This study investigated students’ attitudes towards the use of outdoor open space in universities, identifying the most comfortable conditions and favourable factors, including urban layout, physical features, and outdoor thermal conditions, as well as the students’ needs and behaviour. A quasi-experiment was used to assess the quality of the outdoor spaces. Three outdoor open spaces on the university’s campus were used for the case study. A spatial analysis employing space syntax was used to determine the integration, agent, and connection factors. For the microclimate conditions, simulations were conducted. The students’ actions were recorded, and a questionnaire concerning their preferences was disseminated. According to the respondents, the key advantages of campus open spaces are that they provide places in which to socialise and rest and to pass by. The data revealed a correlation between microclimate conditions and the use of outdoor spaces. However, the students use outdoor venues even in unfavourable microclimates. The visual factor and spatial configuration of the site have a significant impact on the use of open spaces; hence, visibility is an important feature in campus layouts. This study established a baseline of data to integrate social and contextual factors for the creation of meaningful spaces in universities.

Responding to the events surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, this study explores how to improve health and wellbeing and reduce infections in outdoor open spaces on university campuses to maximize their potential as a response to future crises. The study identifies the relationship between human behavior (social) and the various physical and environmental elements of these spaces. A case study and mixed-methods approach were undertaken, comprising four modes of inspection: user analysis layer using questionnaires and observations to survey students’ needs and behavior; context analysis layer using space syntax and CFD to examine the space’s physical and environmental conditions; design solutions reflecting an understanding of virus transmission; and a performance analysis layer to test the performance of ‘anti-virus’ courtyards. The findings demonstrated that students are willing to use the open spaces that they used before the pandemic, at the same frequency. This indicates a need to redesign the current spaces to prevent the spread of viruses. The study highlights the social, physical, and environmental implications to be considered in designs for outdoor anti-virus spaces. It provides a comprehensive process for transforming outdoor spaces on university campuses into anti-virus spaces that meet users’ needs. These findings have implications for the designing and retrofitting of open spaces to reduce infection.

In classrooms, several variables may affect students’ thermal comfort, and hence health, well-being, and learning performance. In particular, the type of learning activity may play a role in students’ thermal comfort. However, most of the previous research has mainly investigated the thermal comfort of students in ordinary classrooms, while less attention has been paid to students’ thermal comfort in classrooms with particular learning activities, such as architecture design studios, where students spend a long time and perform learning activities with high metabolic rates. For this purpose, we compared the thermal comfort and perceived learning performance of students majoring in architecture (n = 173) between two types of university halls, namely, design studios and typical lecture rooms (N = 15). We applied the classroom–comfort–data method, which included collecting physical, physiological, and psychological data from students and classrooms. Data were collected during the heating season (November 2021–January 2022) in a university building in Jordan. We conducted continuous monitoring combined with periodic measures for indoor temperature, relative humidity, mean radiant temperature, and air speed. Questionnaires, focus groups, and observations were also used to collect subjective data from students. The results showed statistically significant differences (Δμ = 3.1 °C, p < 0.01, d = 0.61) in indoor temperature between design studios and lecture rooms. Only 58% of students’ votes were within the ASHRAE 55-2107 recommended comfort zone. In design studios, 53% of students felt warm compared to 58.8% of students who had a cold sensation in lecture rooms. Students perceived themselves as more productive when they felt cooler. Our research’s significance lies in its injunction that there must be a special thermal comfort guide for educational buildings that are adapted to the local environment and functions of the spaces, cooperatively.