on campus and avoid going out wherever possible [8]. This strict campus management can bring isolation, social distancing restrictions [9], a stale living environment consisting of a classroom–dormitory pipeline, and a long-term online teaching model that is different from previous classroom lectures, all of which may have an impact on the psychological condition of students [10,11] who may become more prone to adverse emotional problems such as anxiety and stress [12]. Having to face the same living conditions for a short period, they will also be more prone to anxiety and stress during the regular epidemic prevention and control period. At the same time, students may also feel that they are not keeping up with the flow of their courses due to learning loss or poor learning in the online learning mode.

1.2. The Impact of COVID-19 on University Students’ Mental Health and Well-Being

In terms of education and teaching, each university formulated relevant rules and regulations in accordance with local epidemic prevention and control policies, opened campus facilities, regulated the return of students who needed to return to school in batches, and re-established some offline interactive courses, academic exchanges and seminars for students and teachers [13]. In terms of student management, students were categorized according to their current location, and all efforts were made to discourage students from moving outside the campus unless necessary. Students were required to wear masks in public places, such as the canteen, study rooms, and exercise areas, and to keep a safe distance.

As a special social group, university students are not yet fully mature in their physical and mental development, and are at high risk of experiencing psychological problems. Therefore, the mental health of university students should be given extra attention [14]. The COVID-19 pandemic, as a highly contagious and fast-spreading public health emergency, imposes psychological burdens such as fear of death, which can lead to a host of mental health problems [6]. Among the group of university students returning to offline university life, the need for isolation for travel, changes in teaching methods, restrictions to access to campus, and inconvenience in job interviews were still relevant, as universities often adopted strict epidemic prevention and control measures, and university students faced greater stress than before. In terms of the progress of research on COVID-19-era university students’ anxiety, most studies showed that stress was the main factor that triggered negative emotions, such as anxiety, worry, and fear. Therefore, COVID-19 negatively impacted the lives of university students, causing more stress and a negative impact on their mental health, with depression becoming more severe [15].

Subjective well-being (SWB) is a key concept in the realm of psychology; an individual’s level of SWB plays an important role in measuring mental health, academic performance [16], health behavior, and social adjustment [17].

For the university student population, the outbreak period of the COVID-19 pandemic may have produced crisis state reactions: constantly checking the status of confirmed, suspected, and dead cases; questioning their health status; repeated sterilization; and vicarious living as a key concept [18]. University students’ mental health needs to be maintained in the context of normal social contact functioning [19]. Thus, faced with constraints on social life in the new educational model of higher education, such as separation from caregivers and peers, some university students are unable to communicate adequately with their peers or have low self-efficacy, and experience fluctuations in their psychological condition and difficulty pursuing their hobbies, making friends, getting enough sleep, and engaging in their usual outdoor physical activities, all of which can negatively affect their mental health [20]. More susceptibility characteristics are apparent at lower SWB levels, resulting in reduced access to well-being for university students with the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic [21]. Therefore, there is still a need to examine the mental health and well-being of students in the mid-epidemic era.

1.3. Purpose

With the sudden outbreak and global prevalence of the COVID-19 epidemic, people’s mental health was affected to a greater or lesser extent, showing a general decline in well-being and perhaps even some physical and mental health problems. Although the epidemic has entered the post-reduction era, the impact of the epidemic on people is still ongoing, albeit in a reduced manner. Therefore, the first purpose of this study is to make practical suggestions for the improvement of people’s mental health, especially the well-being of adolescent groups such as university students. The second purpose is to explore some key factors that have an impact on adolescents’ well-being, and explore how outdoor activities and the campus landscape impacted the SWB of Chinese university students in the pre-COVID-19 and the COVID-19 eras. The third purpose of this study is to examine how different genders, grades and ability to cover living expenses affect university students’ SWB and its changes.

2. Theoretical Basis and Question

2.1. Outdoor Activities and Campus Landscape Contribute to the Well-Being of University Students

There have been studies showing that outdoor activities and campus landscapes may, to a certain extent, help students recover their psychological well-being [22,23] and ability to concentrate [24], allowing them to be considered a potential recovery environment. Studies by many scholars show that adolescents who have been out of social contact for a long period of time are less psychologically healthy and more susceptible to COVID-19-related stress. The greater the frequency and duration of participation in moderate-intensity outdoor activities, the better the improvement in their SWB [25,26].

On the basis of existing research results and backgrounds, the main supporting theory of our thesis is that the campus landscape may have positive influences on university students’ mental health and well-being through attention recovery theory (ART) [27] and stress recovery theory (SRT) [28].

In 1980, the Kaplans proposed the attention restoration theory [29], which suggests that intentional attention is fatigued by overuse [30,31]. The ability to focus gradually decreases as the duration of attention increases, making it difficult to concentrate [32]. Prolonged concentration tends to reduce the ability to solve problems, makes people more emotional, and increases the chances of making mistakes. It is also suggested that people have a natural environment that has a significant restorative effect on their mental fatigue.

According to SRT, after coming into contact with the campus landscape, the pressure on university students can be relieved by biological responses to specific attributes of the natural environment. ART and SRT support the possibility of the campus landscape influencing university students′ mental health and well-being in a positive way.

In Liprini’s study on young people in school’s cognitions and perspectives of the impact of campus landscape on attention, he wrote that beautiful university landscapes have a significant effect on students’ psychological stress relief [33]. American landscape designer Benjamin Bloom and colleagues found that pleasant university landscaping significantly improved the psychological well-being of university students, particularly in terms of stabilizing their internal emotions, alleviating their anxiety symptoms, and enhancing their well-being [34]. Emotions are the feelings and experiences that individuals have after being stimulated by the objective material world, and can generally be divided into positive and negative emotions [35]. Based on the interpretation of Corina Bogdan et al.’s study [36,37,38,39,40,41,42], in the context of positive psychology, a scientific and reasonable setting and design of university campus landscapes can enable university students to obtain more suitable places for personal solitude and social interaction, enhance their belonging and reliance on campus, and support their psychological mechanisms to pursue well-being. These studies provide evidence of the importance of campus landscapes to the emotional well-being of university students, and furnish a strong theoretical basis for the rational planning of campus landscapes to enhance well-being.

2.2. Research Question

Based on the existing research and theories mentioned earlier, this study can learn that outdoor activities and the natural environment may have impacts on people’s mental health and well-being. In the case of the university student population specifically, their SWB also fluctuates due to changes in outdoor activities. As university students live mainly on campus, their main activity areas are within the university; therefore, the natural environment of the university and the campus landscape are also factors that affect their SWB. In summary, this study aimed to research the influences of outdoor activities and campus landscape on university students’ SWB during the COVID-19 pandemic, and whether several other aspects such as gender, grade and living expenses have an impact on their SWB.

In this study, the following specific questions were addressed. First, did the SWB of university students decrease due to the impacts of COVID-19? That is, was their COVID-19-era SWB significantly lower than their pre-COVID-19-era SWB? Second, did the SWB of university students of different genders, grades and ability to cover their living expenses show significant changes from the pre- to the COVID-19 era? Third, did outdoor activities in the pre- and COVID-19 eras have significant impacts on university students’ changes in SWB between the two eras? Fourth, did changes in university students’ outdoor activities from the pre- to the COVID-19 era have significant impacts on university students’ changes in SWB between the two eras? Fifth, did changes in university students’ outdoor activity time between the pre- and COVID-19 eras have significant impacts on changes in their SWB between the two eras?

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Participants and Procedure

To assess the influence of outdoor activity and the campus landscape on university students’ SWB during the COVID-19 pandemic, this study conducted a survey at a university in Beijing, China. Data were collected from 18 to 30 November 2022. All of the participants volunteered to take part in this study, with participants including current undergraduate students studying at the university and alumni who had been away for less than 2 years. They were all informed of this study’s purpose and were made aware of the confidentiality agreement (this study ensured that data were submitted anonymously and that the questionnaires were processed anonymously). Our questionnaires were administered through Questionnaire Star (www.wjx.cn, accessed on 5 December 2022) and University360 (www.cncity360.com, accessed on 5 December 2022). The mean time it took to complete and submit the questionnaire was about 5 min. Among these data, 31 of the sample took less than 2 min or more than 9 min to complete and submit the questionnaire, and so were excluded from the study, as were other samples with deficiencies. The total number of valid questionnaires returned was therefore 439, with a return rate of 93.4%. The sample characteristics studied in this questionnaire are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 shows that there were 196 male university students, accounting for 44.6%, and 243 female university students, accounting for 55.4%, included in the sample. Sophomores and juniors made up the largest number of university students at 23.5%, followed by seniors at 22.8%. In terms of the ability to cover living expenses for university students, the number who were able to cover their living expenses was the largest, accounting for 75.4%, followed by only 18.9% who had scant ability to cover their living expenses.

Table 1. Sample characteristics (N = 439).

Variable	Category	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Gender	Female	243	55.4
	Male	196	44.6
Grade	Freshman	69	15.7
	Sophomore, Junior	103	23.5
	Senior	100	22.8
	Postgraduate	65	14.8
	Alumni who had been away for less than 2 years	102	23.2
Ability to Cover Living Expenses	Scant	83	18.9
	Enough	331	75.4
	Plenty	25	5.7

Table 1. Sample characteristics (N = 439).

Variable	Category	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Gender	Female	243	55.4
	Male	196	44.6
Grade	Freshman	69	15.7
	Sophomore, Junior	103	23.5
	Senior	100	22.8
	Postgraduate	65	14.8
	Alumni who had been away for less than 2 years	102	23.2
Ability to Cover Living Expenses	Scant	83	18.9
	Enough	331	75.4
	Plenty	25	5.7

3.2. Instruments

The instruments for this study consisted of four parts, as shown in Appendix A.

3.2.1. Grade and Ability to Cover Living Expenses

Grade: In this item, the response regarding the participants’ grades ranged from 1 to 5 (1 = freshman, 2 = sophomore and junior, 3 = senior, 4 = postgraduate, 5 = alumni who had been away for less than 2 years). This study considered this as a factor that may affect the university students’ well-being.

Ability to cover living expenses: In this item, the response regarding the participants’ feelings related to covering their living expenses ranged from 1 to 3 (1 = scant, 2 = enough, 3 = plenty); a higher score indicated a higher ability to cover living expenses and was considered a factor that may also affect the university students’ well-being.

3.2.2. Subjective Well-Being of University Students

This study evaluated the subjective well-being of university students. The Chinese version of the WHO Five Happiness Index is widely used as an important, professional, and scientific standard to evaluate people’ subjective well-being in China. It consists of five positive emotive items: (1) the ability to feel happy and comfortable, (2) the ability to feel calm and relaxed, (3) feeling energetic, (4) feeling awake and well-rested after waking up, and (5) feeling that one’s daily life is full of exciting things.

University students’ well-being was assessed by asking them how often they experienced these five positive items. The score ranged from 1 to 5. A higher score indicated better well-being.

This study asked testers to think back to their situation in the pre-COVID-19 era and rate each of the above five items according to their feelings in the pre- and the COVID-19 eras.

For easier reading and understanding, in the following we abbreviate subjective well-being in the pre-COVID-19 era as Pre-SWB, subjective well-being in the COVID-19 era as Mid-SWB, and changes in SWB between the pre- and COVID-19 eras as SWB (Mid–Pre).

3.2.3. Outdoor Activities

Independent Variable: Pre-Outdoor Activities

This variable referred to the amount of outdoor activity in the pre-COVID-19 era in comparison to the amount of outdoor activity of the participant’s fellow students. In this item, the response ranged from 1 to 5 (1 = significantly less, 2 = less, 3 = about the same as their fellow students, 4 = more, 5 = significantly more), where a higher score indicated more outdoor activities relative to their fellow students.

Independent Variable: Mid-Outdoor Activities

This variable referred to the amount of outdoor activity in the COVID-19 era in comparison to the amount of outdoor activity of the participant’s fellow students. In this item, the response ranged from 1 to 5 (1 = significantly less, 2 = less, 3 = about the same as their fellow students, 4 = more, 5 = significantly more), where a higher score indicated more outdoor activities than their fellow students.

Independent Variable: Outdoor Activities (Mid-Pre)

This variable referred to the changes in outdoor activities of the participants in the pre- and COVID-19 eras. In this item, the response ranged from 1 to 5, and a higher score indicated more outdoor activities in the COVID-19 era.

Independent Variable: Outdoor Activity Time (Mid-Pre)

This variable referred to the change in the amount of time the students spent outdoors on campus during the period when the school required students not to leave campus unless necessary compared with the pre-COVID-19 era.

In this item, the response ranged from 1 to 5, where a higher score indicated a longer time in the COVID-19 era.

3.2.4. Campus Landscape

The campus landscape is part of the overall life experience of students. This study classified campus landscapes into five types: (1) hill space, (2) exercise area space, (3) water space, (4) vegetation space, and (5) hard landscape (roads, squares, etc.), and examined the purpose of going to each type of landscape.

Regarding the purpose of going to a particular campus landscape, the study included the following three types: (1) for physical activities (running, walking, ball games, badminton, tai chi, etc.), (2) for mental activities (relaxation, meditation, reflection, solitude, study, relaxation, etc.), and (3) for social activities (socializing, meeting, discussion, meeting with friends, board games, dating, etc.), and additionally considered: (1) other activities and (2) hardly ever come to this campus landscape.

4. Results

4.1. Paired Sample t Tests for Pre-SWB and Mid-SWB

The paired sample t-test results are shown in

Table 2. Paired sample t-test results for Pre-SWB and Mid-SWB.

Variable	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	t	p
Pre-SWB	439	3.36	0.55	18.914	0.000
Mid-SWB	439	2.80	0.57

. A p-value < 0.05 indicated that the difference was statistically significant. According to Table 2, Mid-SWB (M = 2.80) was significantly lower than Pre-SWB (M = 3.36) (p = 0.000).

4.2. Comparison of Pre-Outdoor Activities and Mid-Outdoor Activities

The frequency counts of pre-outdoor activities and mid-outdoor activities are shown in

Table 3. The frequency counts of pre-outdoor activities and mid-outdoor activities.

Variable	Frequency	Percent (%)
Pre-outdoor activities significantly more	81	18.5
Pre-outdoor activities more	168	38.3
About the same	108	24.6
Mid-outdoor activities more	71	16.2
Mid-outdoor activities significantly more	11	2.5

. There were 249 university students who felt that they engaged in more pre-outdoor activities, accounting for 56.8%, and 82 university students who reported engaging in more mid-outdoor activities, accounting for 18.7%. Therefore, most university students felt that they participated in more pre-outdoor activities, with COVID-19 leading to a decrease in university students’ participation in outdoor activities.

4.3. Independent Sample t Tests for the Relationship between Gender and Students’ SWB

An independent sample t test was used to analyze the impact of gender on subjective well-being and its changes.

According to

Table 4. Independent sample t-test results for the relationship between gender and students’ SWB.

Variable	Gender	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	t	p
Pre-SWB	Female	243	3.38	0.55	0.891	0.373
	Male	196	3.33	0.55
Mid-SWB	Female	243	2.79	0.54	−0.684	0.494
	Male	196	2.82	0.59
SWB (Mid-Pre)	Female	243	−0.59	0.64	−1.438	0.151
	Male	196	−0.51	0.58

, the difference in the SWB (Mid-Pre) score of university students of different genders was not statistically significant (t = −1.438, p > 0.05). The Pre-SWB and Mid-SWB of female university students were 3.38 and 2.79, respectively, with a decrease of 17.46%. The Pre-SWB and Mid-SWB of male university students were 3.33 and 2.82, respectively, with a decrease of 15.32%. The results showed that the difference in university students’ Pre-SWB, Mid-SWB and SWB (Mid-Pre) scores for the different genders was not significant due to the epidemic.

4.4. One-Way ANOVA for the Relationship between Students’ SWB and Grade

One-way ANOVA was used to analyze the impact of students’ grades on SWB and its changes.

According to Table 5, the difference in university students’ Pre-SWB scores in different grades was not significant (F = 2.221, p > 0.05).

The Pre-SWB and Mid-SWB of the freshmen were 3.21 and 2.62, respectively, with a decrease of 18.38%. The Pre-SWB and Mid-SWB of sophomores and juniors were 3.35 and 2.68, respectively, with a decrease of 20%. The Pre-SWB and Mid-SWB of seniors were 3.38 and 2.9, respectively, with a decrease of 14.2%. The Pre-SWB and Mid-SWB of postgraduates were 3.49 and 2.86, respectively, with a decrease of 18.05%. The Pre-SWB and Mid-SWB of alumni who had been away for less than 2 years were 3.35 and 2.91, respectively, with a decrease of 13.13%. The results showed that the difference in university students’ Pre-SWB scores in different grades was not significant, but the difference in university students’ Mid-SWB and SWB (Mid-Pre) scores in different grades was significant due to the epidemic.

Table 5. One-way ANOVA for the relationship between students’ SWB and their grades.

Variable	Grade	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	F	p	Post Hoc Tests (p)
							Freshman	Sophomore, Junior	Senior	Postgraduate
Pre-SWB	Freshman	69	3.21	0.38	2.221	0.066
	Sophomore, junior	103	3.35	0.61			0.103
	Senior	100	3.38	0.62			0.057	0.751
	Postgraduate	65	3.49	0.51			0.003	0.107	0.185
	Alumni who had been away for less than 2 years	102	3.35	0.54			0.105	0.995	0.747	0.106
Mid-SWB	Freshman	69	2.62	0.26	4.829	0.001
	Sophomore, junior	103	2.68	0.54			0.487
	Senior	100	2.90	0.63			0.002	0.007
	Postgraduate	65	2.86	0.55			0.014	0.44	0.698
	Alumni who had been away for less than 2 years	102	2.91	0.64			<0.001	0.004	0.841	0.570
SWB (Mid-Pre)	Freshman	69	−0.59	0.17	2.485	0.043
	Sophomore, junior	103	−0.67	0.74			0.402
	Senior	100	−0.48	0.64			0.256	0.029
	Postgraduate	65	−0.63	0.76			0.688	0.700	0.121
	Alumni who had been away for less than 2 years	102	−0.44	0.51			0.117	0.007	0.635	0.048

Table 5. One-way ANOVA for the relationship between students’ SWB and their grades.

Variable	Grade	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	F	p	Post Hoc Tests (p)
							Freshman	Sophomore, Junior	Senior	Postgraduate
Pre-SWB	Freshman	69	3.21	0.38	2.221	0.066
	Sophomore, junior	103	3.35	0.61			0.103
	Senior	100	3.38	0.62			0.057	0.751
	Postgraduate	65	3.49	0.51			0.003	0.107	0.185
	Alumni who had been away for less than 2 years	102	3.35	0.54			0.105	0.995	0.747	0.106
Mid-SWB	Freshman	69	2.62	0.26	4.829	0.001
	Sophomore, junior	103	2.68	0.54			0.487
	Senior	100	2.90	0.63			0.002	0.007
	Postgraduate	65	2.86	0.55			0.014	0.44	0.698
	Alumni who had been away for less than 2 years	102	2.91	0.64			<0.001	0.004	0.841	0.570
SWB (Mid-Pre)	Freshman	69	−0.59	0.17	2.485	0.043
	Sophomore, junior	103	−0.67	0.74			0.402
	Senior	100	−0.48	0.64			0.256	0.029
	Postgraduate	65	−0.63	0.76			0.688	0.700	0.121
	Alumni who had been away for less than 2 years	102	−0.44	0.51			0.117	0.007	0.635	0.048

The difference in university students’ Mid-SWB scores in different grades was significant (F = 4.829, p < 0.05). After an LSD comparison, it was found that the Mid-SWB scores of the freshman, sophomore, and junior students were significantly lower than those of the undergraduate, senior, and alumni participants.

The difference in university students’ SWB (Mid-Pre) scores in different grades was significant (F = 2.485, p < 0.05). After using the LSD method, this study found that the SWB (Mid-Pre) scores of sophomore and junior students significantly changed and were higher than those of postgraduate students. The SWB (Mid-Pre) score of postgraduate students was significantly higher than that of senior students and alumni.

4.5. One-Way ANOVA for the Relationship between Students’ SWB and Ability to Cover Living Expenses

One-way ANOVA was used to analyze the influence of students’ abilities to cover their living expenses in terms of subjective well-being and its changes.

According to Table 6, the Pre-SWB and Mid-SWB of university students with scant ability to cover their living expenses were 3.1 and 2.59, respectively, with a decrease of 16.45%. The Pre-SWB and Mid-SWB of university students with enough ability to cover their living expenses were 3.41 and 2.85, respectively, with a decrease of 16.42%. The Pre-SWB and Mid-SWB of university students with plenty of ability to cover their living expenses were 3.42 and 2.81, respectively, with a decrease of 17.84%. The results showed that the difference in university students’ Pre-SWB and Mid-SWB scores according to their different abilities to cover their living expenses was significant due to the epidemic. The difference in university students’ SWB (Mid-Pre) scores for different abilities to cover their living expenses was not significant during the epidemic.

According to Table 6, the ability to cover living expenses for different university students showed statistically significant differences in the Pre-SWB scores (F = 11.123, p < 0.05). The LSD method showed that the Pre-SWB scores of university students with scant ability to pay their living expenses were significantly lower than those with plenty of ability to pay their living expenses.

Table 6. One-way ANOVA for the relationship between students’ SWB and the ability to cover living expenses.

Variable	Ability to Cover Living Expenses	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	F	p	Post Hoc Tests (p)
							Scant	Enough
Pre-SWB	Scant	83	3.10	0.42	11.123	0.000
	Enough	331	3.41	0.55			<0.001
	Plenty	25	3.42	0.70			0.010	0.928
Mid-SWB	Scant	83	2.59	0.40	7.411	0.001
	Enough	331	2.85	0.61			<0.001
	Plenty	25	2.81	0.27			0.088	0.689
SWB (Mid-Pre)	Scant	83	−0.51	0.41	0.323	0.724
	Enough	331	−0.56	0.65			0.540
	Plenty	25	−0.62	0.66			0.464	0.658

Table 6. One-way ANOVA for the relationship between students’ SWB and the ability to cover living expenses.

Variable	Ability to Cover Living Expenses	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	F	p	Post Hoc Tests (p)
							Scant	Enough
Pre-SWB	Scant	83	3.10	0.42	11.123	0.000
	Enough	331	3.41	0.55			<0.001
	Plenty	25	3.42	0.70			0.010	0.928
Mid-SWB	Scant	83	2.59	0.40	7.411	0.001
	Enough	331	2.85	0.61			<0.001
	Plenty	25	2.81	0.27			0.088	0.689
SWB (Mid-Pre)	Scant	83	−0.51	0.41	0.323	0.724
	Enough	331	−0.56	0.65			0.540
	Plenty	25	−0.62	0.66			0.464	0.658

The ability to cover living expenses for different university students had a statistically significant difference in the Mid-SWB scores (F = 7.411, p < 0.05). After an LSD comparison, the SWB score of university students with scant ability to cover living expenses was found to be significantly lower than that of those with plenty of ability to cover their living expenses.

There was no significant difference in different university students’ SWB (Mid-Pre) scores (F = 0.323, p > 0.05).

4.6. Hierarchical Regressive Analysis of Factors Influencing SWB (Mid-Pre)

The variation in SWB (Pre-SWB–Mid-SWB) was taken as the dependent variable, and the dummy variable of grade was taken as the control variable. Pre-outdoor activities, mid-outdoor activities, outdoor activities (Mid-Pre), and outdoor activity time (Mid-Pre) were taken as the independent variables, and a hierarchical linear regression model was established. The results are shown in

Table 7. The results of hierarchical regression analysis of the factors that influenced SWB change.

	Model 1			Model 2
	β	t	p	β	t	p
Sophomore, junior	0.055	0.839	0.402	0.048	1.223	0.222
Senior	−0.074	−1.136	0.256	0.076	1.461	0.145
Postgraduate	0.025	0.402	0.688	0.094	2.468	0.014
Alumni	−0.103	−1.570	0.117	0.095	1.805	0.072
Pre-outdoor activities				−0.054	−1.228	0.220
Mid-outdoor activities				−0.186	−3.856	0.000
Outdoor activities (Mid-Pre)				−0.592	−15.275	0.000
Outdoor activity time (Mid-Pre)				−0.113	−2.012	0.045
F	2.485			105.697
p	0.043			0.000
R2	0.022			0.663
∆R2	0.022			0.641

.

Table 7 shows that in model 1, the regression coefficients of each dummy variable (sophomore, junior, senior, postgraduate, alumni) were not significant (p > 0.05), indicating that the grade variable had no significant effect on the change in SWB.

In model 2, after each variable was added, the significance test of model 2 produced F = 105.697 and p < 0.05, indicating that each variable in model 2 had a significant impact on the dependent variable. The goodness of fit of coefficient R² of model 2 was 0.663 and the ∆R² was 0.641; that is, the independent variable added to the model had a significant impact on the change in SWB.

In model 2, the regression coefficient of pre-outdoor activities was not significant (p > 0.05). The results showed that pre-outdoor activities had no significant effect on the change of SWB; thus, hypothesis H5 was not valid.

The regression coefficient of mid-outdoor activities was significant (p < 0.05). The standardized regression coefficient was β = −0.186 < 0, indicating that mid-outdoor activities had a significant negative effect on the change in SWB.

The regression coefficient of outdoor activities (Mid-Pre) was significant (p < 0.05). The standardized regression coefficient was β = −0.592 < 0, indicating that changes in outdoor activity during COVID-19 had a significant negative impact on the change in SWB.

The regression coefficient of outdoor activity time (Mid-Pre) was significant (p < 0.05). The standardized regression coefficient was β = −0.113 < 0, indicating that time changes outside the campus during school closure had a significant negative effect on the change in SWB.

Based on the above analysis, this study came to the following conclusion:

Mid-SWB was significantly lower compared to Pre-SWB, but the SWB of university students with different genders showed no significant changes in the pre- and COVID-19 eras. However, the SWB of university students with different grades showed significant changes in the pre- and COVID-19 eras, whereas the SWB of university students with different abilities to cover their living expenses showed no significant changes in the pre- and COVID-19 eras. Pre-outdoor activities had no significant impacts on SWB (Mid-Pre), mid-outdoor activities had significant impacts on SWB (Mid-Pre), outdoor activities (Mid-Pre) had significant impacts on SWB (Mid-Pre), and outdoor activity time (Mid-Pre) had significant impacts on SWB (Mid-Pre).

4.7. Activity Distribution of Students with Changing SWB in Extreme Situations

In this study, we identified 50 students who had the greatest decline in SWB and 50 who had the least decline in SWB to further analyze extreme situations. Their activities in the five spaces are shown in Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5.

The questionnaire survey results on activity distribution of students and changing SWB in extreme situations are shown in

Table 8. Activity distribution of students and changing SWB in extreme situations.

Campus Space	Campus Activity	Least Decline in SWB	Greatest Decline in SWB
Hill spaces	Hardly Ever Come to This Campus Landscape	7	21
	Social Activities	20	8
	Mental Activities	23	18
	Physical Activities	20	9
	Other Activities	8	7
Water spaces	Hardly Ever Come to This Campus Landscape	8	19
	Social Activities	22	10
	Mental Activities	23	14
	Physical Activities	18	9
	Other Activities	8	7
Vegetation spaces	Hardly Ever Come to This Campus Landscape	8	20
	Social Activities	21	9
	Mental Activities	23	12
	Physical Activities	18	8
	Other Activities	9	8
Hard spaces	Hardly Ever Come to This Campus Landscape	8	23
	Social Activities	22	8
	Mental Activities	22	12
	Physical Activities	17	9
	Other Activities	9	10
Exercise area space	Hardly Ever Come to This Campus Landscape	0	1
	Social Activities	3	3
	Mental Activities	3	4
	Physical Activities	50	49
	Other Activities	2	2

. It can be seen from Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4 and Table 8 that out of all those who chose “Hardly Ever Come to This Campus Landscape,” far more students were among the 50 students who had the greatest decline in SWB than the 50 students who had the least decline in SWB. Of those who chose “Social Activities,” “Mental Activities,” and “Physical Activities,” significantly fewer students were among the 50 students who had the greatest decline in SWB than the 50 students who had the least decline in SWB. For students who chose “Other Activities,” there was about the same number among the 50 students who had the greatest decline in SWB as the 50 students who had the least decline in SWB. However, there was a significant difference in the choices regarding exercise area landscapes compared with the four other campus landscapes; few students chose “Hardly Ever Come to This Campus Landscape” and almost everyone chose “Physical Activities.” This study presumed the reason for this was that almost everyone had to participate in physical education classes and tests of physical strength. The above analysis showed that the 50 students who had the least decline in SWB significantly preferred to participate in outdoor activities in the campus landscapes.

Independent sample t-test results for the relationship between whether they came to campus landscapes and Students’ SWB (Mid-Pre) are shown in

Table 9. Independent sample t-test results for the relationship between coming to the campus landscape and students’ SWB.

Campus Space	Coming to the Campus Landscape	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	t	p
Hill spaces	Come to this campus landscape	72	−0.308	1.108	3.623	0.001
	Hardly ever come to this campus landscape	28	−1.114	0.953
Water spaces	Come to this campus landscape	73	−0.322	1.093	0.730	0.003
	Hardly ever come to this campus landscape	27	−1.052	1.037
Vegetation spaces	Come to this campus landscape	72	−0.322	1.094	3.254	0.002
	Hardly ever come to this campus landscape	28	−1.079	1.023
Hard spaces	Come to this campus landscape	69	−0.330	1.103	3.051	0.003
	Hardly ever come to this campus landscape	31	−1.034	1.026

. It can be seen from Table 9 that the decrease in SWB of those who hardly ever came to the campus landscapes was significantly higher than that of students who did come to the campus landscapes (p < 0.05).

In the questionnaire, this study also set the following single item: “Does participating in more outdoor activities in the campus landscape improve or reduce your SWB during the COVID-19 era?” The statistical results of this question are shown in Figure 6.

As seen in this table, the vast majority of respondents indicated that participating in more outdoor activities in the campus landscape improved or significantly improved their SWB, and few students thought participating in more outdoor activities in the campus landscape decreased their SWB. The statistics from the questionnaire showed that the more university students participated in outdoor activities in the campus landscape, the more obvious the improvement in their SWB was.

5. Discussion

5.1. COVID-19 and University Students’ SWB

Our study showed that university students’ SWB decreased (Pre-SWB: 3.36, Mid-SWB: 2.8) with the emergence of COVID-19, and their participation in outdoor activities decreased. The reason for the decline may have been a combination of psychological reasons and objective local reasons related to their concerns about the risk of exposure to environments where COVID-19 was latent, and the measures of epidemic prevention and control in their specific region.

For a long time, people did not know enough about COVID-19, and it took a certain amount of research to understand the basic information about the health risks, modes of transmission and sequelae of COVID-19. The fact that COVID-19 can cause physical and mental health damage and even bring about life-threatening effects is certainly disturbing [43,44], especially as the risk of its transmission is still relatively high. When university students are faced with such a health crisis, it is natural for them to feel uneasy, fearful, worried, anxious, and so forth, and these negative emotions can lead to a decrease in their sense of well-being.

At the same time, in order to avoid the spread of COVID-19, China adopted a policy of controlling the density of people in places, keeping a safe distance, reducing the possibility of exposure, and advising people not to go to public places if at all possible to avoid congregation, which led to a decrease in the opportunities for Chinese university students to leave their schools or homes and go to public places for relaxation and recreation, which, in turn, led to a decrease in their sense of well-being.

5.2. Outdoor Activities and University Students’ SWB

Before the COVID-19 pandemic began, university students participated in outdoor activities for physical, mental, or social activities; however, in the COVID-19 era, they experienced stress regarding the threat to their physical health and even to their life caused by COVID-19, accompanied by an overall trend of declining SWB.

Our findings also suggested that university students with high participation levels in outdoor activities and a greater willingness to perform outdoor activities in campus landscapes during the COVID-19 pandemic were able to improve their negative emotions, such as anxiety, stress, and worry due to COVID-19. As a result, they experienced a smaller decrease in SWB.

The results of the study showed that the majority of Chinese university students believed that participating in outdoor activities in the campus landscapes was helpful in delaying the decrease in their well-being. There is significant scope for ongoing exploration of this situation identified in this study, which could provide a perspective and ideas for the regulation of mental states of adolescents and humanity as a whole in the face of public health crises, suggesting ways to maintain people’s well-being in extreme situations and highlighting the importance and potential of engaging in outdoor activities as a potential means of well-being regulation.

5.3. Campus Landscape and University Students’ SWB

According to Ulrich’s “stress relief theory,” landscapes have a positive effect on stress reduction, well-being, and physiological health; that is, when people are outdoors in a natural environment, the decline in their SWB slows. When university students are faced with stress, they develop negative emotions, while in a good natural landscape, university students’ attention is easily drawn toward it, inhibiting the production of negative emotions and enhancing the feelings of well-being [2]. As a second classroom, the campus landscape has a subtle impact on students’ emotions, and plays a major role in the regulation of their well-being and the development of their personalities [45,46], which is of particular concern when most universities require students to stay on campus in all but essential circumstances.

In the COVID-19 era, the majority of universities used closed campus management to deal with COVID-19. University students are required to stay on campus in all but essential circumstances, which prevents them from having access to outside the closed university environment. Accordingly, university students have much less access to public places for relaxation, stress relief, recreation and socializing, and are likely to require approval and permission from the university or community if they wish to access public places, which will undoubtedly have an impact on their reduced sense of well-being. Therefore, university students’ living spaces, especially for Chinese university students, were concentrated within the university buildings and the university campus landscape, especially the natural landscape. The importance of the campus landscape should thus be given special attention, as being active in a good campus landscape, especially a natural landscape, has a positive impact on emotional well-being. In conclusion, to improve the mental health and well-being of university students, the university campus landscape should receive further attention and be transformed into a better place to conduct physical, mental, and social activities for students, especially in the COVID-19 era.

5.4. Limitations and Future Research Directions

This study has some limitations that should be noted. The first regards the sample of respondents who were all from one university in this study; future research should extend to target large, typical samples and take into account respondents from other provinces, cities, and even other countries. Second, only one university in Beijing, China, was taken as the research object, which led to a single university type and geographical feature in this survey. Future research should continue to explore the different types of campus landscapes that are beneficial to university students’ mental health and improve the role of the campus landscape in supporting students’ well-being. Third, future research incorporating qualitative methods may deliver deeper perceptions of the impact of outdoor activities in the campus landscape on perceptions of well-being, and the application of more expertise in environmental psychology and landscape design will also contribute to the planning and design of campus landscapes to enhance well-being. Therefore, in the future, the influence of different educational contexts (environments, events) on mental health and well-being can be explored.

6. Conclusions and Contribution

6.1. Conclusions

This study provides evidence that there was a decline in mental health status, specifically SWB, among students affected by COVID-19, but that access to appropriate outdoor activities limited this decline. The results also suggest the potential effectiveness of interventions that involve outdoor activities in the campus landscape in promoting improvements in SWB among university students, regardless of their grade, gender, or cost-of-living status. Not only does the study highlight the importance of outdoor activities for university students within closed universities, but it also illuminates the potential value of the campus landscape in the mid-COVID-19 era for enhancing university students’ well-being.

6.2. Theoretical Contributions

First of all, this paper expands the research content in mental health and wellbeing and environment. It fills the gap in the research on the influence of outdoor activities and campus landscape on the SWB of Chinese university students. While many existing academic studies related to COVID-19 have explored human mental health in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, relatively few have focused on the impact of outdoor activities and campus landscapes on the well-being of college students, and few have focused specifically on Chinese university students. The significance of the study is even greater considering the obvious differences between the Chinese university student population and the general population of Chinese teenagers or university students from other countries.

Secondly, this paper makes a contribution to the cross integration of educational psychology, environmental psychology, design science, statistics and health politics, and used quantitative methods to analyze the impact of campus landscape on college students’ subjective well-being.

Thirdly, this study has attempted to provide a forward-looking approach through an interdisciplinary and highly feasible perspective to improve the ability to withstand future human life safety crises. In this manuscript, the authors used the knowledge of health politics and health economics to understand the differences between China’s epidemic prevention policies and those of other countries. The literature research method was used to search related literature, and literature on landscape perception and preference, recovery environment theory and empirical research were summarized. By means of a questionnaire survey and literature study, the methods of restorative environmental assessment, sample space selection and related elements collection were determined. Statistical analysis was conducted using statistical theory, IBM SPSS 27 and WPS Office forms. Using the ART and SRT environmental resilience theory of environmental psychology, this manuscript analyzes the resilience of different campus spaces.

6.3. Practical Contributions

First and foremost, this study is helpful for school administrators to understand the degree and reasons for different students’ preferences for different campus landscapes, thus helping to build an understanding of the landscapes that will meet the needs of students. Secondly, human society is likely to coexist with COVID-19 in the long run; therefore, the subjective well-being of all people, especially college students, will decline. With the improvement of social policies, the initiative of universities and the further development of campus landscapes, college students’ active participation in outdoor activities, especially planned and appropriate campus landscapes, may be the key factors to help college students adjust their mental health and improve their well-being. Furthermore, mental health and well-being is an important topic in modern times and is one of the United Nations’ sustainable development goals.