A Conceptual Framework for Campus Green Spaces Supporting University Students’ Socio-Emotional Well-Being

Abstract

Many university students experience stress and anxiety due to life-transition demands that affect their psychosocial health. Campus green spaces can serve as nature-based interventions to reduce student stress and improve socio-emotional well-being. This research identifies specific campus green space characteristics as nature-based therapeutic mechanisms that support positive spatial associations between student stress reduction and campus green space interaction. A student survey assessed perceptions of stress, stressful periods, stress-relief behaviors, and preferences for campus green space conditions, types, and potential interactions that may mitigate stressful feelings. Students reported that smaller outdoor spaces designed for social activities and physical exercise were most preferred, whereas larger social spaces were less so. Preferred green space characteristics included naturalistic, smaller spaces that feel peaceful and quiet and offer privacy, whereas the least preferred spaces were single-function sites. These results provide insight into students' current and preferred relationships with stress-mitigating campus green spaces and can inform improved spatial configurations. A case-study spatial analysis and conceptual illustrations communicate the results through evidence-based design. Students' emotional and psychosocial well-being is key to their transition into future careers and their interpersonal capacity to manage life situations. Strategically designed and managed campus green spaces can help regulate students' stress levels during the semester and support academic success.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

University Student Stressor / Socio-Emotional Well-Being / Campus Green Space / Landscape Preference / Evidence-Based Design Research

Highlight

	· Students prefer natural, quiet, small, and enclosed green spaces for stress relief
	· Identifies greenspace features supporting student well-being and stress reduction
	· Proposes design strategies that reduce student stress through spatial interaction

1 Introduction

University students are at increasing risk of mental health problems, and universities are struggling in their efforts to respond. The prevalence of mental health-related problems and well-being concerns, including stress, psychological distress, and symptoms of mental illnesses, continues to increase among Canadian postsecondary student populations^[1]. Excessive stress in this population has been linked to a number of negative academic and health outcomes. Universities worldwide have spent considerable time and money implementing student well-being measures in the past decade^[2–^3]. Despite attempts to improve mental health at postsecondary institutions, a persistent gap remains in evaluating specific sources of student stress within postsecondary settings and in exploring non-treatment alternatives related to outdoor space interaction for such population.

1.1 University Students, Transition, and Stress

University life is a transition period; many university students face significant challenges, including current and new relationships, lifestyle changes, a new environment, academic performance, financial pressure, and unknown future outlook. Additionally, university students were uniquely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and are considered in states of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)^[4]. They suffer more stress than they did during adolescence as they adapt to an unfamiliar environment^[5]. This period is considered one of the highest anxiety and lowest mental well-being phases in the life cycle, with high levels of psychological distress compared with the overall population^[6–^7].

Stress is any demand placed on people's brain or physical body. It can be triggered by any event or scenario that makes people feel frustrated or nervous. Too much stress can leave people in a permanent stage of "fight, " making them feel overwhelmed or unable to cope^[8]. Long-term, unmanaged stress can interfere with people's daily life and take a toll on mental and physical health^[9]. Over prolonged periods of stress, the human body becomes overwhelmed, affecting the capacity of each system and causing physical and psychological reactions such as loss of appetite, tense muscles, insomnia, depression, and fatigue, which can ultimately lead to further disease.

In a recent study, less than half (45%) of university students rated their overall health as "very good or excellent" while about 30% of students experienced clinical levels of depression^[10]. In 2019, over 60% of surveyed Canadian students reported above-average stress within the past 12 months (on an adjectival five-point scale ranging from "no stress" to "tremendous stress"), while 69% reported "overwhelming anxiety" and 52% reported feeling "so depressed it was difficult to function"^[11].

Research shows that students experience emotional and psychological distress while adjusting to college^[12]. This can occur because of new and the greater expectations while attempting to navigate new social and academic settings and increased responsibility^[13]. University students often suffer from a low self-image or low self-esteem^[14], resulting in anxiety, reduced self-value, depression, and loss of confidence accompanied by more passive behaviors^[15]. Anxiety and depression are common, particularly in the first year, and are damaging to academic and social participation^[16].

Acquiring a post-secondary education can be exciting, transformative, and demanding. Research on the relationship between stress and well-being has reported that university students experience stress in many aspects of campus life, including academic output, financial concerns, employment requirements, identity, and interpersonal relationships^[17–^20]. Although each student's experience differs, these challenges generally fall under the following categories per a recent Canadian study^[21]: adjustment to post-secondary lifestyle respond to academic performance expectations, new campus and social culture, concern for future employment, and changes to core relationship support.

Student stress results from all these components. During adjustment to the university setting, students experience many changes to their physical environment in addition to an increase in academic expectations and workload. Food and nutrition intake often changes, and healthful behaviors such as sleep and recreation are also negatively affected^[22]. Academic performance standards may increase considerably when students enter university, resulting in academic stress, which is often associated with poor mental health in Canadian students^[23]. For first-year students, this stressful transition may be most acute; stressors include the amount and newness of coursework, new completion timelines, fear of failure, and lack of motivation^[24]. Transitioning into the university environment also brings academic and social integration pressures, such as fitting into campus culture and new social spaces^[25]. International and Indigenous students face racism and other prejudicial attitudes at Canadian universities^[26], which has resulted in higher stress levels and poorer mental health^[27]. Additionally, concerns about campus safety have been reported to negatively affect academic performance and mental health^[28–^29]. A sense of campus community, or belongingness, has been shown to be an important predictor of students' overall well-being in terms of psychological health and social support among students in the United States^[30] and Canada^[31]. A Canadian study reported that one of the most common reasons university students visited campus counselling centers was their concern about having a job after graduation^[32]. Students' future anxiety has been shown to negatively affect their overall self-confidence^[33]. The transitional stressors surrounding concepts of student identity are summarized in Fig. 1.

Although stress affects the three primary well-being domains—physical, social, and psychological—differently for all students, this study focuses on students' socio-emotional well-being. Socio-emotional well-being is generally understood as one's ability to understand and manage emotions and to form social connections and relationships. More specifically, it is "a general and relatively stable emotional state that indicates the emotional evaluation, positive or negative, that an individual makes of the results of the totality of his/her social interactions"^[34]. Sometimes referred to as psychosocial well-being, socio-emotional well-being synthesizes external (social) and internal (psychological) influences while recognizing emotional states as the key construct related to socio-emotional well-being and life satisfaction, according to theoretical models including Daniel Goleman^[35], Reuven Bar-On^[36], and recent university-based studies^[37–^38].

The concepts of socio-emotional well-being, social well-being, and emotional well-being are related but distinct; each describes different aspects of human health and functioning, particularly in psychology, education, and health sciences. Emotional well-being refers to an individual's internal emotional state, including how people feel about themselves and life in general, their ability to manage emotions, and their capacity to maintain a sense of balance^[39]. Social well-being involves the quality of a person's relationships and interactions within the society. It reflects how well they connect, contribute to, and feel accepted by their social environment^[40]. Socio-emotional well-being, as a combined concept, refers to a person's ability to understand and manage emotions, build positive relationships, and navigate social environments effectively.

Six specific social and emotional stressors were identified for university students (Fig. 2). Social stressors develop due to a lack of social relationships impacted by limited opportunities for social interaction, the low quality or "newness" of those social relationships, and the accompanying desire for social performance or admiration by a new peer group. Emotional stressors occur due to the university environment's implied pressure to succeed. These internal and external stressors are embedded due to a perceived lack of appropriate environments to relieve psychological and emotional stress, high expectations for academic achievement, and fear of future career failure.

It is important for students to adjust personally, emotionally, socially, and academically to continue in their college career, and the university environment should offer spaces for this adjustment and growth. Many educational institutions have adopted a more comprehensive, socioecological understanding of health, recognizing that dynamic interactions between personal and wider environmental factors shape well-being^[41]. However, an important health resource is still widely overlooked, namely campus green space^[42].

1.2 Student Stress and Campus Green Spaces

Campus green spaces are essential health-promoting resources in everyday university life for student, faculty, staff, and the larger community. Campus green spaces mitigate socio-emotional stress through contact with "nature" or green spaces. Two mechanisms link campus green space to well-being: restoring capacities and building capacities. Restoring capacities provide emotional stress relief through the neurobiological effects of green space interaction^[43–^44]. Building capacities, conversely, provide social stress relief through green space social interactions and its modalities towards social cohesion^[43].

Numerous studies have demonstrated that both direct and indirect contact with green space have positive effects on health, particularly for stress reduction^[45–^49]. The effects of green space on stress relief operate through one or more of three primary mechanisms: 1) physical activity which, in turn, improves mood^[50]; 2) social contact and the sense of "belonging" within a community^[51–^52]; and 3) psychological and emotional restoration related to attention processes and relief of fatigue^[53]. Physical activity has been shown to improve aspects of mental well-being in addition to physical health. For example, sedentary and light-activity students experienced significantly more stress than those doing moderate activity^[17].

Additionally, campus green spaces can improve a student's overall well-being and reduce social stress by building sociability and meeting students' needs for social contact. The theoretical positions for social green space benefits encompass interaction, social cohesion^[54], and social identity^[55]. Outdoor campus green spaces facilitate social stress relief by creating areas for planned and spontaneous activities in a natural setting^[56], encouraging student engagement with outdoor social activities^[57], and enhancing interactions among students and faculty^[58], thereby promoting social relationships^[59]. Campus green spaces also create a sense of belonging for students^[60], fulfill students' needs for social contact^[61], and provide space for close social relationships that serve as an outlet for negative moods^[62]. Campus green spaces can increase constructive interpersonal relationships and social inclusion^[63], arouse interpersonal or social interests, and alleviate tense nerves^[56].

Psychological restoration is related to recovery from stress and primarily includes stress-related physiological and mental symptoms; it allows one to adjust emotional states^[64] and is closely related to emotional stress relief^[65]. Two complementary theoretical positions of restorative environments guide this relationship. The first, Stress Recovery Theory (SRT), is a psycho-evolutionary theory postulating that natural elements can trigger an immediate affective response through the brain and neuroendocrine system^[66]. The second, Attention Restoration Theory (ART), centers on a psycho-functionalist perspective through which natural environments are inherently rich in stimuli and invoke involuntary attention that supports recovery from mental fatigue and restores cognitive function^[64]. Both well-researched theories indicate that naturalistic campus green space interactions, passive or active, can reduce mental fatigue, restore cognitive function, and improve concentration in university students^[67–^68].

Overall, outdoor campus green spaces provide socio-emotional stress relief through multiple pathways. Interactions with campus green spaces can adjust the negative emotions associated with stress: they help students "calm down"^[69], avoid aggravation from pressures^[70], reduce negative emotions^[71], increase positive emotions^[72], reinvigorate optimism about university life^[73], improve feelings of self-confidence^[74], and promote academic achievement^[75] (Fig. 3).

Students have reported a higher quality of life ranking when the university is perceived to have high levels of greenness or density of vegetation^[76] as well as those who reported higher frequencies of outdoor interaction^[77]. Similarly, a number of studies have evaluated the relationship between campus landscape types and student activities. One such study found that blue spaces surrounded by greenery offered the greatest combined benefits for mental, physical, and social well-being. In contrast, grey areas with minimal vegetation were the least favored by students^[78]. In a German study by Julia Foellmer et al.^[62], students' negative moods were experienced less frequently and happiness and calmness were felt more strongly in a campus's large, central green space.

However, an important question remains: how can outdoor university green spaces be better designed or programmed to provide these specific benefits? As shown in prior research, the mechanisms by which green space interactions could positively affect the psychological and/or physiological well-being of university students are varied. Most studies focus on centrally located green spaces, such as the campus green and visual levels of greenness^[79–^80]. A first step toward answering this question is to better understand factors surrounding student stress, current interaction behaviors, and preferences for campus green spaces and their specific spatial characteristics.

This research completed an exploratory study of students to collect baseline socio-emotional data through which green space design interventions could be founded. This is important for two reasons: first, the survey data were used to identify common socio-emotional stressors and when they are most prevalent during the semester; second, the survey identified which spatial characteristics and interactions are most preferred for relieving stress in campus outdoor green spaces. A complementary output goal was to determine conceptual campus landscape spaces or design interventions that specifically improve student socio-emotional well-being. Results provide insight into students' current and preferred relationships with stress-mitigating campus green spaces and offer a strategic framework for spatial design interventions.

In order to meet these objectives, further questions must be answered. 1) What are the most salient stressors to these students in the campus environment? 2) How do students currently interact with existing campus green spaces to reduce stress? 3) What types of and qualities within campus green spaces do students prefer to interact with for reducing stress? And 4) how can the results be synthesized to generate a series of conceptual designs illustrating beneficial spatial interventions?

2 Materials and Methods

The study was conducted at the Agricultural Campus of Dalhousie University in Truro, Nova Scotia, Canada. The campus is located on the periphery of a medium-sized suburban town (population 13, 113 in 2022) and includes approximately 27 acres, of which 52% is considered green space within the campus boundaries (Fig. 4). The campus is adjacent to a wooded multi-use trail to the south, the Cobequid Trail, which connects the campus to the downtown and larger community.

The spatial analysis required a series of discrete maps to contextualize the existing campus green spaces, focusing on their function, circulation, and general green space qualities. Student data collection included direct and indirect methods: direct data were collected through a student survey, and indirect data were drawn from readily available university information. These data were used to generate simple statistical and descriptive ranking analyses. After a short introduction and definition of university student stress, a 10-question survey was administered to assess student perceptions of stress, stress-relief behaviors, and preferences for campus green space interactions that mitigate stressful feelings and improve socio-emotional well-being.^① To meet the research objectives, the survey did not focus on students' current stress levels, pre- and post-intervention analysis, or subjective well-being analysis. Because it is generally accepted that most university students experience stress, this survey identified only respondents' most salient stressor and the greatest and least stressful periods during the semester.

① The full survey is provided in the supplementary materials, which contains Questions 1–10.

The survey did not assess student interaction frequency, barriers to use, or perceived benefit from campus green space interaction. An iterative process was used to develop the survey tool: drafts were reviewed by students and content experts on campus. The final survey and consent form were approved by the University's Ethics Board and administered electronically using SurveyMonkey for 3 weeks from October 1 to October 22, 2025; the survey was distributed to the student population by email, and instructors were asked to administer it during class time. The anonymous survey included discrete multiple-choice statements, and did not ask for demographic information such as gender, nationality, or age, as this information was collected post hoc.

3 Results

3.1 Student Profile

The following results are based on the average annual student enrollment from 2015 to 2022, 848 in total. Demographic results indicate that 65% identified as female, 34% as male, and 1% as other. Among these students, 76% were permanent residents of Canada and 24% were international students. Overall, 69% lived off campus rather than in campus residence halls (31%). The highest percentage of students were in their first year (40%), followed by second year (23%), third year (15%), fourth year (13%), and graduate students (9%). No analyses of relationships between the student profile data and the survey responses were conducted because the two datasets were collected separately. This information provides only an overview of the student population.

3.2 Student Survey

The survey and spatial analysis results identified existing and proposed mechanisms that enable university student stress mitigation and improve socio-emotional well-being through campus green space interaction. These questions were adapted from the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)^[81], the University Stress Scale (USS)^[82], the College Student Stress Scale (CSSS)^[83], and the Lakaev Academic Stress Response Scale (LASRS-2)^[84], which measure stress across four domains: affective, behavioral, cognitive, and physiological.

There were 217 individual student respondents, and the questionnaire generated quantitative data. Question 1 asked students what caused them stress. Students reported that the most common stress-causing feelings on campus were "the concern about the unknown future or future achievement" (25%), "worry you can't cope with everything you have to do" (19%), and "too high expectation of academic performance" (19%). The least stress-causing feeling was "feel nervous about social activities or interacting with strangers" (10%).

Question 2 asked students to identify the semester period with the highest student stress, results indicating weeks 11–12, the week before final exams, followed by weeks 6–7, during mid-term exams. Question 3 asked students to identify the lowest-stress periods, results indicating weeks 3–5, during the early semester after students had physically relocated and experienced the new schedule, and week 8, when the semester break occurs. Figure 5 places these results within a curve in which student stress-level results were categorized into common measures in existing literature: stress overload (Question 2 ≥ 20% responses, SD = 59), stress underload (Question 3 ≥ 20% responses, SD = 52), and optimum stress (Question 2 < 20% and Question 3 < 20% responses)^[85]. No specific student biometrics were taken. These three stress levels were adapted from literature including A. T. Welford's model of performance^[86], Lennart Levi's stress responses^[87], and Yerkes-Dodson theory^[88], or the inverted-U model of arousal, to capture student stress phenomena. Academic performance is best at a moderate, optimal level of stress; it declines when stress is either too low (underload) or too high (overload)^[85]. These three categories were ordered broadly based on a simple cluster analysis.

Questions 4–10 allowed for multiple responses per question from each of the 217 individual students. These six questions, overall, asked for student perceptions and preferences in improving and creating campus green spaces to regulate socio-emotional stress. Results from Question 4 indicated smaller outdoor spaces designed for social activities (35%) and outdoor physical exercise (34%) were most preferred, whereas larger social spaces for large groups were least preferred (9%). Additionally, based on results from Question 5 (Fig. 6), preferred green space characteristics to meet socio-emotional stress needs included natural elements (31%), private spaces, i.e., green spaces smaller in size which feel peaceful and quiet and offer a sense of privacy (25%), and multifunctional spaces with moveable tables, chairs, and overhead shelter (12%), whereas the least preferred characteristics was specific function, such as a horseshoe pit area (3%).

Based on the results of Question 6, students also noted that there were not enough outdoor study spaces (31%) or outdoor exercise spaces (22%) on the existing campus. Based on the results of Question 7, students most preferred to see outdoor social spaces such as an outdoor café, outdoor theatre, and outdoor eating areas (23%); outdoor healing spaces such as meditation or sensory gardens (19%); and outdoor natural spaces such as a campus forest or green roof areas created on campus to help relieve stress (15%). As shown in Fig. 7, the least preferred options for relieving stress were outdoor study spaces such as classrooms and learning amphitheatres (2%) and additional ornamental greenery such as street trees, planting areas, and turf lawns (4%).

Based on the results of Question 8, students overwhelmingly preferred "natural" outdoor campus green spaces (81%) over more "urban" green spaces (i.e. those with features such as benches and paving) (19%) for stress relief. They also preferred these green spaces to be small, intimate, and separated from other campus spaces (63%) rather than highly visible, larger, and physically connected to other campus spaces (37%), according to the results of Question 9.

Thematically, students felt that activities for stress relief were more important than specific green space characteristics. Figure 8 indicates that "activities to relieve stress" and "preference activities" have the strongest influence on student engagement with campus green spaces, while typological preferences are less pronounced. This suggests that functional and experiential aspects of green spaces are more important than categorical typology.

Overall, students exhibited a stronger preference for solitary and nature-based green spaces than for social or event-based outdoor settings, emphasizing the restorative function over the performative function of campus landscapes. They also valued both moderate social interaction and physical activity for stress relief. Across categories, students prioritized nature-integrated, semi-private, and activity-supportive green spaces, while physical engagement and quiet restoration dominated over large social events.

3.3 Spatial Analysis of Campus Green Spaces and Student Interaction

The spatial analysis synthesized the existing campus green spaces, documented their spatial characteristics, and outlined campus circulation flows specific to students' core daily routines (Figs. 9–12). The following tables and maps provide the framework for future design interventions and stress mitigation strategies within the study's conceptual illustrations (Figs. 13, 14).

Campus core area includes the central campus green space and identifies buildings to determine three primary areas important to student mobilization (Fig. 9): the student living area, the comprehensive education area, and the specialized education area. This map also identifies the campus's priority circulation flows and walking-distance times.

More detailed circulation analysis reveals distinct pathway and road hierarchies that enhance or impede students' daily movement between the three academic core clusters (Fig. 10). Student flow within and between these spaces and clusters was important to future design interventions.

The next step in the spatial analysis assessed existing green space characteristics in terms of their ability to provide social and emotional stress-relief benefits and identify future intervention opportunities. Figures 11 and 12 provide photographs of the existing campus green spaces and their qualities.

This study did not include a Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) analysis or complete a typological classification and assessment of existing green spaces^[89–^90]. However, existing literature provides a set of green space physical or structural characteristics and attributes that may affect human well-being (Table 1)^[51,⁸¹,⁹¹–^112]. The following five spatial characteristics were correlated with the campus's existing green spaces: 1) size, including area and density; 2) shape, including complexity, diversity, and coherence; 3) proximity, including accessibility, edge conditions, isolation, and connectivity; 4) level of greenness, including vegetation structure, setting, and vegetation density; and 5) maintenance and management, including cleanliness, features and facilities, and safety. When integrated with the prior analysis maps, this table provides a simple procedure to quantitatively and qualitatively assess the therapeutic potential of existing green spaces for students.

This survey's green space preference results (Questions 4–10) were coded to the green space characteristics in Table 1 to generate spatial design locations, qualities, and the specific green space characteristics most preferred by students for emotional and social stress regulation. Results of the student survey and spatial analysis were synthesized within landscape architecture and design to produce conceptual plans and diagrams in Figs. 13–15. This graphic-based output is typical in spatial design disciplines and is an effective form of data communication^[113]. Figure 13 provides a "heat map" of the student survey results, visualizing the spatial intensity of preferred green space locations. Figure 14 associates student survey responses on preferred and suitable locations with well-being characteristics (Table 1) to illustrate specific green space locations, design features, and spatial attributes. These potential student green spaces are color coded: yellow indicates a primarily social well-being green space, blue indicates a primarily emotional well-being green space, and purple indicates design features and green space characteristics for both social and emotional well-being. Table 2 summarizes these findings.

Lastly, Fig. 15 illustrates a series of small socio-emotional restorative green spaces with specific green space characteristics that meet socio-emotional well-being benefits. These graphics identify and locate students' survey responses to the most appropriate and preferred locations for an outdoor café, a student quiet corner, outdoor study areas, experiential natural spaces for sunsets, birds, and wildflowers, residential and academic entry improvements, and other distinct student-focused social areas.

These graphics link survey-supported well-being green spaces to specific physical locations on campus. The illustrative plans consider the existing green space characteristics in Table 1 and the existing campus spatial context to identify and synthesize the types and features required for student socio-emotional well-being. For example, as shown in the student survey results, the campus restorative green space characteristics most often selected by students included natural elements (63%), small, quiet, and private spaces (44%), and multifunctional spaces with moveable tables, chairs, and overhead shelter (26%). Figure 14 illustrates these preferences with literature-supported green space qualities and attributes from Table 1 to visualize future green spaces. Table 2 supports Figs. 14 and 15 by listing the preferred green space typology and well-being benefit with specific green space characteristics and attributes.

Simply stated, Figs. 14 and 15 synthesize survey results, analysis maps, and literature-supported tables to identify the location, accessibility, and specific socio-emotional well-being green space characteristics that can inform future design intervention opportunities for the campus. Of note, this was not a suitability map, but a general orientation of where students prefer to interact with restorative green spaces through design intervention.

4 Discussion and Prospect

The relationship between stress and academic performance is complex. A synergistic area of high performance occurs with certain levels of stress: moderate stress is considered beneficial to academic performance and can provide positive feelings of accomplishment and fulfillment, whereas distress has negative academic consequences and often results from academic overload. The study's results identify strategic intervention times for the university (i.e. when to promote outdoor green space interaction) and the types of green spaces that can promote specific forms of social or emotional well-being (i.e. where to promote outdoor green space interaction). In doing so, stress overload periods may be reduced to optimal or eustress levels, thereby potentially improving academic performance and overall student well-being. These distressed time periods are largely consistent with a pan-Canadian study by Brooke Linden and colleagues, who reported that December, similar to weeks 11–12 in this study, was the most stressful period^[11]. Other studies of university student stress similarly report heightened stress during these periods, supporting the temporal patterns observed in this study ^[114–^116].Figure 16 illustrates how student green space interaction during weeks 5–7 and weeks 11–12 can improve socio-emotional well-being through prescriptive green space typological interaction with specific green space characteristics and attributes.

Results also clarify the spatial typologies and characteristics important to campus green space stress relief and the maintenance or improvement (i.e. regulation) of socio-emotional well-being. Overall, students stated that they prefer numerous, intimate, enclosed green spaces over public, open, and connected ones (63%). They also preferred quiet, natural green spaces with wildlife and birds over active, constructed, lively green spaces such as plazas and building entries (81%). These results reflect Qunyue Liu et al.^[117], who investigated the mental health of university students living on campus and found that campus green spaces had a beneficial impact on psychological well-being. Similarly, after accounting for individual socio-demographic factors, another study found a negative correlation between exposure to campus green spaces and mental health problems among Chinese university students^[118]. Related studies support these findings, including Joseph Baur^[119], who reported that students who interacted with campus gardens increased their sense of connectedness to nature and overall health, both significant predictors of general well-being. A 2022 study^[80] similarly indicated that students consistently prefer campus areas with high levels of greenery, diverse trees and flowers, blue-space views, peacefulness, quietness, pleasant smells and sounds, and benches and tables, all of which can facilitate restorative experiences.

Seventy write-in responses for Question 10 identified specific preferred campus green space typologies, including "indoor area with views to greenery" (N = 18, 26% of responses), "outdoor café" (N = 12, 17%), and "indoor garden or greenhouse" (N = 11, 16%). These preferences for indoor green spaces may be attributed to the long winter climate of Nova Scotia, Canada. Interestingly, only three students suggested meditation areas, although in-situ nature meditation clearly shows stress-regulation benefits^[120], among university students^[121–^122]. This result may be explained by the climate as well as prospect and refuge theory^[123], which suggests that campus environments combining visual openness (prospect) with sheltered or secluded areas (refuge) can promote security, ease anxiety, and enhance comfort and personal control.

Overall, this study's outcomes are supported by Lori Pullman^[124], who found that naturalistic campus green spaces positively affect students' psycho-physiological well-being and that well-maintained campus green spaces improve students' sense of belonging. Another study showed that campus landscape biodiversity had significant effects on physiological and psychological recovery in students, with high-biodiversity environments producing better recovery effects than low-biodiversity environments^[125]. Additionally, greener campus landscapes correlated more strongly with students' positive sense of belonging than non-green campus spaces^[60]. Similarly, centrally located green spaces have been shown to provide opportunities for frequent social interactions, thereby increasing student social cohesion and improving mental health outcomes^[126].

Prior research has demonstrated that greenery on university campuses helps students relieve frustration^[127], lower stress levels^[128], support mental recovery^[79], and enhance psychological and physical health, which are components of overall well-being and quality of life^[75]. However, much of this research centers on general exposure to nature, such as viewing nature within the campus or making brief visits, rather than investigating how university students engage with various campus spaces and their qualities in daily routines. This study extends that work by examining the relationship between students' actual preferences and behaviors within specific campus green space typologies and their spatial characteristics and features, offering a more focused perspective on how campus environments influence student socio-emotional well-being.

The campus green spaces conceptually illustrated here allow students to develop a sense of identity, thereby enhancing self-esteem and self-resilience and minimizing the probability of social stress. Social contact promotes students' interaction within the campus and academic community and helps create a sense of "belonging"^[129]. Centrally located green spaces can provide opportunities for frequent social interactions, thereby increasing campus/community cohesion, improving campus safety, and enhancing socio-emotional well-being outcomes^[127,^130]. Well-designed campus green spaces encourage engagement in planned and spontaneous social activities in a natural setting, enabling individual and shared growth and constructive interpersonal relationships.

Collectively, these findings add to the current body of research on restorative and therapeutic landscapes and student behavior on university campuses. This study highlights key considerations for future campus design and planning that can improve the capacity to regulate and relieve students' socio-emotional stress.

The results can inform future design and green space management strategies for campus landscapes that support overall student well-being, reduce stress in the university setting, and improve academic performance. Such green spaces could augment university counselling and support services with strategies that enhance students' emotion management and ability to cope with conflict situations. Prescribing campus green space interaction and supporting outdoor activities can serve as pathways to nature-based solutions for student health concerns. For example, Elizabeth W Holt and colleagues^[58] found that students who regularly interacted with green spaces in active ways reported enhanced quality of life, improved overall mood, and reduced perceived stress. However, interactions with passive green spaces showed no strong correlation with health and well-being indicators.

Stress is a holistic experience for many university students and has varied contextual determinants. The results of this study should be interpreted in light of several limitations. The survey's development and delivery had limits and raise validity concerns because of the sample size and the study site's limited representativeness of more typical large urban university campuses, making the findings less generalizable. Although the stress-related response options were explicitly defined to reduce ambiguity, the survey did not include options for students who did not experience or acknowledge stress; thus, context effects^[131] may have unintentionally influenced respondents' answers. For instance, the survey response choices did not allow for neutral positions or "non-stressed" answers. There was no pre-screening or self-report for current mental-health or stress states (i.e. subjective well-being, baseline mental health, or stress status). Similarly, no data were collected for socio-economics, race, disciplinary major, overall health, or other factors that may have served as response moderators.

Furthermore, the socio-demographic data were not applied in the simple statistical analysis due to anonymity; thus, their moderating effects on stress and stress-relief preferences were not revealed. Studies report that different groups of people have varying degrees of vulnerability and sensitivity to stressors and their responses to them^[132–^133]. However, there is a lack of studies on the possible role of gender, ethnicity, and/or immigration status in moderating the relationship between socio-emotional well-being and stress. Other moderators not assessed in this study include students' academic self-efficacy, or their belief in their capability to perform academically^[134]; when students perceive academic requirements as stressful, their academic self-efficacy may decrease^[135].

Both student subjectivity, including current socio-emotional state, and differences in campus green space characteristics make it difficult to develop all-encompassing design recommendations^[136]. In light of these limitations, no specific data relationships or cross-sectional statistical analyses were completed; however, the simple structure of the data results is considered reliable for this research. No quantitative measures or levels of the green space characteristics and attributes in Table 1 were completed for this study because the research objectives did not require such measurements. The literature noted in Table 1 does provide spatial design-relevant descriptions of those characteristics on which to begin basing this study's conceptual design outcomes, as shown in the illustrative figures.

Future research on this topic should be multi-center and include student data from several educational institutions. Additionally, multilevel analysis could consider specific needs and demands by geographical location or sociodemographic characteristic. It will also be important to test possible moderators such as academic discipline, existing stress levels, socio-emotional well-being states, and other student-based factors. A longitudinal study should evaluate changes in the variables investigated here as students progress or use pre- and post-green space intervention measures. Lastly, other mediation and moderating pathways, both direct and indirect, between campus green space qualities and characteristics and student stress outcomes should be measured. This includes spatio-temporal factors within students' calendars, such as changing seasons and weather.

5 Conclusions

Campus green spaces build student socio-emotional capacities and skills while facilitating greater involvement with the campus and the perception of outdoor spaces as part of the academic and student landscape. This research provides a set of therapeutic campus green space characteristics and spatial concepts that serve as interactional mechanisms to relieve student stress, reduce anxiety, and increase well-being for the study population.

This research supports interdisciplinary relationships so that this knowledge may be considered in the spatial planning, design, and management of campus landscapes. This study communicates evidence-based design and adds beneficial information to the existing knowledge base on green space design and theory for this user group. It contributes to the identification of specific green space characteristics, attributes, and spatial configurations within campus outdoor spaces that positively influence students' socio-emotional well-being and stress reduction. This information is important for developing strategic landscape design improvements and management changes in higher education; campus green space design should increase the possibility of active student use. These green space characteristics can be adapted, supplemented, and applied in many campus locations and contexts.

Campus green space interventions can supplement current university well-being programs and initiatives, such as mental-health and other student wellness resources. Mitigating stress and improving university students' emotional and psychosocial well-being are key to their transition into future careers and their interpersonal capacity to manage life situations.

References

[1] Treleaven, S. (2020, October 8). Inside the mental health crisis at Canadian universities. Maclean's.

[2] & Bladek, M. (2021) Student well-being matters: Academic library support for the whole student. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47 ( 3), 102349.

[3] & Slavin, S. (2019) Reflections on a decade leading a medical student well-being initiative. Academic Medicine, 94 ( 6), 771– 774.

[4] Idoiaga Mondragón, N. , Legorburu. , Ozamiz Echevarria, N. , Lipnicki, D. , Villagrasa, B. , & Santabárbara, J. (2022) Prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in university students during the COVID-19 pandemic: A meta-analysis attending SDG 3 and 4 of the 2030 Agenda. Sustainability, 14 ( 13), 7914.

[5] Coffman, D. L. , & Gilligan, T. D. (2002) Social support, stress, and self-efficacy: Effects on students' satisfaction. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 4 ( 1), 53– 66.

[6] Sandoval Barrientos, S., Dorner París, A., & Véliz Burgos, A. (2017). Psychological well-being among health sciences students [Bienestar psicológico en estudiantes de carreras de la salud]. Investigación en Educación Médica, 6(24), 260–266.

[7] & Stallman, H. M. (2010) Psychological distress in university students: A comparison with general population data. Australian Psychologist, 45 ( 4), 249– 257.

[8] & Dallman, M. F. (2007) Modulation of stress responses: How we cope with excess glucocorticoids. Experimental Neurology, 206 ( 2), 179.

[9] & Levine, S. (2005) Stress: An historical perspective. Techniques in the Behavioral and Neural Sciences, 15 , 3– 23.

[10] & Porter, S. (2018) A descriptive study of post-secondary student mental health crises. College Quarterly, 21 ( 3), n3.

[11] Linden, B. , Stuart, H. , & Ecclestone, A. (2023) Trends in post-secondary student stress: A pan-Canadian study. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 68 ( 7), 521– 530.

[12] & Kitzrow, M. A. (2003) The mental health needs of today's college students: Challenges and recommendations. NASPA Journal, 41 ( 1), 167– 181.

[13] Larose, S. , Bernier, A. , & Tarabulsy, G. M. (2005) Attachment state of mind, learning dispositions, and academic performance during the college transition. Developmental Psychology, 41 ( 1), 281.

[14] & Rosenberg, M. (1985) Self-concept and psychological well-being in adolescence. The Development of the Self, 1 , 205– 246.

[15] Mruk, C. J. (2013). Self-Esteem and Positive Psychology: Research, Theory, and Practice. Springer Publishing Company.

[16] Grøtan, K. , Sund, E. R. , & Bjerkeset, O. (2019) Mental health, academic self-efficacy and study progress among college students—The SHoT study, Norway. Frontiers in Psychology, 10 , 45.

[17] & Joo, M. H. (2019) Effect of stress and self-esteem on QoL in general college students. Medico-Legal Update, 19 ( 1), 686– 692.

[18] Saleh, D. , Camart, N. , & Romo, L. (2017) Predictors of stress in college students. Frontiers in Psychology, 8 , 19.

[19] Pozos-Radillo, B. E. , Preciado-Serrano, M. L. , Acosta-Fernández, M. , Aguilera-Velasco, M. A. , & Delgado-García, D. D. (2014) Academic stress as a predictor of chronic stress in university students. Psicología Educativa, 20 , 47– 52.

[20] & Dubos, R. (1976) The state of health and the quality of life. Western Journal of Medicine, 125 ( 1), 8.

[21] Linden, B. , Boyes, R. , & Stuart, H. (2021) Cross-sectional trend analysis of the NCHA Ⅱ survey data on Canadian post-secondary student mental health and wellbeing from 2013 to 2019. BMC Public Health, 21 ( 1), 590.

[22] Lovell, G. P. , Nash, K. , Sharman, R. , & Lane, B. R. (2015) A cross-sectional investigation of depressive, anxiety, and stress symptoms and health-behavior participation in Australian university students. Nursing & Health Sciences, 17 ( 1), 134– 142.

[23] Holmes, A. , & Silvestri, R. (2016) Rates of mental illness and associated academic impacts in Ontario's college students. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 31 ( 1), 27– 46.

[24] & Monk, E. M. (2004) Student mental health. Part 2: the main study and reflection of significant issues. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 17 ( 1), 33– 43.

[25] Brook, C. A. , & Willoughby, T. (2015) The social ties that bind: Social anxiety and academic achievement across the university years. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44 , 1139– 1152.

[26] Currie, C. L. , Wild, T. C. , Schopflocher, D. P. , Laing, L. , & Veugelers, P. (2012) Racial discrimination experienced by Aboriginal university students in Canada. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 57 ( 10), 617– 625.

[27] Locke, B. D. , Bieschke, K. J. , Castonguay, L. G. , & Hayes, J. A. (2012) The center for collegiate mental health: Studying college student mental health through an innovative research infrastructure that brings science and practice together. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 20 ( 4), 233– 245.

[28] & Jordan, C. E. (2014) The safety of women on college campuses: Implications of evolving paradigms in postsecondary education. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15 ( 3), 143– 148.

[29] Rickwood, D. , George, A. , Parker, R. , & Mikhailovich, K. (2011) Harmful alcohol use on campus: Impact on young people at university. Youth Studies Australia, 30 ( 1), 34– 40.

[30] Ketchen Lipson, S. , Gaddis, S. M. , Heinze, J. , Beck, K. , & Eisenberg, D. (2015) Variations in student mental health and treatment utilization across US colleges and universities. Journal of American College Health, 63 ( 6), 388– 396.

[31] McBeath, M. , Drysdale, M. T. , & Bohn, N. (2018) Work-integrated learning and the importance of peer support and sense of belonging. Education + Training, 60 ( 1), 39– 53.

[32] Cairns, S. L. , Massfeller, H. F. , & Deeth, S. C. (2010) Why do post-secondary students seek counselling?. Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy, 44 ( 1), 34– 50.

[33] Deer, L. K. , Gohn, K. , & Kanaya, T. (2018) Anxiety and self-efficacy as sequential mediators in US college students' career preparation. Education + Training, 60 ( 2), 185– 197.

[34] & Bericat, E. (2014) The socioemotional well-being index (SEWBI): Theoretical framework and empirical operationalisation. Social Indicators Research, 119 , 599– 626.

[35] Goleman, D. (1998). Working with Emotional Intelligence. Bantam.

[36] & Bar-On, R. (2006) The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI). Psicothema, 18 , 13– 25.

[37] Morales-Rodríguez, F. M. , Espigares-López, I. , Brown, T. , & Pérez-Mármol, J. M. (2020) The relationship between psychological well-being and psychosocial factors in university students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17 ( 13), 4778.

[38] Shoshani, A. , & Steinmetz, S. (2014) Positive psychology at school: A school-based intervention to promote adolescents' mental health and well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15 ( 6), 1289– 1311.

[39] Park, C. L. , Kubzansky, L. D. , Chafouleas, S. M. , Davidson, R. J. , Keltner, D. , Parsafar, P. , & Wang, K. H. (2023) Emotional well-being: What it is and why it matters. Affective Science, 4 ( 1), 10– 20.

[40] & Keyes, C. L. M. (1998) Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61 ( 2), 121– 140.

[41] & Dooris, M. (1999) The 'health promoting university' as a framework for promoting positive mental well-being: A discourse on theory and practice. Journal of Public Mental Health, 1 ( 4), 34– 43.

[42] Li, H. , Du, J. , & Chow, D. (2024) Perceived environmental factors and students' mental wellbeing in outdoor public spaces of university campuses: A systematic scoping review. Building and Environment, , 112023.

[43] Marselle, M. R. , Hartig, T. , Cox, D. T. , De Bell, S. , Knapp, S. , Lindley, S. , … , & Bonn, A. (2021) Pathways linking biodiversity to human health: A conceptual framework. Environment International, 150 , 106420.

[44] Hooper, P., Elands, B., Peters, K., de Vries, S., van den Bosch, M., & Thompson, C. W. (2018). Public Health Impact of Nature Contact—Pathways to Health Promotion and Disease Prevention. Oxford Textbook of Nature and Public Health: The Role of Nature in Improving the Health of a Population. Oxford University Press.

[45] Uchino, B. N., Smith, T. W., Holt-Lunstad, J., Campo, R., & Reblin, M. (2007). Stress and Illness. Handbook of Psychophysiology. Cambridge University Press.

[46] Zhang, R. , Zhang, C. Q. , & Rhodes, R. E. (2021) The pathways linking objectively-measured greenspace exposure and mental health: A systematic review of observational studies. Environmental Research, 198 , 111233.

[47] Roe, J. J. , Aspinall, P. A. , & Ward Thompson, C. (2017) Coping with stress in deprived urban neighborhoods: What is the role of green space according to life stage?. Frontiers in Psychology, 8 , 1760.

[48] Van den Berg, A. E. , Maas, J. , Verheij, R. A. , & Groenewegen, P. P. (2010) Green space as a buffer between stressful life events and health. Social Science & Medicine, 70 ( 8), 1203– 1210.

[49] Groenewegen, P. P. , Van den Berg, A. E. , De Vries, S. , & Verheij, R. A. (2006) Vitamin G: Effects of green space on health, well-being, and social safety. BMC Public Health, 6 ( 1), 1– 9.

[50] Barton, J. , & Pretty, J. (2010) What is the best dose of nature and green exercise for improving mental health? A multi-study analysis. Environmental Science & Technology, 44 ( 10), 3947– 3955.

[51] De Vries, S. , Van Dillen, S. M. , Groenewegen, P. P. , & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2013) Streetscape greenery and health: Stress, social cohesion and physical activity as mediators. Social Science & Medicine, 94 , 26– 33.

[52] Wang, P. , Meng, Y. Y. , Lam, V. , & Ponce, N. (2019) Green space and serious psychological distress among adults and teens: A population-based study in California. Health & Place, 56 , 184– 190.

[53] Huang, S. , Qi, J. , Li, W. , Dong, J. , & van den Bosch, C. K. (2021) The contribution to stress recovery and attention restoration potential of exposure to urban green spaces in low-density residential areas. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18 ( 16), 8713.

[54] & Friedkin, N. E. (2004) Social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 30 , 409– 425.

[55] Tajfel, H. (Ed. ). (2010). Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge University Press.

[56] Lau, S. S. Y. , Gou, Z. , & Liu, Y. (2014) Healthy campus by open space design: Approaches and guidelines. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 3 ( 4), 452– 467.

[57] Wee, C. (2017). Assessing the Perception of Campus Green Space and Stress Levels Among Students at Michigan State University. Michigan State University.

[58] Holt, E. W. , Lombard, Q. K. , Best, N. , Smiley-Smith, S. , & Quinn, J. E. (2019) Active and passive use of green space, health, and well-being amongst university students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16 ( 3), 424.

[59] Chou, W. Y. , Lee, C. H. , & Chang, C. Y. (2016) Relationships between urban open spaces and humans' health benefits from an ecological perspective: A study in an urban campus. Landscape and Ecological Engineering, 12 , 255– 267.

[60] Thompson, C. A. , Pownall, M. , Harris, R. , & Blundell-Birtill, P. (2023) Is the grass always greener? Access to campus green spaces can boost students' sense of belonging. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 24 ( 8), 1841– 1857.

[61] Özkan, D. G. , Alpak, E. M. , & Var, M. (2017) Design and construction process in campus open spaces: A case study of Karadeniz Technical University. Urban Design International, 22 , 236– 252.

[62] Foellmer, J. , Kistemann, T. , & Anthonj, C. (2021) Academic greenspace and well-being—Can campus landscape be therapeutic? Evidence from a German university. Wellbeing, Space and Society, 2 , 100003.

[63] Speake, J. , Edmondson, S. , & Nawaz, H. (2013) Everyday encounters with nature: Students' perceptions and use of university campus green spaces. Human Geographies—Journal of Studies & Research in Human Geography, 7 ( 1), 21– 31.

[64] & Kaplan, S. (1995) The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15 ( 3), 169– 182.

[65] Berman, M. G. , Jonides, J. , & Kaplan, S. (2008) The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychological Science, 19 ( 12), 1207– 1212.

[66] Ulrich, R. S. , Simons, R. F. , Losito, B. D. , Fiorito, E. , Miles, M. A. , & Zelson, M. (1991) Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11 ( 3), 201– 230.

[67] Zhang, P. , He, Q. , Chen, Z. , Li, X. , & Ma, J. (2022) An empirical study on the promotion of students' physiological and psychological recovery in green space on campuses in the post-epidemic era. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20 ( 1), 151.

[68] Sutherland, K. , & Cherrill, A. (2018) A cultural ecosystem service provided by green infrastructure on campus: Students' recovery from directed attention fatigue. Aspects of Applied Biology, 139 , 167– 172.

[69] Seitz, C. M. , Reese, R. F. , Strack, R. W. , Frantz, S. , & West, B. (2014) Identifying and improving green spaces on a college campus: A photovoice study. Ecopsychology, 6 ( 2), 98– 108.

[70] Bratman, G. N. , Hamilton, J. P. , & Daily, G. C. (2012) The impacts of nature experience on human cognitive function and mental health. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1249 ( 1), 118– 136.

[71] Ibes, D. , Hirama, I. , & Schuyler, C. (2018) Greenspace ecotherapy interventions: The stress-reduction potential of green micro-breaks integrating nature connection and mind-body skills. Ecopsychology, 10 ( 3), 137– 150.

[72] Angstmann, J. , Frischmeyer, S. , & Kazeck, T. (2022) Reductions in student self-reported perceived stress after a one-hour campus farm tour. College Student Journal, 56 ( 3), 205– 220.

[73] Hanawi, S. A. , Saat, N. Z. M. , Zulkafly, M. , Hazlenah, H. , Taibukahn, N. H. , Yoganathan, D. , … , & Low, F. J. (2020) Impact of a healthy lifestyle on the psychological well-being of university students. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Research and Allied Sciences, 9 ( 2-2020), 1– 7.

[74] DeLauer, V. , McGill-O'Rourke, A. , Hayes, T. , Haluch, A. , Gordon, C. , Crane, J. , … , & Schofield, D. (2022) The impact of natural environments and biophilic design as supportive and nurturing spaces on a residential college campus. Cogent Social Sciences, 8 ( 1), 2000570.

[75] Liu, W. , Sun, N. , Guo, J. , & Zheng, Z. (2022) Campus green spaces, academic achievement and mental health of college students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19 ( 14), 8618.

[76] Hipp, J. A. , Gulwadi, G. B. , Alves, S. , & Sequeira, S. (2016) The relationship between perceived greenness and perceived restorativeness of university campuses and student-reported quality of life. Environment and Behavior, 48 ( 10), 1292– 1308.

[77] McFarland, A. L. , Waliczek, T. M. , & Zajicek, J. M. (2008) The relationship between student use of campus green spaces and perceptions of quality of life. HortTechnology, 18 ( 2), 232– 238.

[78] Sun, S. , Chen, Y. , Mu, S. , Jiang, B. , Lin, Y. , Gao, T. , & Qiu, L. (2021) The psychological restorative effects of campus environments on college students in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: A case study at Northwest A&F University, Shaanxi, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18 ( 16), 8731.

[79] Aghabozorgi, K. , van der Jagt, A. , Bell, S. , & Smith, H. (2025) The role of university campus landscape characteristics in students' mental health. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 111 , 128863.

[80] Alves, S. , Betrabet Gulwadi, G. , & Nilsson, P. (2022) An exploration of how biophilic attributes on campuses might support student connectedness to nature, others, and self. Frontiers in Psychology, 12 , 793175.

[81] Cohen, S. , Kamarck, T. , & Mermelstein, R. (1983) A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24 ( 4), 385– 396.

[82] Stallman, H. M. , & Hurst, C. P. (2016) The university stress scale: Measuring domains and extent of stress in university students. Australian Psychologist, 51 ( 2), 128– 134.

[83] Feldt, L. S. , & Charter, R. A. (2008) Statistical significance and reliability of single-subtest and cluster deviation scores. Psychological Reports, 102 ( 1), 43– 46.

[84] & Lakaev, N. (2022) Refinement of the Lakaev Academic Stress Response Scale (LASRS-2) for research, clinical, and educational settings using Rasch modeling. SAGE Open, 12 ( 4), 21582440221102440.

[85] Lu, S. , Wei, F. , & Li, G. (2021) The evolution of the concept of stress and the framework of the stress system. Cell Stress, 5 ( 6), 76.

[86] & Welford, A. T. (1973) Stress and performance. Ergonomics, 16 ( 5), 567– 580.

[87] Levi, L. (Ed. ). (2016). Stress and Distress in Response to Psychosocial Stimuli: Laboratory and Real-Life Studies on Sympatho-Adrenomedullary and Related Reactions. Elsevier.

[88] Yerkes, R. M. , & Dodson, J. D. (1908) The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 18 , 459– 482.

[89] Pauleit, S. , Ambrose-Oji, B. , Andersson, E. , Anton, B. , Buijs, A. , Haase, D. , … , & van den Bosch, C. K. (2019) Advancing urban green infrastructure in Europe: Outcomes and reflections from the GREEN SURGE project. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 40 , 4– 16.

[90] Bell, S. , Montarzino, A. , & Travlou, P. (2007) Mapping research priorities for green and public urban space in the UK. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 6 ( 2), 103– 115.

[91] Peschardt, K. K. , Schipperijn, J. , & Stigsdotter, U. K. (2012) Use of small public urban green spaces (SPUGS). Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11 ( 3), 235– 244.

[92] Coles, R., Costa, S., & Watson, S. (Eds. ). (2018). Pathways to Well-Being in Design: Examples from the Arts, Humanities and the Built Environment. Routledge.

[93] Maas, J. , Verheij, R. A. , Groenewegen, P. P. , De Vries, S. , & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2006) Green space, urbanity, and health: How strong is the relation?. Journal Of Epidemiology & Community Health, 60 ( 7), 587– 592.

[94] Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge university press.

[95] Kellert, S. R. (2009). Biodiversity, Quality of Life, and Evolutionary Psychology. Biodiversity Change and Human Health: From Ecosystem Services to Spread of Disease (pp. 99–128). Princeton University Press, Island Press.

[96] Kaczynski, A. T. , Potwarka, L. R. , Smale, B. J. , & Havitz, M. E. (2009) Association of parkland proximity with neighborhood and park-based physical activity: Variations by gender and age. Leisure Sciences, 31 ( 2), 174– 191.

[97] Wang, H. , & Tassinary, L. G. (2019) Effects of greenspace morphology on mortality at the neighbourhood level: A cross-sectional ecological study. The Lancet Planetary Health, 3 ( 11), e460– e468.

[98] Mansor, M. , Said, I. , & Mohamad, I. (2012) Experiential contacts with green infrastructure's diversity and well-being of urban community. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 49 , 257– 267.

[99] Ekkel, E. D. , & de Vries, S. (2017) Nearby green space and human health: Evaluating accessibility metrics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 157 , 214– 220.

[100] Weinstoerffer, J. , & Girardin, P. (2000) Assessment of the contribution of land use pattern and intensity to landscape quality: Use of a landscape indicator. Ecological Modelling, 130 ( 1-3), 95– 109.

[101] Wascher, D. M., Múgica, M., & Gulinck, H. (1999). Establishing Targets to Assess Agricultural Impacts on European Landscapes. Environmental Indicators and Agricultural Policy (pp. 73–87). CABI.

[102] Nielsen, T. S. , & Hansen, K. B. (2007) Do green areas affect health? Results from a Danish survey on the use of green areas and health indicators. Health & Place, 13 ( 4), 839– 850.

[103] Ward Thompson, C. , & Aspinall, P. A. (2011) Natural environments and their impact on activity, health, and quality of life. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 3 ( 3), 230– 260.

[104] O'Brien, L. , Morris, J. , & Stewart, A. (2014) Engaging with peri-urban woodlands in England: The contribution to people's health and well-being and implications for future management. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 11 ( 6), 6171– 6192.

[105] Grahn, P. , & Stigsdotter, U. K. (2010) The relation between perceived sensory dimensions of urban green space and stress restoration. Landscape and Urban Planning, 94 ( 3-4), 264– 275.

[106] Mytton, O. T. , Townsend, N. , Rutter, H. , & Foster, C. (2012) Green space and physical activity: An observational study using health survey for England data. Health & Place, 18 ( 5), 1034– 1041.

[107] Chang, K. G. , Sullivan, W. C. , Lin, Y. H. , Su, W. , & Chang, C. Y. (2016) The effect of biodiversity on green space users' wellbeing—An empirical investigation using physiological evidence. Sustainability, 8 ( 10), 1049.

[108] Tong, Z. (2011). The study of quantification method on urban greenspace configuration [Doctoral dissertation]. Nanjing University.

[109] Andersson, D. , Nässén, J. , Larsson, J. , & Holmberg, J. (2014) Greenhouse gas emissions and subjective well-being: An analysis of Swedish households. Ecological Economics, 102 , 75– 82.

[110] Leyden, K. M. , Goldberg, A. , & Michelbach, P. (2011) Understanding the pursuit of happiness in ten major cities. Urban Affairs Review, 47 ( 6), 861– 888.

[111] Cattell, V. , & Herring, R. (2002) Social capital and well-being: Generations in an East London neighbourhood. Journal of Public Mental Health, 1 ( 3), 8– 19.

[112] Herzog, T. R. , & Chernick, K. K. (2000) Tranquility and danger in urban and natural settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20 ( 1), 29– 39.

[113] Franconeri, S. L. , Padilla, L. M. , Shah, P. , Zacks, J. M. , & Hullman, J. (2021) The science of visual data communication: What works. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 22 ( 3), 110– 161.

[114] & Madzhie, M. (2015) University students' perceptions of the causes of stress. Journal of Social Sciences, 44 ( 1), 53– 59.

[115] Heckman, S. , Lim, H. , & Montalto, C. (2014) Factors related to financial stress among college students. Journal of Financial Therapy, 5 ( 1), 3.

[116] Lin, Y. M. , Lin, S. C. , Wang, M. Y. , & Chen, F. S. (2009) What causes the academic stress suffered by students at universities and colleges of technology. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 7 ( 1), 77– 81.

[117] Liu, Q. , Luo, S. , Shen, Y. , Zhu, Z. , Yao, X. , Li, Q. , … , & Zhuo, Z. (2022) Relationships between students' demographic characteristics, perceived naturalness and patterns of use associated with campus green space, and self-rated restoration and health. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 68 , 127474.

[118] Bai, Y. , Wang, R. , Yang, L. , Ling, Y. , & Cao, M. (2024) The impacts of visible green spaces on the mental well-being of university students. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 17 ( 3), 1105– 1127.

[119] & Baur, J. (2022) Campus community gardens and student health: A case study of a campus garden and student well-being. Journal of American College Health, 70 ( 2), 377– 384.

[120] Thibodeaux, N. , & Rossano, M. J. (2018) Meditation and immune function: The impact of stress management on the immune system. OBM Integrative and Complementary Medicine, 3 ( 4), 1– 23.

[121] Vitagliano, L. A. , Wester, K. L. , Jones, C. T. , Wyrick, D. L. , & Vermeesch, A. L. (2023) Group nature-based mindfulness interventions: Nature-based mindfulness training for college students with anxiety. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20 ( 2), 1451.

[122] Ibes, D. , & Forestell, C. (2022) The role of campus greenspace and meditation on college students' mood disturbance. Journal of American College Health, 70 ( 1), 99– 106.

[123] & Appleton, J. (1984) Prospects and refuges re-visited. Landscape Journal, 3 ( 2), 91– 103.

[124] & Pullman, L. (2024) Landscape, well-being and connection: A qualitative study of community college students' perceptions of campus attributes. Journal of Urban Design and Mental Health, 9 ( 1).

[125] Zhang, M. , Chen, Z. , & Zeng, M. (2023) Study on the impact of campus green space biodiversity on the physical and mental health of college students. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 11 ( 3), 378– 394.

[126] Weinstein, N. , Balmford, A. , DeHaan, C. R. , Gladwell, V. , Bradbury, R. B. , & Amano, T. (2015) Seeing community for the trees: The links among contact with natural environments, community cohesion, and crime. BioScience, 65 ( 12), 1141– 1153.

[127] Collins, C. , Haase, D. , Heiland, S. , & Kabisch, N. (2022) Urban green space interaction and wellbeing—Investigating the experience of international students in Berlin during the first COVID-19 lockdown. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 70 , 127543.

[128] Wang, J. , Liu, N. , Zou, J. , Guo, Y. , & Chen, H. (2023) The health perception of urban green spaces and its emotional impact on young adults: An empirical study from three cities in China. Frontiers in Public Health, 11 , 1232216.

[129] Museus, S. D. , Yi, V. , & Saelua, N. (2017) The impact of culturally engaging campus environments on sense of belonging. The Review of Higher Education, 40 ( 2), 187– 215.

[130] Sugiyama, T. , Leslie, E. , Giles-Corti, B. , & Owen, N. (2008) Associations of neighbourhood greenness with physical and mental health: Do walking, social coherence and local social interaction explain the relationships?. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 62 ( 5), e9.

[131] Schwarz, N. , & Strack, F. (1990) Context effects in attitude surveys: Applying cognitive theory to social research. European Review of Social Psychology, 2 ( 1), 31– 50.

[132] Ingram, R. E., & Luxton, D. D. (2005). Vulnerability-Stress Models. Development of psychopathology: A Vulnerability-Stress Perspective (pp. 32–46). SAGE.

[133] Lazarus, R. S. , & Folkman, S. (1987) Transactional theory and research on emotions and coping. European Journal of Personality, 1 ( 3), 141– 169.

[134] Bandura, A. , Pastorelli, C. , Barbaranelli, C. , & Caprara, G. V. (1999) Self-efficacy pathways to childhood depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76 ( 2), 258– 269.

[135] Ye, L. , Posada, A. , & Liu, Y. (2018) The moderating effects of gender on the relationship between academic stress and academic self-efficacy. International Journal of Stress Management, 25 ( S1), 56– 61.

[136] Nie, X. , Wang, Y. , Zhang, C. , Zhao, Y. , & Kirkwood, N. (2024) The varied restorative values of campus landscapes to students' well-being: Evidence from a Chinese university. BMC Public Health, 24 ( 1), 487.

Rights & permissions

© Higher Education Press 2026