The workplace has long been viewed as a stressful environment, with worker stress most often associated with an inability to deal adequately with the demands placed upon the individual (Bhui et al., 2016). The novelty and uncertainty of COVID-19, and the related changes in workplace schedules and environments, exacerbated already high levels of stress for many workers. A survey conducted in March, 2020 that found that 88% of workers reported experiencing moderate to extreme stress over the previous 4–6 weeks (Gavidia, 2021). Among those reporting stress, 62% noted losing at least 1 h per day in productivity and 32% lost at least 2 h per day due to COVID-19-related stress. While lockdowns were necessary to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 (Sault, 2020) and to reduce pressure on health care systems, other research suggested serious secondary impacts as people continued to be confined to their homes (Evanoff et al., 2020). In response to remote work, one study found that those employees performing work deemed “non-essential” during the crisis phase of the pandemic experienced a high prevalence of stress, anxiety, depression, work exhaustion, burnout, and worsened well-being approximately 4–5 weeks after work-from-home policies were implemented (Evanoff et al., 2020).

Stress, caused by day-to-day activities, or traumatic events, has serious impacts on personal and public health and wellbeing. The COVID-19 pandemic has been identified as a traumatic event (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2021). Whether infected with SARS-CoV-2 or not, people may have experienced increased feelings of uncertainty, anxiety, irritation, anger, or denial. In the short-term, people may feel tired, overwhelmed, burned out, sad, and even depressed; may lack motivation or experience insomnia (Marelli et al., 2021); and may display an inability to concentrate (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2021). Eighteen months after the onset of the pandemic, 32% of surveyed adults indicated that they are sometimes so stressed by COVID-19 that they struggled to make basic decisions. Stress levels were especially high among parents with children under age 18, 47% of whom stated that both day-to-day and major decision making was more stressful than it was pre-pandemic (American Psychological Association, 2021). If left unaddressed, experiencing such stressors can lead people to engage in unhealthy behaviors, such as increased use of alcohol, tobacco, or other drugs (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2021). Elevated stress is also linked to chronic diseases such as heart disease and stroke (Science Daily, 2017). People with high levels of stress may struggle to attend to personal and family needs while working; managing a different workload and/or lacking access to tools and equipment needed to perform work can further exacerbate negative feelings (Nigam et al., 2020).

Presently, many Americans do not have strong stress management skills or coping mechanisms. The American Psychological Association’s (2021) “Stress in America” report found that 45% of young adults in their twenties and 50% of millennials said they do not know how to manage their stress due to the coronavirus pandemic (American Psychological Association, 2021). Adults were even less likely to feel that they are doing enough to manage their stress or to feel that their mental health was very good or excellent. In particular, Hispanic and Black adults were less likely to say they are faring well during the coronavirus pandemic than non-Hispanic White adults (American Psychological Association, 2021).

Considerable evidence has demonstrated that spending time outdoors in nature can be an effective way of managing stress and bolstering mental health. Humans derive both psychological and physiological benefits from accessing nature, including reductions in overall stress levels (Fan et al., 2008; Antonelli et al., 2019; Hunter et al., 2019); anxiety (Bratman et al., 2015); rumination (Bratman et al., 2012); and depression (Frumkin et al., 2017; Kondo et al., 2018).

However, despite the myriad benefits of time outdoors and in nature, not all populations have easy access to natural outdoor environments either at or near their home. Certain populations, including older adults and racial and ethnic minorities, lack the ability to easily access natural environments at or near home, or feel safe and welcomed in these settings (Rowland-Shea et al., 2020; Lockhart et al., 2021). Young people of color face a complex matrix of external, socioeconomic, and psychological barriers that limit their engagement with nature. Barriers to access involve factors such as work schedules or home responsibilities that preclude them from carving out time to spend in nature, or lack of access to natural outdoor environments with amenities that support their interests and are clean and well-maintained (Ibes et al., 2021). If time in nature is to be considered as a tool to support mental health and wellbeing in a systematic and equitable way, understanding barriers to access is key, as access is associated with the quality or frequency of outdoor experiences (Ibes et al., 2021).

There is mounting evidence that job-related stress is particularly acute among staff members of colleges and universities. University employees, including general and academic staff, report that work is a significant cause of stress in their lives (Gillespie et al., 2001; Kinman and Wray, 2013). University staff indicate that their level of stress is high or very high, and many experience levels of stress they find unacceptable (Kinman and Wray, 2013). Further, university employees report that job-related stress has had a deleterious impact on their professional work and personal welfare (Gillespie et al., 2001; Hogan et al., 2002). During COVID-19, university staff reported emergent challenges due to COVID-related social isolation: lack of personal interactions, lack of motivation, and anxiety, boredom and loneliness (Leal Filho et al., 2021). Even as COVID-19 restrictions are lifted, some university staff may continue to work remotely (Ellis, 2021).

As COVID-19 emerged, university staff in NYS were classified into essential or non-essential groups, and the work environment changed dramatically. This already highly stressed population faced new and variable stressors, depending on their living context. We anticipated that this drastic change would influence people differently, that new work expectations or locations might influence actions, and that different or new coping mechanisms may have been utilized to manage stress or uncertainty. In short, we hypothesized that during the pandemic, some people would be spending more time outdoors (as compared to pre-pandemic), and that they would be doing so to achieve some of the well-documented benefits: managing stress and bolstering mental health and wellbeing. Specifically, we sought to explore the degree to which staff were spending time in natural outdoor environments (NOEs) during the pandemic, and for what purpose. We also sought to determine whether and how their nature-based routines changed as a result of the emergence of COVID-19. We further hypothesized that some staff would experience barriers to spending time in NOEs, potentially limiting their ability to experience these beneficial effects.

To test our hypotheses, we engaged staff at a large university in New York state NYS. We specifically sought to explore (1) how much time staff spent outdoors during COVID-19 (as measured in Fall 2020), and if that differed from routines pre-COVID-19 (Fall 2019) or soon after COVID-19 emerged (Spring 2020); (2) what types of NOEs were used by staff during the pandemic vs. pre-COVID-19; (3) what types of outdoor activities staff engaged in and how that changed during COVID-19; and (4) motivations for spending time outdoors before and since the pandemic emerged. To better understand variations in or barriers to time outdoors, we explored differences in staff access to various types of NOEs, as well as in their home setting, work location, and race.

By understanding whether time outdoors in nature has been an intentional and valuable strategy for improved mental health during the pandemic, we hope to be able to raise awareness among employers, such as universities, about the benefits of facilitating time outdoors in nature among their employees, and the barriers which may need to be addressed to do so.

A total of 507 valid surveys were collected from staff members (see Table 1). At the time of data collection in December 2020, 50% of respondents were still working fully remotely from home, 38% were splitting their time in some way between home and campus, and only 11% were working fully from campus (see Table 1). The participant sample was largely comprised of staff who identify as female (82%, compared to 57% of all university staff) and White (78%, compared to 85% of all staff). Just over half (54%) of participants were salaried employees, and 43% were hourly employees. Roughly one-third of participants came from each urban (32%), suburban/small town (41%), and rural home community settings (27%). The vast majority (95%) were living with others in their household at the time of the study.

On average, respondents spent substantial time outdoors during the Fall of 2020; 88% reported spending time outdoors on two or more days per week on average, and 62% typically spent time outdoors on four or more days per week (see Table 2). Over 80% of respondents spent at least 30 min outdoors each day they were out; 98% reported spending at least 15 min outdoors on each day they spent time outdoors. While these proportions are high, almost half (47%) of respondents indicated that they spent even more time outdoors in the early days of the pandemic in Spring 2020 when the campus was largely closed and most respondents were working remotely. Reasons for this difference given by respondents included: the better weather conditions and increased daylight in the Spring compared to late Fall; the increased free time in their schedule because of reduced social activities (consequences of early pandemic lockdowns) and commuting time, and in some cases, lighter workloads; the need to get outdoors for exercise; and having a mental reset or a safe way to socialize with others. However, a portion of respondents (16%) spent less time outdoors early in the pandemic, citing ongoing fears associated with limited understanding of COVID-19 transmission, the lack of companions to spend time with outdoors, and limited access to nature.

While 40% of respondents indicated that they spent more time outdoors in Fall 2020 than same time the previous year before the pandemic emerged (Fall 2019), 34% of respondents spent less time outdoors than in Fall 2019. Respondents who were spending more time outdoors in Fall 2020 cited increased free time due to reduced commuting time or job changes or loss, as well as increased need for and appreciation of being outdoors in nature to support their mental health. Reasons for spending less time outdoors since the pandemic emerged included increased workload since the onset of COVID-19, avoiding crowds or other people due to ongoing fears around the virus, and mental health struggles which made it more difficult for some respondents to leave their homes.

Patterns in time outdoors also varied significantly depending on type of home community or home setting (see Table 2). Respondents living in rural and suburban/small town settings were more likely to spend at least 30 min outdoors each day out than respondents living in more urbanized areas (p = 0.014), but there were no significant differences by home setting in the proportion who spent four or more days outdoors per week. Furthermore, time spent outdoors did not vary significantly for respondents working remotely versus those working on campus, or among those living on their own versus with others, or between White and non-White respondents.

There were no significant differences across any of the subgrouping examined for the time spent outdoors Fall 2020 versus Spring 2020 (see Table 2), suggesting similar changes in use across subgroups since the pandemic emerged. However, significantly more rural dwelling respondents (55%) indicated their time outdoors had increased when comparing Fall 2020 to the previous Fall season (2019) than either suburban/small town (32%) or urban (36%) colleagues (p = 0.009).

The most common outdoor activities both before and since the pandemic emerged were lower intensity activities (91%) such as walking, gardening, birdwatching or fishing, and these levels were stable over time both between and within participants (see Table 3). Approximately half of participants engaged in higher intensity activities, such as running, biking, rock climbing or kayaking, both before (52%) and since (48%) COVID-19 emerged; however, there was a significant decrease in such activities across all participants (p = 0.028) since the pandemic began. Not surprisingly due to COVID-19-related restrictions, engagement in social activities (e.g., gathering or dining with others) significantly dropped since COVID-19 emerged (p < 0.001). Restorative activities outdoors, however, such as resting, reading, or meditating significantly increased over pre-pandemic levels across all participants (p < 0.001). Changes across all participants were mirrored by activity changes within individuals as well. There was a significant increase in restorative activities outdoors (p < 0.001) and decreases in both social activities (p < 0.001) and higher intensity (p = 0.05) since the onset of COVID-19. Overall, there was a significant decrease in the average number of different types of outdoor activities in which respondents engaged (p < 0.001) from 2.63 (SD = 1.05) to 2.42 (SD = 1.05).

Participants reported regularly using an average of 4.93 (SD = 2.26) different types of NOEs before the pandemic emerged (see Table 4). The most common spaces used pre-pandemic were NOEs at home: private or shared yards (85%) and decks, balconies or patios (76%). The most common public NOEs were nature/hiking trails (71%), rivers, streams, canals or waterfalls (61%), and public parks, gardens or orchards (56%). Across participants, use levels generally remained stable after the pandemic emerged, with no significant changes. Within subject changes mirrored those found across the participant sample. Individual respondents’ use of for each type of NOE also remained quite stable. The average total of different types of NOEs used decreased slightly to 4.65 (SD = 2.29; p = 0.04) from pre-COVID-19 levels (4.76; SD = 2.29) but the difference was not significant.

Considering differences in NOE use, patterns again differed across some respondent subgroups (see Table 5). Rural dwellers reported higher usage of private or shared yards than their suburban/small town and urban colleagues both before (p < 0.001) and since (p = 0.031) COVID-19 emerged, and urban respondents reported significantly higher use of public parks, gardens or orchards as well as rivers, streams, canals or waterfall areas both before (p < 0.001) and since (p < 0.001) the beginning of the pandemic. The usage of botanic gardens, arboreta and nature centers remained stable among urban respondents, but decreased among both rural and suburban/small town dwellers from pre-COVID-19 levels. The average number of different NOEs used by rural and suburban/small town respondents decreased slightly since COVID-19 emerged, but otherwise there were no significant differences in the average total number of NOEs used before or after COVID-19 emerged based on the type of home setting.

There were also no significant differences in the use of each type of NOE nor the average number of NOEs used across respondent groups working remotely versus on-campus or some hybrid of the two. However, the average number of different NOEs used by both remote on-campus respondents decreased slightly since the emergence of the pandemic. Only a small proportion of respondents reported living alone at the time of the survey, but those who did used private or shared yards much less than those with others in their household both before (p = 0.022) and since the pandemic (p = 0.033). Those living alone also generally reported less time on average in each NOE type than their colleagues with others in their households, but the mean number of NOEs used increased slightly since the onset of COVID-19 (3.79 (SD = 3.05) to 3.96 (SD = 3.11), partially closing the gap in use compared to colleagues living with others.

Respondents identifying as White used NOEs at home (e.g., private or shared yards, decks, balconies) significantly more than non-White respondents both before (p < 0.001) and since (p < 0.001) the pandemic (see Table 5). While both groups showed an overall slight decrease in the average number of NOEs used since the pandemic, each group’s levels of use for each type of NOE remained fairly stable. The exception was that non-White respondents decreased their use of nature/hiking trails since COVID-19 emerged, making their use of this NOE significantly less than White respondents (p = 0.035). White respondents used a greater diversity of NOEs on average than non-White respondents both before and since the pandemic, but this gap increased to a significant level (p = 0.035) with the onset of COVID-19.

Before COVID-19 emerged, a high proportion of respondents indicated they spent time outdoors for exercise or to improve their physical health (86%), for fun or recreation (85%), and for stress relief or improved mental health (78%) (see Table 6). The average number of different reasons for spending time outdoors did not significantly change once the pandemic emerged, however, there was a significant increase in the overall number of respondents choosing to spend time outdoors to support their mental health (87%; p < 0.001). Spending time outdoors to socialize with friends and for fun or recreation also decreased since the pandemic, but these differences were not significant. These trends were also reflected in changes within individuals: more respondents reported choosing to spend time outdoors for improved mental health since the onset of COVID-19, and fewer chose to spend time outdoors for fun or to socialize with friends.

Several factors appeared to impact the amount of time respondents spent outdoors since the emergence of the pandemic as well as respondents use of NOEs. Respondents who indicated they generally experience more positive feelings after spending time outdoors were significantly more likely to spend more time outdoors per week (p < 0.001; 95% CI: 0.04–0.22) and for longer durations on each outing (p < 0.001; 95% CI: 0.12–0.29). Similarly, positive feelings after time outdoors were correlated with respondents’ use of NOEs both before (p < 0.001; 95% CI: 0.07–0.24) and since (p < 0.001; 95% CI: 0.03–0.21) COVID-19 emerged (see Table 7).

When asked about the NOEs which were accessible to them both at and near their home (within a 10 min walk of home), respondents with higher quantity of NOEs for both at (p < 0.001; 95% CI: 0.15–0.32) and near home (p < 0.001, 95% CI: 0.14–0.31) were more likely to spend time outdoors on four or more days per week. Similarly, those with higher diversity of NOEs nearby (i.e., 3 or more different types of NOEs within a 10 min walk of home) were also significantly more likely to spend time outdoors on four or more days per week (p < 0.001, 95% CI: 0.11–0.28), but were also more likely to spend more than 30 min outdoors each outing (p = 0.006; 95% CI: 0.04–0.21). Access to and diversity of NOEs both at and near home were also highly correlated with use of NOEs both before and since the pandemic emerged (see Table 7).

The total number of barriers to accessing nature was also highly correlated with time outdoors and use of NOEs. The more barriers to accessing natural outdoor environments near home reported by respondents, the lower the time spent outdoors in both frequency (p < 0.001; 95% CI: −0.32 to −0.15) and duration (p = 0.001; 95% CI: −0.23 to −0.06). The number of perceived barriers to accessing natural environments from home also influenced use of NOEs before the pandemic (p = 0.023; 95% CI: −0.19 to −0.01) but not since (p = 0.36).

The majority of respondents reported high access to NOEs at home via a private or shared yard (91%), or a private or shared deck, balcony or patio (80%) (see Table 8). For NOEs near home (within a 10-min walk), respondents could access an average of 2.92 (out of 7 options; SD = 1.69) different types of NOEs and 60% of all respondents reported nearby access to at least three different types of NOEs. Sixty percent or more reported easy access to public parks, nature trails, and rivers or streams.

There were significant differences in access to NOEs both at and near home by respondents living in different community settings. Fewer urban respondents reported having access to private or shared yards at home (p < 0.001) than respondents living in either rural or suburban/small town areas. Rural respondents reported significantly more access to NOEs such as woodlands (p < 0.001) and lakes, ponds or beaches (p = 0.008). Urban dwelling respondents reported significantly more access to public parks or gardens (p < 0.001) than suburban/small town and rural respondents.

The only significant difference in access to different types of NOEs by racial groups was the availability of outdoor spaces at home; non-White respondents reported significantly less access to private or shared yards than White respondents (p < 0.001), as well as water features such as rivers, streams, canals or waterfalls (p = 0.04). There were no significant differences between racial groups in the total number or diversity of NOEs near home.

When asked what features or conditions prevent or limit participants’ ability to spend time outdoors in nature when at home, including when working from home, respondents reported an average of 1.11 total barriers (SD = 0.97) (see Table 9). By far the most commonly cited barrier by all respondents was lack of time (51%), followed by having no one with whom to spend time outdoors (14%) and unfavorable environmental conditions (14%). A portion of respondents (7.7%) felt that NOEs near to their home felt unsafe or unwelcoming. When considering differences in barriers experienced across different respondent subgroups, there were no significant differences in the types of barriers experienced across different home settings. Urban dwelling respondents reported more total barriers on average than either rural or suburban/small town respondents, but these differences were not significant. Respondents with others living in their household reported a much higher average number of barriers to accessing natural environments (p < 0.001), and were more likely to report a lack of time (p < 0.001) as a barrier to spending time outdoors. Across racial subgroups, more non-White respondents reported that they do not have easy access to natural outdoor environments and that nearby NOEs feel unsafe or unwelcoming, but these differences were not significant. There was little differences in the total number of barriers reported across racial groups.

The authors recognize a number of limitations related to this study. First, the number of survey respondents (507) represents a relatively small sample from a single institution. This might limit external generalizability. Second, the sample represents a small proportion of all invited to respond (7% of people on the newsletter distribution list). The sample represents a higher-than expected proportion of female respondents, when compared to the overall staff population. Furthermore, individuals who responded to the survey self-selected to participate, and may be biased toward physical activity and time outdoors, as the survey invitation was distributed via a wellness newsletter. Also to note is that while the proportion of non-White staff respondents was higher than the total percentage of non-White staff at this university, we should be cautious of generalizing actions and attitudes of non-White staff members based on the small sample, particularly as analysis required the clustering of all non-White staff members, which in turn may cloak differences in behaviors and perceptions across different racial or ethnic groups. These issues may therefore reduce the applicability of findings to the full staff community. Finally, the survey looked to measure change, but was only administered at one time point (November–December 2020), and respondents were asked to compare current actions and activities to those months (April–July 2020) and a year (Fall 2020) ago. Recall bias might have influenced the results.

It is also important to note that while we were interested in the use of time in nature to manage stress and mental health, we intentionally avoided asking direct questions to staff in the survey about their mental health. We judged that the greater sensitivity and invasiveness of such questions would lead to higher levels of discomfort and lack of privacy and would like result in lower response rates. This strategy precluded the analysis from directly correlating time outdoors with improved mental health. However, responses to several questions related to motivations for spending time in NOEs, and how staff felt after time outdoors, suggest that this would likely be the case. Future work could attempt to solicit these data in order to tie these outcomes more explicitly together.

The strong relationships between motivations for and feelings after spending in nature, and time spent outdoors in natural outdoor environments, suggests that facilitating time outdoors in nature among staff may result in both healthier workforces and workplaces. In a post-COVID era, we recommend that future research focus on the use of NOEs by staff at large institutions such as universities during regular work hours to examine impacts on staff health and performance. For example, do institutions with greater numbers of and more diverse NOEs see lower rates of job dissatisfaction, psychological problems, employee stress and burnout? Can the scheduling of employee breaks in green settings increase productivity or feelings of loyalty to the institution? Do staff members who increase their time in NOEs during the workday display changes to their overall environmental attitudes? Future research could also dig more deeply into the complexities of staff use and perceptions of nature and outdoor environments, and further unpack the diverse and nuanced barriers which can limit employees’ abilities to leverage time outdoors in nature as a coping and stress reduction strategy.

Based on this study, staff members did seek out and utilize NOEs during COVID-related lockdowns with greater frequency than before the pandemic. While the motivations varied by individual, overall respondents were more likely to seek out such sites for stress relief or recreation, and less for social contact or group gatherings. Improving access to green spaces on campus by providing flexibility with break time, increased promotion of their availability, or reduction of physical barriers, can benefit the well-being of staff members.

This study emphasizes that in examining the ability of employees to spend time in natural outdoor environments, we must also consider their unique social and environmental contexts. Factors including the type of community they live in, the people they live with, their work location, their motivations and their race can all impact the particular facilitators or barriers to experiencing natural outdoor environments.

While some university staff continue to work fully or partially from home, many are returning to campus-based work. Universities and other large-scale employers are therefore faced with a prime opportunity to not only improve the overall well-being of the staff, but to reduce disparities in well-being and access to nature among their employees. By working to both increase the availability of safe and supportive natural outdoor environments available on site, as well as identifying and working to overcome physical, social and environmental barriers to spending time outdoors faced by employees, universities and other employers could help to foster healthy, productive and more resilient workers and work environments during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.