How Landscape Preferences and Emotions Shape Environmental Awareness: Perspectives from University Experiences

Abstract

Experience within the university landscape significantly shapes students’ environmental attitudes and behaviors. Greenery spaces, water bodies, architectural features, recreational spaces, and sustainable landscape design may not only enhance mental health but also foster a love for and responsibility toward the environment. This study proposed structural equation modeling to evaluate the causal relationship between landscape experiences and students’ environmental awareness by examining the roles of landscape preferences and emotional responses. The findings indicated that (1) when students frequently engage with landscape elements in the university, they tend to attach to the landscape, fostering a sense of belonging and appreciation for healthy learning environments; (2) students’ attachment to the landscape develops positive emotions toward their surroundings; (3) when students value and enjoy the healthy landscapes on campus, they are more likely to exhibit environmental awareness through actions like conserving resources, minimizing waste, and engaging in conservation activities. These behaviors arise from an understanding of the significance of landscapes and the direct impact of positive experiences and favorable emotions associated with these spaces. Therefore, universities can leverage landscape design as a crucial tool to promote sustainable awareness and behavior, guiding students to develop a sense of responsibility toward the natural environment.

1. Introduction

In recent decades, environmental challenges such as climate change, air pollution, biodiversity loss, natural resource degradation, and plastic waste have increasingly threatened the quality of life and the development of future generations [1]. Addressing these issues necessitates heightened environmental awareness and proactive protective behaviors [2]. Integrating environmental education into academic curricula, particularly at the university level, has been identified as a pivotal strategy, given education’s influential role in shaping individual attitudes and behaviors toward the environment [3].

Universities serve not only as knowledge hubs but also as innovation in educating students to cultivate sustainable thinking and actions [4]. Empirical studies have demonstrated that environmental education enhances students’ awareness and fosters positive ecological actions [5,6]. However, while educational policies often underscore sustainability, the potential of university landscapes to promote positive environmental behaviors remains underexplored. Existing research predominantly assessed environmental knowledge or formal education programs, overlooking the impact of the physical university environment on students’ awareness and behaviors [5].

Universities play a crucial role in fostering environmental awareness among students, not only through academic curricula but also through the design of their physical environments. A sustainable university landscape—one that integrates green infrastructure, biodiversity, and energy-efficient design—serves as a living laboratory that enhances students’ ecological literacy and pro-environmental behaviors. Scholars argued that exposure to nature in educational settings can improve students’ cognitive functioning, psychological well-being, and environmental attitudes [7]. Furthermore, sustainable campus design supports the principles of experiential learning, allowing students to engage directly with ecological systems and sustainable practices [8].

Research in environmental psychology has demonstrated that natural environments have restorative effects on cognitive functioning and emotional well-being [9]. Universities that integrate green spaces, such as native plant gardens, urban forests, and green roofs, create opportunities for students to interact with nature daily, which in turn enhances their environmental attitudes and sense of ecological responsibility [10]. According to Kolb’s (2014) [11] experiential learning theory, hands-on engagement with real-world environmental challenges enhances students’ understanding and retention of ecological concepts. Initiatives such as permaculture gardens, rainwater harvesting systems, and renewable energy installations allow students to witness sustainability in action, reinforcing pro-environmental behaviors [12].

A well-designed sustainable university landscape can shape students’ daily behaviors and attitudes toward sustainability. Social norms theory suggested that visible environmental actions—such as recycling stations, energy-efficient buildings, and sustainable transportation options—encourage individuals to adopt similar behaviors [13]. Universities that prioritize sustainability in their infrastructure and operations create a culture of environmental responsibility that extends beyond the classroom [14]. By integrating these elements into campus design, universities can function as models of sustainability, instilling long-term environmental values in students.

Although numerous studies have examined environmental attitudes and behaviors, the specific influence of university landscapes has received limited attention. There is a large body of research on the effects of green spaces on human health and well-being, most research focuses on how university landscapes can influence students’ aesthetic feelings, connection to nature, environmental preferences, and improved academic performance [12,15,16]. Some research suggested that natural environments can enhance their connection to nature, but no research has specifically examined how students’ experiences within university landscapes can influence their environmental consciousness.

Despite these insights, there is a paucity of research specifically examining how students’ interactions with university landscapes influence their environmental consciousness. The indirect mechanisms, such as emotional responses and landscape enjoyment, through which these experiences may affect environmental awareness, are not well-understood [17]. While studies have explored the relationship between environmental cognition and behavior, the roles of emotions and landscape preferences in shaping environmental behaviors warrant further investigation.

To address these gaps, this study aimed to elucidate the mechanisms by which university landscape experiences impact students’ environmental awareness, focusing on the mediating roles of emotional responses and landscape preferences. The findings were expected to deepen our understanding of how physical spaces within educational settings can contribute to sustainable development, providing a scientific foundation for designing greener and more sustainable university environments. Specifically, we would like to seek the answers to these questions: (1) what are the key factors that can help higher education institutions create more sustainable, engaging, and psychologically supportive campus environments that foster both student well-being and learning performance; (2) whether a student paying more attention to details in the landscape has a high level of environmental awareness, recognize values that they may have previously overlooked, and become more actively involved in preserving this space; and (3) whether long-term investments in landscape enhancements may yield substantial benefits in shaping environmentally responsible future generations.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Hypothesis Development

2.1.1. Relationship Between Landscape Experiences and Landscape Preferences

Universities are pivotal in shaping students’ behaviors, emotions, and perceptions through their campus environments. Contemporary university landscapes are designed to balance aesthetics, functionality, and sustainability, fostering optimal spaces for learning, research, and personal growth. These settings integrate architectural structures, green areas, water features, and recreational zones, creating enriching experiences that promote socio-cultural interaction, relaxation, and creativity.

University landscapes encompass architectural structures, green spaces, water features, recreational zones, and public amenities, all contributing to campus identity. Architectural design plays a key role in defining a university’s character [18]. Facilities such as lecture halls, libraries, and dormitories serve both functional and symbolic purposes, integrating aesthetics and sustainability to foster well-being and creativity [19]. A thoughtfully designed campus supports student development while reflecting institutional values of environmental and social responsibility [14]. These landscapes shape students’ aesthetic preferences and perceptions, influencing restorative experiences and place attachment [20]. Daily interactions with campus environments contribute to learning preferences, where familiarity fosters long-term environmental appreciation [16].

Environmental psychology suggests that landscape preferences develop through direct interaction with surroundings [9,20,21]. The preference for familiarity hypothesis proposes that repeated exposure to a specific landscape type increases preference for similar environments. Given their prolonged time on campus, students are likely to favor landscapes reflecting their university’s dominant features [21]. Additionally, green spaces and water elements contribute to well-being and cognitive restoration, reinforcing these preferences beyond the university setting [20]. Students who engage in outdoor activities on campus may also develop stronger affinities for naturalistic environments [9,22].

This study utilized sixteen photographs representing four campus landscape categories defined by Hami and Abdi (2021) [23]: architectural, green, water, and recreational scenery. These images depicted students’ favorite campus spaces. To assess landscape preferences, the study applied four key factors—coherence, complexity, mystery, and legibility—based on the psychological model of Rachel and Stephen Kaplan (1989) [24].

Hypothesis 1 (H1).

Students’ interaction with university landscapes has a positive impact on their landscape preferences.

2.1.2. Relationship Between Landscape Experiences, Landscape Preferences, and Emotional Responses

The term “emotional response” refers to a psychological state that reflects how individuals experience and interpret emotions. This concept is often examined through “affective appraisal,” which assesses emotional perceptions. A key framework in this area is the PAD model by Mehrabian (1996) [25], which defines emotions along three dimensions: Pleasure, Arousal, and Dominance. The interplay of these dimensions shapes emotional experiences—high pleasure can enhance arousal, while dominance regulates its impact on well-being [26]. This dynamic nature of emotions provides a valuable perspective for understanding human emotional responses.

Environmental psychology has extensively explored the relationship between university landscape experiences, landscape preferences, and emotional responses, highlighting how natural and built environments affect psychological processes [27]. Restorative and aesthetically pleasing settings tend to evoke more positive emotions.

Landscape experiences are closely tied to affective and cognitive processes, including the collective memory of a place [28]. Attention Restoration Theory (ART) [29] suggests that exposure to natural environments restores cognitive function and reduces mental fatigue, fostering relaxation and satisfaction. Similarly, Stress Reduction Theory (SRT) [30] proposes that visually appealing, well-designed landscapes can trigger immediate physiological and psychological relaxation. These insights indicate that students who frequently engage with university landscapes—especially green and restorative spaces—are likely to experience lower stress and enhanced emotional well-being.

Based on these theoretical foundations, the study hypothesized that students’ experiences in the university landscape significantly influence their emotional responses.

Hypothesis 2 (H2).

Landscape experiences positively influence emotional responses.

The seminal study by R. Kaplan, Kaplan, and Brown (1989) [24] identified four key dimensions of landscape preferences: coherence, complexity, mystery, and legibility. Their findings highlighted a general preference for natural settings over urban environments due to their restorative qualities, particularly through “soft fascination”—stimuli that effortlessly capture attention while promoting tranquility, cognitive recovery, and enhanced concentration.

University landscapes elicit diverse emotional responses depending on their features, including greenery, open spaces, built structures, spatial design, social interactions, and place attachment. Research shows that students exposed to green spaces report higher levels of positive emotions, such as happiness and calmness [31]. Elements like trees, gardens, and water features enhance these effects by providing multisensory stimuli that evoke relaxation and pleasure [32]. In contrast, urban environments with limited greenery or high artificiality can contribute to stress, fatigue, and cognitive overload [33]. These emotional responses are especially relevant for students facing academic pressure, as restorative environments support emotional regulation and psychological resilience [20].

Beyond natural elements, the design of built environments—courtyards, pathways, and architectural coherence—also influences emotional responses. Poorly designed or overcrowded spaces may lead to discomfort and stress [34]. Additionally, university landscapes shape social interactions, which further impact well-being. Spaces that encourage engagement and a sense of belonging foster positive emotions, while isolated or unwelcoming areas may contribute to negative affect [35].

Based on these arguments, we suggested the hypothesis that landscape preferences can play a mediating role in the relationship between environmental exposure and emotional responses, with students who prefer natural settings experiencing greater psychological benefits.

Hypothesis 3 (H3).

Landscape preferences positively influence emotional responses.

Hypothesis 4 (H4).

Landscape preferences mediate the relationship between landscape experiences and emotional responses.

2.1.3. Relationship Between Landscape Experiences, Landscape Preferences, Emotional Responses, and Environmental Awareness of Students

Experiencing landscapes often evokes positive emotions such as relaxation, comfort, excitement, and a sense of connection to nature. Elements like tree shade, water tranquility, or architectural aesthetics can reduce stress, enhance mood, and improve psychological well-being. Landscape appreciation extends beyond momentary enjoyment, shaping perceptions of its value. For instance, a student who consistently feels relaxed in green spaces is more likely to recognize nature’s role in their well-being. These psychological factors form the foundation of the human–environment relationship and play a crucial role in fostering environmental awareness [12].

Environmental awareness is people’s awareness and concern for environmental issues, including attitudes and behaviors to protect, maintain natural balance, and promote sustainable development. This is an important concept in environmental and psychological research, reflecting the level of understanding, emotions, and actions of individuals towards environmental challenges. For students, environmental awareness is not only knowledge but also generational responsibility in protecting the planet and building a sustainable future.

Liking landscapes acts as a mechanism to promote positive emotional responses. Students feel the emotional value of landscapes once they feel attached to and like the space [36]. Specifically, emotions tied to a connection with nature are key drivers of environmental concern and behavior. Strong positive emotional responses to nature correlate with higher environmental awareness and pro-environmental actions [37]. Beyond aesthetics, landscape preferences reflect a deeper commitment to preserving and protecting these spaces, motivating students to engage in eco-friendly behaviors on campus. They may participate in activities such as tree planting, waste reduction, or proposing sustainability initiatives. This engagement not only nurtures local environmental stewardship but also encourages students to extend these values to broader contexts.

Based on this framework, the study proposed the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 5 (H5).

Landscape preferences positively influence environmental awareness.

Hypothesis 6 (H6).

Emotional responses positively influence environmental awareness.

Hypothesis 7 (H7).

Emotional responses mediate the relationship between landscape preferences and environmental awareness.

When the landscape preferences and feelings are strengthened, it becomes the basis for forming environmental awareness. Environmental awareness includes the individual’s attitudes and behaviors towards environmental protection. A student who is attached to the university landscape often has a clearer awareness of the value of nature and the importance of protecting it, thereby developing a positive attitudes, strong support for the environment and specific actions to maintain sustainability [37,38].

Hypothesis 8 (H8).

Landscape experiences positively influence environmental awareness.

Hypothesis 9 (H9).

Landscape preferences and emotional responses mediate the relationship between landscape experiences and environmental awareness.

Based on the above theoretical literature, the study proposes a research framework as shown in Figure 1, including four constructs: landscape experiences, landscape preferences, emotional responses, and environmental awareness to clarify the hypotheses.

2.2. Methods

2.2.1. Sample Collection

To determine an appropriate sample size, the research team followed the sample size calculation formula proposed by Naing, Winn, and Rusli (2006) [39] and Hair (2009) [40]. According to Hair, for research models with fewer than eight constructs, the minimum sample size should exceed 150. However, based on Naing et al.’s [39] formula for estimating the required sample size, a minimum of 384 participants was necessary.

The survey was conducted over four weeks in September 2023, from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM daily. The principal investigator, along with five well-trained research assistants, employed a random approach to recruit students across various campus locations, including open courtyards, sports facilities, library, auditoriums, student lounges, and hallways connecting classroom buildings. This strategy aims to ensure a diverse and representative sample aligned with the study’s objectives.

Each student, as a sampling unit, received a self-administered questionnaire and participated voluntarily. The questionnaire was developed using a quantitative research approach and based on the existing literature to ensure reliability and validity. To reduce response bias, participants received a small token of appreciation after completing the survey.

2.2.2. Study Site

The hypotheses of the research model were tested at Ton Duc Thang University in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. This university consists of sixteen faculties, considered one of the universities with a large student population, providing abundant human resources for the labor market in Vietnam. Located in District 7, Ho Chi Minh City, the main campus of the university covers approximately 30 hectares. Despite its urban location, the campus has undergone significant infrastructure investments, including modern buildings for classrooms, research centers, and various recreational spaces including green lawns, lakes, playgrounds, relaxation, and sports areas to meet the recreational needs of students and faculty. Furthermore, the campus landscape also contributes to the urban environment, enhancing the green space of the city and increasing the overall aesthetic appeal. Therefore, the characteristics of the landscape campus and the student population are very suitable for the case study (Figure 2).

2.2.3. Measurement of Variables

The questionnaire comprises 43 items designed based on the literature review to assess four constructs: “landscape experiences”, “landscape preferences”, “emotional responses”, and “environmental awareness”. Particularly, sixteen images (A01 to A16) were selected (Figure 3) to measure the university landscapes experiences. Responses to all measurement items were scored on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

The internal consistency of the measurements was evaluated using reliability analysis in SPSS (version 24). Cronbach’s Alpha was applied, with a minimum acceptable threshold set at 0.6. Additionally, for each measurement item, the “Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted” values needed to remain lower than the overall Cronbach’s Alpha, while the corrected item-total correlation was required to be above 0.3 [40].

2.2.4. Factor Analysis

Exploratory factor analysis was conducted to extract measurement items for the variables, including landscape experience, emotional response, landscape preference, and students’ environmental awareness. The analysis employed the principal component extraction method combined with varimax rotation to achieve a simplified factor structure. Additionally, the suitability of the observed variables for factor analysis was evaluated using the KMO test and Bartlett’s test. To ensure the internal consistency of the newly identified factors, Cronbach’s Alpha was also assessed [41].

2.2.5. Measurement Validity Test

At this stage, it is essential to thoroughly assess several model fit indices to ensure they meet specific benchmarks: chi-square/df should be less than 3.0, GFI, AGFI, CFI, and NFI should all exceed 0.9, PNFI should be above 0.5, while RMR and RMSEA should remain below 0.05 and 0.08, respectively. Furthermore, confirming highly correlated or identical constructs requires meeting three simultaneous conditions: (1) factor loadings for latent variables must be greater than 0.5, (2) composite reliability (CR) should surpass 0.7, and (3) average variance extracted (AVE) needs to be over 0.5 [40].

2.2.6. Structural Equation Model (SEM)

The study employed AMOS software (version 25) to examine a causal relationship framework involving four constructs: “landscape experiences”, “emotional responses”, “landscape preferences”, and “environmental awareness”. The paths connecting these constructs were designed based on the proposed hypotheses. This phase aimed to identify significant direct effects, evaluate the extent of indirect effects mediated within the model, and offer valuable insights into the significance of these impact levels [42].

3. Results

3.1. Sample Profile

In 600 questionnaires distributed, 593 responses were received. After filtering data, 40 incomplete samples were excluded from the study. Finally, 553 valid samples were used for further research. The demographic characteristics are shown in

Table 1. Sample profile.

Sample	N	%	Sample	N	%
Gender			Academic level
Male	248	44.8	Bachelor	507	91.7
Female	305	55.2	Master	14	2.5
Faculty			Doctor	6	1.1
Accounting	12	2.2	Others	26	4.7
Applied Sciences	153	27.7	Academic year
Business Administration	57	10.3	First year	12	2.2
Civil Engineering	91	16.5	Second year	187	33.8
Electrical and Electronics Engineering	39	7.1	Third year	158	28.6
Environment and Labor Safety	41	7.4	Fourth year	102	18.4
Finance and Banking	7	1.3	Fifth year	32	5.8
Foreign Languages	18	3.3	Over fifth year	62	11.2
Industrial Fine Arts	11	2.0	Time for activities
Information Technology	20	3.6	Less than 30 min	41	7.4
Labor Relations and Trade Unions	8	1.4	30 min~1 h	205	37.1
Law	15	2.7	1~2 h	198	35.8
Mathematics and Statistics	11	2.0	More than 2 h	109	19.7
Pharmacy	14	2.5	Leisure time of the day
Social Sciences and Humanities	54	9.8	Morning	63	11.4
Sport Science	2	0.4	Noon	150	27.1
			Afternoon	340	61.5

.

3.2. Item and Reliability Analysis

Table 2. Item and reliability analysis.

Construct	Item	M	SD
Landscape experiences (α = 0.919)	A01—my liking of scene 01	4.51	0.632
	A02—my liking of scene 02	4.48	0.637
	A03—my liking of scene 03	4.32	0.648
	A04—my liking of scene 04	4.46	0.644
	A05—my liking of scene 05	4.69	0.575
	A06—my liking of scene 06	4.60	0.582
	A07—my liking of scene 07	4.27	0.612
	A08—my liking of scene 08	4.69	0.548
	A09—my liking of scene 09	4.44	0.707
	A10—my liking of scene 10	4.56	0.649
	A11—my liking of scene 11	4.39	0.717
	A12—my liking of scene 12	4.36	0.717
	A13—my liking of scene 13	4.41	0.675
	A14—my liking of scene 14	4.43	0.683
	A15—my liking of scene 15	4.51	0.687
	A16—my liking of scene 16	4.23	0.726
Landscape preferences (α = 0.889)	B01—feeling tied together	4.25	0.705
	B02—feeling the repetition	3.67	1.038
	B03—feeling well-arrangement	4.29	0.756
	B04—feeling easily visualized	4.27	0.823
	B05—feeling easy determines the direction	3.87	1.058
	B06—feeling many distinct markers	4.23	0.872
	B07—feeling many intricate elements	3.48	1.078
	B08—feeling many abundant elements and features	4.22	0.854
	B09—feeling the changeful scenes	4.14	0.830
	B10—feeling interested to explore	4.20	0.832
	B11—feeling far-reaching and mysterious	3.47	1.142
	B12—feeling navigation	3.92	0.949
Emotional responses (α = 0.926)	C01—lazy or active	3.98	0.922
	C02—sleepy or excited	3.85	0.975
	C03—bored or interested	3.91	0.936
	C04—controlled or controlling	3.68	0.995
	C05—constraint or freedom	3.92	0.968
	C06—influenced or influential	3.80	0.933
	C07—unpleasant or pleasant	4.11	0.899
	C08—sad or happy	4.00	0.832
	C09—tense or relaxed	4.14	0.845
Environmental awareness (α = 0.867)	D01—thinking that environmental issues are extremely important	4.64	0.722
	D02—thinking that littering leads to a worse environment	4.69	0.713
	D03—thinking that saving water saving the environment	4.61	0.751
	D04—using biodegradable and putting trash in the appropriate recycling bin	4.22	0.944
	D05—avoiding littering outside	4.66	0.681
	D06—turning off water appliances when not in use	4.29	0.875

Note. M—mean; SD—standard deviation.

presents the mean scores and standard deviations of the measured items from the descriptive analysis. Reliability analysis resulted show that the overall Cronbach’s Alpha for all four constructs exceeded 0.7 and was higher than that of individual measurement items. Additionally, all corrected item-total correlation values surpassed 0.3, confirming the dataset’s high reliability for further analysis [40].

3.3. Results of Factor Analysis

First,

Table 3. Factor analysis of students’ university landscape experiences.

Item	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3	Factor 4
	Water Bodies	Architectural Spaces	Recreational Spaces	Greenery Spaces
A10—scene 10	0.840
A09—scene 09	0.825
A11—scene 11	0.788
A12—scene 12	0.769
A01—scene 01		0.766
A03—scene 03		0.757
A04—scene 04		0.725
A02—scene 02		0.720
A14—scene 14			0.820
A13—scene 13			0.802
A15—scene 15			0.711
A16—scene 16			0.685
A06—scene 06				0.824
A05—scene 05				0.757
A07—scene 07				0.699
A08—scene 08				0.511
Cronbach’s Alpha	0.895	0.854	0.875	0.812
Explained variation (%)	19.474	18.216	17.846	15.778
Total explained variation (%)	19.474	37.69	55.535	71.314

Note. Extraction method: principal components; Rotation method: varimax; KMO = 0.925; Sig. = 0.000.

shows that factor analysis confirmed the suitability of the measurement items of the landscape experience for analysis, with a KMO value of 0.925 (sig. 0.000) and all items had factor loadings above 0.50. Using principal component extraction and varimax rotation, four factors representing landscape experiences were identified: “architectural spaces”, “greenery spaces”, “water bodies”, and “recreational spaces”. Cronbach’s Alpha values for these factors all exceeded 0.70, ensuring reliability [41].

Second,

Table 4. Factor analysis of students’ emotional response.

Item	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3
	Dominance	Pleasure	Arousal
C08—sad or happy	0.802
C07—unpleasant or pleasant	0.789
C09—tense or relaxed	0.692
C01—lazy or active		0.816
C02—sleepy or excited		0.740
C03—bored or interested		0.731
C04—controlled or controlling			0.836
C06—influenced or influential			0.708
C05—constraint or freedom			0.629
Cronbach’s Alpha	0.859	0.854	0.818
Explained variation (%)	26.549	26.27	23.893
Total explained variation (%)	26.549	52.819	76.712

Note. Extraction method: principal components; Rotation method: varimax; KMO = 0.937; Sig. = 0.000.

shows that the measurement items of the emotional response were extracted into three factors, with a KMO value of 0.937 (sig. 0.000). They were identified as “dominance”, “pleasure”, and “arousal” with values of Cronbach’s Alpha higher than 0.80 denoting high reliability [41].

3.4. Measurement Validity Analysis

3.4.1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

First, the test of convergent validity and the results demonstrated a good fit, such as (X²) = 158.443, (df) = 59, X²/df = 2.685, p-value = 0.000, CFI = 0.975, GFI = 0.956, NFI = 0.961, AGFI = 0.932, PNFI = 0.727, RMR = 0.017, RMSEA = 0.055. All these indexes met the reference criteria, confirming the compatibility of the research model with the actual observation data and its ability to elucidate the relationships among the constructs [42].

Second, Figure 4 presents the confirmatory factor analysis model of four proposed constructs showing that the factor loadings of the latent were rated at a high level from 0.702 to 0.875. The variance correlation among the constructs ranged from 0.57 to 0.72. These coefficients are related to the value of composite reliability (CR) and the average variance extraction (AVE) of four constructs.

Third, the analysis revealed that the composite reliability of “emotional responses” was the highest (0.894), followed by “landscape preferences” (0.867), “landscape experiences” (0.844), and “environmental awareness” (0.780). Moreover, the average variance extraction of “emotional responses” was estimated at 0.738, “environmental awareness” at 0.642, “landscape preferences” at 0.620, and “landscape experiences” at 0.576. Based on these results, the convergent validity was confirmed [42].

3.4.2. Discriminant Validity Analysis

Table 5. Assessment of discriminant validity.

	CR	AVE	MSV	MaxR(H)	LEs	LPs	ERs	EA
LEs	0.844	0.576	0.521	0.848	0.759
LPs	0.867	0.620	0.521	0.869	0.722 ***	0.788
ERs	0.894	0.738	0.480	0.894	0.587 ***	0.639 ***	0.859
EA	0.780	0.642	0.391	0.813	0.597 ***	0.625 ***	0.573 ***	0.801

Note. *** p < 0.001; p-values based on the bias-corrected and percentile methods of the bootstrap confidence interval of the constructs. LEs—landscape experiences; LPs—landscape preferences; ERs—emotional responses; EA—environmental awareness; CR—composite reliability; AVE—average variance extraction; MSV—maximum share variance; MaxR(H)—maximal reliability (H) value. The bolded numbers represent the square roots of the AVE for each construct. The italicized numbers represent the absolute values of the correlations between the constructs.

presents the results of the discriminant validity analysis. First, most of the maximum share variance (MSV) of “emotional responses”, “landscape preferences”, “environmental awareness”, and “landscape preferences” was lower than the average variance extraction (AVE). Second, the square root of the AVE for all constructs was higher than the absolute values of the correlations with another construct. Third, the maximal reliability (MaxR(H)) values for all constructs were higher than composite reliability (CR). Finally, most of the p-values based on the bias-corrected and percentile methods of the bootstrap confidence interval of the constructs were lower than 0.001. Based on these results, the measurement model has achieved discriminant validity significantly [42].

3.4.3. Structural Equation Modeling Analysis

After assessing the overall fitness of the model, the study conducted a thorough analysis of the linear relationships between the constructs, including both direct and indirect effects.

Table 6. Direct and mediating effects in the research model.

Path		Direct effect	Mediating Effect	Evaluation
H1	LEs→LPs	0.72 ***		Supported
H2	LEs→ERs	0.26 **		Supported
H3	LPs→ERs	0.45 ***		Supported
H4	LEs→LPs→ERs		0.32 ***(1)	Supported
H5	LPs→EA	0.29 *		Supported
H6	ERs→EA	0.24 ***		Supported
H7	LPs→ERs→EA		0.11 ***(2)	Supported
H8	LEs→EA	0.24 *		Supported
H9	LEs→LPs→EA		0.21 ***(3)	Supported
	LEs→LPs→ERs→EA		0.14 ***(4)	Supported

Note. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. LEs—landscape experiences; ERs—emotional responses; LPs—landscape preferences; EA—environmental awareness. Based on the Sobel test [43,44], the study estimated the indirect effects as below: (1) LEs→LPs→ERs: (0.72 × 0.45) = 0.32, z = 5.361, p < 0.001. (2) LPs→ERs→EA: (0.45 × 0.24) = 0.11, z = 4.058, p < 0.001. (3) LEs→LPs→EA: (0.72 × 0.29) = 0.21, z = 4.548, p < 0.001. (4) LEs→LPs→ERs→EA: [(0.72 × 0.45) + 0.26] × 0.24 = 0.14, z = 4.053, p < 0.001.

provides a detailed overview of the direct effects and the indirect effects facilitated by the mediation roles of the constructs within the research framework.

Figure 5 provides a comprehensive overview of the structural model, illustrating the total effect dimensions between the four constructs. The results robustly supported the proposed hypotheses.

4. Discussion

4.1. Descriptive Analysis

Descriptive analysis revealed that students appreciated their university landscape, particularly its greenery, water features, recreational areas, and architecture. They also exhibited strong landscape preferences, valuing “coherence” the most, followed by “legibility”, “complexity”, and “mystery”. Environmental awareness was notably high, underscoring a positive connection between landscape quality, place attachment, and students’ environmental consciousness.

Key factors contributing to this engagement include the diversity of vegetation, the cooling effects of water bodies, the openness of recreational spaces, and the aesthetic appeal of well-designed architectural elements. These elements facilitate participation in various landscape-related activities, such as walking, jogging, playing sports, sightseeing, and social interactions, thereby enhancing students’ overall well-being [45]. Based on these results, this study advocated for landscape planning and design policies that foster healthy and engaging environments for students. Greater interaction with high-quality landscapes has the potential to promote positive emotions, support physical and mental well-being, and enhance academic performance [22]. Furthermore, meaningful exposure to well-designed landscapes may cultivate environmentally responsible attitudes and behaviors among students, contributing to a more sustainable campus environment [46].

4.2. Causal Relationship Analysis

4.2.1. Relationship Between Students’ Landscape Experiences, Landscape Preferences, and Emotional Responses

The analysis indicated that the experiences of students in the university landscape exerted a significant positive influence on students’ landscape preferences (β = 0.72, p < 0.001), supporting hypothesis 1. Well-maintained landscapes—featuring green spaces, diverse vegetation, water bodies, efficient pathways, and aesthetically pleasing environments—enhanced students’ engagement and preference for such settings [23]. A strong standardized coefficient indicated that students who engage more with university landscapes tend to develop stronger preferences for similar environments. This is consistent with the mere exposure effect [47], which posits that repeated exposure to a stimulus enhances preference. Moreover, aesthetically pleasing and restorative landscapes elicit positive emotions, reinforcing students’ attachment and preference for such spaces.

The analysis confirmed a significant positive effect of university landscape experience on emotional response (β = 0.26, p < 0.001), supporting hypothesis 2. This aligns with research suggesting that well-designed landscapes promote psychological restoration and reduce stress [30]. From an environmental psychology perspective, exposure to aesthetically and functionally engaging landscapes fosters relaxation, inspiration, and comfort [35]. The results further corroborated the Attention Restoration Theory, which posits that natural and restorative environments help replenish cognitive resources, thereby enhancing emotional response [48]. Similarly, Stress Reduction Theory suggests that green spaces and visually appealing landscapes contribute to emotional recovery and improved mood [30]. Empirical studies have also shown that students interacting with campus greenery, water features, and well-maintained outdoor spaces report higher levels of emotional satisfaction and lower stress levels [49,50]. While landscape experience significantly influenced emotional responses, other factors, such as social interactions and personal background, may also play a role.

The analysis supported hypothesis 3, indicating that landscape preference has a significant positive effect on emotional response (β = 0.45, p < 0.001). Individuals experience stronger positive emotions in landscapes they find aesthetically pleasing and personally meaningful [35,51]. Emotional responses are shaped by perceived landscape quality, where highly preferred environments evoke relaxation, inspiration, and restoration [35]. The findings underscore the role of affective appraisal in environmental experiences, reinforcing theories that emotions mediate human–environment interactions [51,52]. Given that higher landscape preference corresponds to stronger emotional responses, university landscape design should prioritize elements that enhance both beauty and functional engagement to foster positive emotions [53].

The results supported hypothesis 4, indicating that landscape preferences mediate the relationship between university landscapes experiences and emotional responses. Specifically, the analysis revealed a significant indirect effect (β = 0.32, p < 0.001), suggesting that students’ preferences for university landscapes act as a psychological mechanism through which their experiences shape emotional outcomes. This aligns with prior research on perceived environmental quality’s role in emotional well-being [54]. According to Attention Restoration Theory (ART), individuals are more likely to develop positive emotional responses when they engage with landscapes they find aesthetically and functionally appealing [29]. Similarly, Stress Recovery Theory (SRT) suggests that preferred landscapes facilitate stress reduction and emotional balance [55]. The study extended these theoretical perspectives by demonstrating that while landscape experience alone influences emotional responses, preferences significantly amplify this effect.

These findings reinforced the idea that subjective preference is a key determinant of affective outcomes in environmental psychology. Prior studies have shown that highly preferred environments evoke stronger positive emotions and psychological benefits [56]. The observed mediating effect underscored the importance of individual perception in shaping emotional well-being, beyond objective environmental attributes [57].

From an applied perspective, these findings emphasize the necessity of designing university landscapes that align with student preferences to enhance emotional well-being. Future research could explore how specific landscape features—such as vegetation density, water elements, and spatial configurations—contribute to shaping both preferences and emotional responses [58]. The study highlights the critical mediating role of landscape preferences, contributing to a more nuanced understanding of the landscape experience–emotion relationship and emphasizing the importance of subjective environmental evaluations in well-being research, particularly in educational settings.

4.2.2. Relationship Between Landscape Preferences, Emotional Responses, and Environmental Awareness

The results of the structural model supported hypothesis 5, indicating that landscape preferences have a significant positive effect on students’ environmental awareness (β = 0.29, p < 0.05). While the p-value was close to 0.05, the observed effect was moderate. This suggests that students who prefer university landscapes—especially those with natural and sustainable features—are more cognitively and emotionally engaged with environmental issues. This was consistent with the affective response theory of Ulrich [59], which suggests that people’s emotional connections with landscapes can shape their attitudes and behaviors toward the environment. Furthermore, the findings supported the biophilia hypothesis [60,61], which posited that human affinity for natural environments fosters greater ecological awareness and responsibility.

Two mechanisms may explain this effect. First, direct exposure to preferred landscapes strengthens attachment to nature, reinforcing pro-environmental attitudes [62]. Second, positive emotional responses to landscapes enhance intrinsic motivation to protect and preserve natural spaces [63]. These results suggest that landscape preferences are not passive aesthetic choices but actively shape environmental awareness.

The study also contributes to research on sustainability education by emphasizing the role of landscape design in fostering ecological consciousness. Prior studies highlight that well-designed university landscapes serve as experiential learning spaces, reinforcing sustainability principles [9,64]. Universities should therefore prioritize biophilic and ecologically sustainable designs to deepen students’ environmental engagement and long-term responsibility.

For hypothesis 6, the structural model provided strong empirical support that emotional responses exert a significant positive effect on environmental awareness (β = 0.24, p < 0.001). This finding aligned with existing literature suggesting that emotional engagement with the environment plays a crucial role in shaping pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors [65]. Emotions serve as a psychological bridge between environmental experiences and cognitive evaluations, strengthening individuals’ connection to nature [66]. Positive emotions, such as awe, tranquility, and inspiration, enhance intrinsic motivation for environmental stewardship [38], consistent with affective appraisal theories [67].

The results also suggested that emotional responses may mediate the relationship between direct landscape interactions and environmental awareness [68]. Natural landscapes with restorative qualities evoke emotional states that reinforce environmental values and promote sustainable attitudes [69]. The effect size (β = 0.24) implied that while emotional responses are influential, they likely interact with other cognitive or social factors in shaping environmental awareness [70]. These findings highlighted the need for emotionally engaging environments in educational and urban settings to foster sustainability. Future research should examine the long-term effects of emotional responses and potential moderating factors, such as prior environmental knowledge or cultural background [71].

Based on in-depth analysis, the structural model indicated that emotional responses significantly mediate the relationship between landscape preferences and environmental awareness (β = 0.11, p < 0.001), supported hypothesis 7. This finding aligned with research suggesting that affective experiences bridge aesthetic appreciation and environmental attitudes [72,73]. Emotional responses—such as relaxation, inspiration, and attachment—reinforce environmental concerns, suggesting that landscape preferences alone may not be sufficient to drive awareness without meaningful emotional engagement [74]. This study’s findings suggested that landscape preferences alone may not be sufficient to drive environmental awareness unless they are accompanied by meaningful emotional engagement. The significant mediation effect (β = 0.11) underscores the psychological role of affective experiences in environmental consciousness. These results contribute to the literature by showing that individuals with strong emotional bonds to landscapes are more likely to develop deeper environmental awareness, aligning with theories of place attachment and environmental behavior [68,75].

4.2.3. Relationship Between Students’ Landscape Experiences, Landscape Preferences, Emotional Responses, and Environmental Awareness

For hypothesis 8, the structural model revealed that landscape experiences positively influence students’ environmental awareness (β = 0.24, p < 0.05). This result aligned with previous studies suggesting that exposure to well-designed university landscapes enhances individuals’ connection to the environment and fosters pro-environmental attitudes [46,76]. Green and open spaces, in particular, may shape students’ perceptions of environmental sustainability through direct interaction and experiential learning [76].

Additionally, the analysis confirmed the mediating role of landscape preferences and emotional responses (β = 0.36, p < 0.001), supporting hypothesis 9. This suggests that landscape experiences influence environmental awareness indirectly through affective and cognitive mechanisms. Students who develop positive emotional responses to university landscapes tend to form stronger preferences for such environments, leading to greater environmental concern and awareness [73,77].

These findings suggested that both direct and indirect pathways contribute to the development of students’ environmental awareness, with indirect effects playing an even more substantial role (β = 0.36 vs. β = 0.24). This underscored the importance of designing university landscapes that not only provide functional and aesthetic benefits but also evoke positive emotional experiences and strong preferences among students. Future research should further investigate how long-term exposure to such environments influences environmental behavior beyond awareness [78].

4.3. Empirical Implications of Research

The structural model in this study highlighted both direct and indirect pathways through which students’ engagement with university landscapes fosters environmental consciousness, mediated by their emotional and perceptual responses.

These findings carried significant theoretical and practical implications. Firstly, they reinforced the restorative role of university landscapes. The results confirmed that emotionally engaging university landscapes foster both well-being and environmental awareness, supporting the need for nature-integrated campus design [29,79]. Universities should prioritize greenery, water bodies, and recreational spaces to enhance students’ positive emotional responses and long-term environmental attitudes.

Secondly, the study found a bridging affective and cognitive pathway to environmental awareness. This study highlights that both cognitive (landscape preferences) and affective (emotional responses) processes contribute to environmental awareness. Incorporating biophilic design principles [80] in campus planning can strengthen students’ perceptual and emotional engagement with nature, ultimately fostering more sustainable behaviors.

Finally, the findings played a role in promoting environmental education through experiential design. The findings underscore the value of experiential learning through university landscapes. Universities should integrate nature-based interventions, such as eco-parks, interactive green spaces, and outdoor learning environments, to enhance students’ environmental sensitivity through direct exposure and emotional engagement [81].

4.4. Limitations and Further Research

Although this study provided valuable insights into the relationship between university landscapes experiences, landscape preferences, emotional responses, and students’ environmental awareness, several limitations should be acknowledged. These limitations offer opportunities for future research to refine the conceptual model and explore additional factors that may contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of human–environment interactions.

First, the study employed structural equation modeling (SEM) to examine causal relationships within the domain of environmental psychology. However, the reliance on cross-sectional data limited the ability to capture temporal dynamics and behavioral changes over time [82]. Future research should adopt a longitudinal approach to better assess the stability and evolution of these relationships, allowing for more robust causal inferences [83]. A longitudinal design would also provide insights into the long-term impacts of university landscapes experiences on students’ environmental engagement, potentially informing policies that promote sustainable behaviors in educational settings [42,84].

Second, the data were collected from a specific geographic region, where participants shared similar cultural backgrounds and environmental contexts. As a result, the findings may lack generalizability to other students with different socio-cultural and ecological conditions. Future studies should expand their scope by incorporating cross-cultural comparisons and diverse geographic contexts to examine whether the identified relationships hold across different educational institutions and urban environments [85]. Such an approach would enhance the external validity of the model and offer broader policy implications for sustainable campus design.

Thirdly, this study identified distinct landscape components—greenery spaces, water spaces, recreational spaces, and architectural spaces—that contribute to students’ emotional and environmental responses. Future research should explore individual differences in landscape preferences, investigating how factors such as personality traits, environmental attitudes, and prior exposure to nature influence students’ engagement with specific university landscapes [86]. Examining these variations could provide deeper insights into the psychological mechanisms underlying environmental commitment and pro-environmental behaviors.

Moreover, the findings offer practical implications for landscape planning and environmental education in university settings. Future studies could assess how tailored landscape interventions—such as biodiversity-rich green spaces, interactive water features, and multi-functional recreational zones—enhance students’ environmental responsibility and nature-related well-being. These insights would contribute to the development of evidence-based design strategies that not only improve campus aesthetics but also foster a stronger sense of environmental stewardship among young generations.

By addressing these limitations, future research can build upon the current study’s findings, advancing theoretical frameworks in environmental psychology and providing actionable recommendations for designing sustainable and restorative educational environments.

5. Conclusions

The findings of this study provide strong empirical support for the hypothesized relationships between university landscape experiences, landscape preferences, emotional responses, and students’ environmental perceptions.

Through in-depth analysis, the findings indicate that students’ experiences with university landscapes significantly enhance their landscape preferences (β = 0.72). Well-maintained landscapes, such as green spaces and water features, appear to foster stronger engagement and preference, consistent with the mere exposure effect. Moreover, a higher degree of landscape preference is associated with stronger emotional responses (β = 0.45), suggesting that landscape preferences serve as a crucial mediating factor in the relationship between landscape experience and emotional response (β = 0.32). These findings underscore the role of preferred environments in eliciting heightened emotional reactions, thereby contributing to psychological well-being.

Furthermore, students who exhibit strong landscape preferences and positive emotional responses demonstrate greater environmental awareness (β = 0.29 and β = 0.24, respectively). Notably, both psychological constructs serve as significant mediators (β = 0.36), amplifying the overall relationship between university landscape experiences and environmental awareness to a substantial extent (β = 0.60). These results provide empirical support for the biophilia hypothesis and affective response theory, suggesting that an affinity for natural environments acts as a critical link between landscape interaction and sustainability attitudes, ultimately fostering the ecological consciousness of students.

Based on the findings, the study has valuable empirical implications. Firstly, university planners and policymakers should prioritize the development and maintenance of aesthetically pleasing landscapes to enhance student engagement, emotional well-being, and environmental awareness.

Secondly, given the strong link between landscape preferences, emotional responses, and psychological well-being, universities should consider landscape quality as a vital component of mental health and stress reduction initiatives. Access to preferred natural environments may serve as a cost-effective strategy for promoting student wellness.

Thirdly, universities can leverage campus landscapes as experiential learning tools to cultivate students’ sustainability attitudes. Outdoor education programs, nature-based interventions, and engagement with green spaces should be incorporated into curricula to reinforce ecological consciousness.

Fourthly, university administrators and policymakers should recognize campus landscapes as an integral component of the student experience. Policies aimed at campus sustainability should not only focus on infrastructure but also emphasize the psychological and behavioral benefits of green spaces. Long-term investments in landscape enhancements may yield substantial benefits in shaping environmentally responsible future generations.

By incorporating these insights, higher education institutions can create more sustainable, engaging, and psychologically supportive campus environments that foster both student well-being and learning performance. This is not a one-way chain of relationships but is potentially reciprocal. Students’ environmental awareness can in turn influence how they experience and evaluate the university landscape. A student with a high level of environmental awareness will pay more attention to details in the landscape, recognize values that they may have previously overlooked, and become more actively involved in preserving this space. In addition, elements in the landscape such as green spaces and water surfaces can also be designed or renovated based on feedback from students, creating a continuous improvement cycle. This not only enriches student experience but also strengthens the relationship between people and the environment in the context of higher education, contributing to promoting positive student awareness, attitudes, and behaviors, educating them to become a generation of environmentally responsible citizens, helping to protect natural resources and build a more sustainable society.