Examining the restorative effects of indoor nature exposure that can be controlled through management and design in work settings is crucial for public health. However, concerns about the external validity of existing findings persist due to insufficiency of studies with ecologically sound experimental designs.
Objective
Through an experiment that prioritized higher ecological validity, this study aimed to explore the effects of working in an office room vegetated with green plants on employees’ physiological and psychological well-being, and their attentional performance.
Methods
This controlled experimental study employed a crossover design in real-life work environments, involving 40 working individuals. It assessed changes in perceived fatigue, psychological and physiological stress, and attentional performance after individual work in either a vegetated or plant-free office room, with other environmental factors kept constant.
Results
After an hour of individual work in a vegetated room, participants reported decreased perceived stress and fatigue, supported by changes in measures of systolic blood pressure and heart rates when compared to a plant-free room. Gender differences emerged, with females experiencing greater relief in perceived stress and males showing more noticeable reductions in stress-related physiological indicators. Enhanced attentional reactions were noted solely among males.
Conclusions
This study accentuated the immediate emotional well-being benefits of indoor plants at work, highlighting the importance of considering diverse user groups in indoor workspace design. It also proposes potential explanations for how indoor plants induce restorative effects on working individuals, suggesting further research.
BratmanGNAndersonCBBermanMG, et al.Nature and mental health: An ecosystem service perspective. Sci Adv2019; 5: eaax0903.
2.
StigsdotterUKZhangGGramkowMC, et al.Viewpoint on what may be considered as evidence and how to obtain it when designing health-promoting and inclusive green spaces. Int J Arch Res2024; 18: 156–171.
3.
UlrichRS. Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In: Behavior and the natural environment. Boston, MA: Springer, 1983, pp.85–125.
4.
UlrichRS. Visual landscapes and psychological well-being. Landsc Res1979; 4: 17–23.
5.
FaceyADTallentireVSelzerRM, et al.Understanding and reducing work-related psychological distress in interns: a systematic review. Intern Med J2015; 45: 995–1004.
6.
KaplanRKaplanS. The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. NewYork: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
7.
KaplanS. The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework. J Environ Psychol1995; 15: 169–182.
8.
KaplanSBermanMG. Directed attention as a common resource for executive functioning and self-regulation. Perspect Psychol Sci2010; 5: 43–57.
9.
HaghlesanMAshrafianTFerdosNM. How does indoor environmental quality affect public health in sustainable urban. Res J Chem Environ Sci2013; 1: 37–41.
10.
UlrichRS. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science (1979)1984; 224: 420–421.
11.
KahnPHFriedmanBGillB, et al.A plasma display window?—the shifting baseline problem in a technologically mediated natural world. J Environ Psychol2008; 28: 192–199.
12.
GilchristKBrownCMontarzinoA. Workplace settings and wellbeing: greenspace use and views contribute to employee wellbeing at peri-urban business sites. Landsc Urban Plan2015; 138: 32–40.
13.
ChangC-YChenP-K. Human response to window views and indoor plants in the workplace. HortScience2005; 40: 1354–1359.
14.
YinJYuanJArfaeiN, et al.Effects of biophilic indoor environment on stress and anxiety recovery: a between-subjects experiment in virtual reality. Environ Int2020; 136: 105427.
15.
HartigTEvansGWJamnerLD, et al.Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. J Environ Psychol2003; 23: 109–123.
16.
ChungWKLinMChauCK, et al.On the study of the psychological effects of blocked views on dwellers in high dense urban environments. Landsc Urban Plan2022; 221: 104379.
17.
HanK-T. Influence of passive versus active interaction with indoor plants on the restoration, behaviour and knowledge of students at a junior high school in Taiwan. Indoor Built Environ2017; 27: 818–830.
18.
ShibataSSuzukiN. Effects of the foliage plant on task performance and mood. J Environ Psychol2002; 22: 265–272.
19.
RheeJHSchermerBLeeKH. Effects of indoor nature density and sex differences on working memory. Curr Psychol2024; 43: 1–14.
RaanaasRKEvensenKHRichD, et al.Benefits of indoor plants on attention capacity in an office setting. J Environ Psychol2011; 31: 99–105.
22.
LohrVIPearson-MimsCHGoodwinGK. Interior plants may improve worker productivity and reduce stress in a windowless environment. J Environ Hortic1996; 14: 97–100.
23.
BringslimarkTHartigTPatilGG. The psychological benefits of indoor plants: a critical review of the experimental literature. J Environ Psychol2009; 29: 422–433.
24.
MoskaliukJBurmeisterCPLandkammerF, et al.Environmental effects on cognition and decision making of knowledge workers. J Environ Psychol2017; 49: 43–54.
25.
AdachiMRohdeCLEKendleAD. Effects of floral and foliage displays on human emotions. HortTechnology2000; 10: 59–63.
26.
SevenantMAntropM. Landscape representation validity: a comparison between on-site observations and photographs with different angles of view. Landsc Res2011; 36: 363–385.
27.
KotabeHPKardanOBermanMG. The nature-disorder paradox: a perceptual study on how nature is disorderly yet aesthetically preferred. J Exp Psychol Gen2017; 146: 1126–1142.
28.
LarsenLAdamsJDealB, et al.Plants in the workplace: the effects of plant density on productivity, attitudes, and perceptions. Environ Behav1998; 30: 261–281.
29.
JangHSKimJKimKS, et al.Human brain activity and emotional responses to plant color stimuli. Color Res Appl2014; 39: 307–316.
30.
BermanMCardenas-IniguezCMeidenbauerK. An environmental neuroscience perspective on the benefits of nature. In: SchutteATorquatiJStevensJ (eds) Nature and psychology: biological, cognitive, developmental, and social pathways to well-being. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021, pp.61–88.
31.
NieuwenhuisMKnightCPostmesT, et al.The relative benefits of green versus lean office space: three field experiments. J Exp Psychol Appl2014; 20: 199–214.
32.
ThatcherAAdamsonKBlochL, et al.Do indoor plants improve performance and well-being in offices? Divergent results from laboratory and field studies. J Environ Psychol2020; 71: 101487.
33.
HähnNEssahEBlanusaT. Biophilic design and office planting: a case study of effects on perceived health, well-being and performance metrics in the workplace. Intell Build Int2021; 13: 241–260.
34.
SilvaRARogersKBuckleyTJ. Advancing environmental epidemiology to assess the beneficial influence of the natural environment on human health and well-being. Environ Sci Technol2018; 52: 9545–9555.
35.
MarkevychISchoiererJHartigT, et al.Exploring pathways linking greenspace to health: theoretical and methodological guidance. Environ Res2017; 158: 301–317.
36.
YinJZhuSMacNaughtonP, et al.Physiological and cognitive performance of exposure to biophilic indoor environment. Build Environ2018; 132: 255–262.
37.
BrownDKBartonJLGladwellVF. Viewing nature scenes positively affects recovery of autonomic function following acute-mental stress. Environ Sci Technol2013; 47: 5562–5569.
38.
ChalderTBerelowitzGPawlikowskaT, et al.Development of a fatigue scale. J Psychosom Res1993; 37: 147–153.
39.
CohenSKamarckTPMermelsteinR. A global measure of perceived stress. J Health Soc Behav1983; 24: 385–396.
40.
BerntsonGGQuigleyKSLozanoD. Cardiovascular psychophysiology. In: CacioppoJTassinaryLBerntsonG (eds) Handbook of psychophysiology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017, pp.183–216.
41.
Electrophysiology TF of the ES of C the NAS of P. Heart rate variability: standards of measurement, physiological interpretation, and clinical use. Circulation1996; 93: 1043–1065.
42.
Orsega-SmithEMowenAJPayneLL, et al.The interaction of stress and park use on psycho-physiological health in older adults. J Leis Res2004; 36: 232–256.
43.
HollwichF. The influence of ocular light perception on metabolism in man and in animal. New York: Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.
44.
BrandNHansonEGodaertG. Chronic stress affects blood pressure and speed of short-term memory. Percept Mot Skills2000; 91: 291–298.
45.
ThompsonCWRoeJAspinallP, et al.More green space is linked to less stress in deprived communities: evidence from salivary cortisol patterns. Landsc Urban Plan2012; 105: 221–229.
46.
HungS-HChangC-Y. Health benefits of evidence-based biophilic-designed environments: a review. J People Plants Environ2021; 24: 1–16.
47.
MacLeodCM. The Stroop task: the ‘gold standard’ of attentional measures. J Exp Psychol Gen1992; 121: 12–14.
48.
PeirceJMacAskillM. Building experiments in psychopy. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd, 2018.
49.
LeeKAHicksGNino-MurciaG. Validity and reliability of a scale to assess fatigue. Psychiatry Res1991; 36: 291–298.
LovalloWBuchananT. Stress hormones in psychophysiological research: emotional, behavioral, and cognitive implications. In: CacioppoJTassinaryLBerntsonG (eds) Handbook of psychophysiology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017, pp.465–494.
52.
BermanMGJonidesJKaplanS. The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychol Sci2008; 19: 1207–1212.
53.
BratmanGNHamiltonJPDailyGC. The impacts of nature experience on human cognitive function and mental health. Ann N Y Acad Sci2012; 1249: 118–136.
54.
BratmanGNDailyGCLevyBJ, et al.The benefits of nature experience: improved affect and cognition. Landsc Urban Plan2015; 138: 41–50.
55.
van den BogerdNDijkstraSCTanja-DijkstraK, et al.Greening the classroom: three field experiments on the effects of indoor nature on students’ attention, well-being, and perceived environmental quality. Build Environ2020; 171: 106675.
56.
EvensenKHRaanaasRKHagerhallCM, et al.Restorative elements at the computer workstation: a comparison of live plants and inanimate objects with and without window view. Environ Behav2015; 47: 288–303.
57.
Van den BogerdNDijkstraSCKooleSL, et al.Greening the room: a quasi-experimental study on the presence of potted plants in study rooms on mood, cognitive performance, and perceived environmental quality among university students. J Environ Psychol2021; 73: 101557.
58.
StoneNJIrvineJM. Direct or indirect window access, task type, and performance. J Environ Psychol1994; 14: 57–63.
59.
KorpelaKDe BloomJSianojaM, et al.Nature at home and at work: naturally good? Links between window views, indoor plants, outdoor activities and employee well-being over one year. Landsc Urban Plan2017; 160: 38–47.
60.
DegenhardtBFrickJBucheckerM, et al.Influences of personal, social, and environmental factors on workday use frequency of the nearby outdoor recreation areas by working people. Leis Sci2011; 33: 420–440.
61.
McsweeneyJRainhamDJohnsonSA, et al.Indoor nature exposure (INE): a health-promotion framework. Health Promot Int2015; 30: 126–139.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
