2026年真题35

If I had the chance to spend more time outdoors, I would probably choose hiking on quiet nature trails and taking photographs. Hiking would give me exercise without feeling like formal training, and photography would make me slow down and notice details such as light, plants, and small changes in the landscape. What appeals to me is the combination of physical movement and deliberate attention; being outdoors would become a way to restore energy rather than simply fill free time.

When I am outdoors, I usually feel calmer and more awake than I do indoors. Indoors I often feel focused but a little boxed in, especially if I have been looking at screens for a long time. Outside, even a short walk can clear my head and make my mood feel lighter. The difference is not only physical; outdoor spaces give me psychological spaciousness, so my attention feels less compressed and more flexible.

Yes, I think avoiding nature can affect people’s health and well-being. If people stay indoors all the time, they may move less, get less sunlight, and feel more mentally tired. Nature is not a cure for every problem, but regular outdoor time can support better sleep, mood, and stress control. The main issue is that people lose a low-cost source of recovery; natural settings provide sensory variety and gentle movement that many indoor routines do not provide.

I think basic outdoor spaces should be free for everyone, especially public parks and simple walking areas. Access to nature supports health and community life, so it should not depend entirely on income. However, modest fees can be acceptable for special sites if the money is used transparently for maintenance, safety, and environmental protection. On balance, I would separate essential access from enhanced facilities: nature itself should remain broadly accessible, while carefully limited fees can help preserve fragile spaces.