Influence of passive versus active interaction with indoor plants on the restoration,behaviour and knowledge of students at a junior high school in Taiwan
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online July, 2018
Influence of passive versus active interaction with indoor plants on the restoration,behaviour and knowledge of students at a junior high school in Taiwan
A field experiment was conducted at a junior high school with 35 students to compare the influence of passive versus active interaction of occupants with indoor plants and the effect of distance from plants on the participants. The participants’ data on subjective perception and objective performance were collected every four weeks over a semester. The active interaction mode group (n = 18) was required to take care of the plants in the classroom and surrounding areas, while the passive interaction mode group (n = 17) was not. The results indicated that (1) the active interaction mode had significantly greater self-reported stress restoration than the passive interaction mode with acceptable statistical power; (2) self-reported plant knowledge seemed to increase over the semester with no definite trend; (3) both active and passive interaction with plants could significantly increase self-reported attention restoration with acceptable statistical power; and (4) the plants at different distances from participants’ seats did not have different effects on participants, though the statistical power of this finding was less than ideal.
Francis C and Cooper MC. Places people take their problems. In: 22nd Annual conference of the Environmental Design Research Association – EDRA22, Oaxtepec, Mexico, 12–15 March 1991. Oklahoma City, USA: EDRA, pp.178-184.
2.
LewisCAGardening as healing process. In: FrancisMHesterRT (eds). The meaning of gardens, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990.
3.
UNPD. World urbanization prospects: the 2012 revision, New York, NY: United Nations Department of Economic & Social Affairs, 2012.
4.
United State Department of Labor. American time use survey. USA: United State Department of Labor, http://www.bls.gov/tus/ (2006, 10 October 2006).
5.
World Health Organization. World health report, Geneva: World Health Organization, 2011.
6.
DesjarlaisREisenbergLGoodBKleinmanA. World mental health: problems and priorities in low-income countries, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1995.
7.
HanKT. Influence of limitedly visible leafy indoor plants on the psychology, behavior, and health of students at a junior high school in Taiwan. Environ Behav2009; 41: 658–692.
8.
TennessenCMCimprichB. View to nature: effects on attention. J Environ Psychol1995; 15: 77–85.
9.
GillockKLReyesO. Stress, support, and academic performance of urban, low-income, Mexican-American adolescents. J Youth Adolesc1999; 28: 259–282.
10.
GrannisJC. Students’ stress, distress, and achievement in an urban inter-mediate school. J Early Adolesc1992; 12: 4–27.
11.
DemarayMKJenkinsLN. Relations among academic enablers andacademic achievement in children with and without high levels of parent-rated symptoms of inattention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity. Psychol Sch2011; 48: 573–586.
12.
RapportMDScanlanSWDenneyCB. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and scholastic achievement: a model of dual developmental pathways. J Child Psychol Psychiatry1999; 40: 1169–1183.
13.
UlrichRSParsonsRInfluences of passive experiences with plants on individual well-being and health. In: ReltP (ed). The role of horticultural in human well-being and social development, Portland, OR: Timber Press, 1992.
14.
HanKT. Restorative nature: an overview of the positive influences on natural landscapes on humans, Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishing, 2011.
15.
JiangBLarsenLDealBSullivanWC. A dose-response curve describing the relationship between tree cover density and landscape preference. Landsc Urban Plan2015; 139: 16–25.
16.
JiangBLiDLarsenLSullivanWC. A dose-response curve describing the relationship between urban tree cover density and self-reported stress recovery. Environ Behav2016; 48: 607–629.
17.
MatsuokaRH. Student performance and high school landscapes: examining the links. Landsc Urban Plan2010; 97: 273–282.
18.
DwyerJFSchroederHWGobsterPH. The significance of urban trees and forests: toward a deeper understanding of values. J Arboricult1991; 17: 276–284.
19.
SmardonRC. Perception and aesthetics of the urban environments: review of the role of vegetation. Landsc Urban Plan1998; 15: 85–106.
20.
BringslimarkTHartigTPatilG. The psychological benefits of indoor plants: a critical review of the experimental literature. J Environ Psychol2009; 29: 422–433.
21.
DravigneAWaliczekTMLinebergerRDZajicekJM. The effect of live plants and window views of green spaces on employee perceptions of job satisfaction. HortScience2008; 43: 183–187.
22.
MaasJVerheijRA. Are health benefits of physical activity in natural environments used in primary care by general practitioners in The Netherlands?Urban Urban Green2007; 6: 227–233.
23.
EtnierJLSalazarWLandersDM. The influence of physical fitness and exercise upon cognitive functioning: a meta-analysis. J Sport Exerc Psychol1997; 9: 249–277.
24.
LewisC. The evolution of horticulture therapy in the US. In: Fourth annual meeting of the national council for therapy and rehabilitation through horticultural, Philadelphia, PA: American Horticultural Therapy Association, Seattle, 6 September 1976. .
25.
Davis S. Ninth annual congressional initiatives award ceremonies. Senate Russell Office Building, WashingtonUSA, 19 April 1994.
26.
HewsonML. Horticultural as therapy: a practical guide to using horticultural as a therapeutic tool, Ontario, Canada: Greenmor, 1994.
GuoYR. Healing landscape and horticultural therapy, Taipei: Chan’s Arch-Publishing, 2005.
29.
PrettyJPeacockJSellensMGriffinM. The mental and physical health outcomes of green exercise. Int J Environ Health Res2005; 15: 319–337.
30.
PrettyJ. How nature contributes to mental and physical health. Spiritual Health Int2004; 5: 68–78.
31.
RelfPDLohrVI. Human issues in horticultural. HortScience2003; 38: 984–993.
32.
KaplanRKaplanS. The experience of nature: a psychological perspective, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
33.
UlrichRSAesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In: AltmanIWohlwillIJF (eds). Behavior and natural environments, New York, NY: Plenum Press, 1983.
34.
HartigTMangMEvansGW. Restorative effects of natural environment experiences. Environ Behav1991; 23: 3–26.
35.
HungMFChangCY. The effect of plantings on preschool children’s attention in the classroom. J Chin Soc Horticult Sci2005; 51: 199–208.
36.
FjeldT. The effect of interior planting on health and discomfort among workers and school children. HortTechnol2000; 10: 46–52.
37.
HungCYHanKT. Effect of classroom greenness on students’ psycho-physiology, performance, and health at the Shin-Kuang Junior High School, Taichung County. Scient Agric2010; 58: 89–106.
38.
HanKTHungCY. Influences of plants and their visibility, distance, and surrogate in a classroom on students’ psycho-physiology. J Architect Plan2011; 12: 1–22.
39.
ShibataSSuzukiN. Effects of the foliage plant on task performance and mood. J Environ Psychol2002; 22: 265–272.
LiuMKimEMattsonRH. Physiological and emotional influences of cut flower arrangements and lavender fragrance on university students. J Therapeut Horticult2003; 14: 18–27.
42.
ShibataSSuzukiN. Effects of an indoor plant on creative task performance and mood. Scand J Psychol2004; 45: 373–381.
43.
DoxeyJSWaliczekTMZajicekJM. The impact of interior plants in university classrooms on student course performance and on student perceptions of the course and instructor. HortSci2009; 44: 384–391.
44.
LohrVIPearson-MimsCHGoodwinGK. Interior plants may improve worker productivity and reduce stress in a windowless environment. J Environ Hortic1996; 14: 97–100.
45.
LarsonLAdamsJDealBKweonBSTylerE. Plants in the workplace: the effects of plant density on productivity, attitudes, and perceptions. Environ Behav1998; 30: 261–281.
46.
AdachiMRohdeCLEKendleAD. Effects of floral and foliage displays on human emotions. HorTechnol2000; 10: 59–63.
47.
BlairD. The child in the gardens: an evaluative review of the benefits of school gardening. J Environ Educ2009; 40: 15–38.
48.
LinebergerSEZajicekJM. School gardens: can a hands-on teaching tool affect students’ attitudes and behaviors regarding fruits and vegetables?HortTechnol2000; 10: 593–597.
49.
MorrisJLZidenberg-CherrS. Garden-enhanced nutrition curriculum improves fourth-grade school children’s knowledge of nutrition and preferences for some vegetables. J Am Diet Assoc2002; 102: 91–93.
50.
McAleeseJDRankinLL. Garden based nutrition education affects fruit and vegetable consumption in sixth grade adolescents. J Am Diet Assoc2007; 107: 662–665.
51.
DirksAEOrvisK. An evaluation of the junior master gardener program in third grade classrooms. HortTechnol2005; 15: 443–447.
52.
KlemmerCDWaliczekTMZajicekJM. Growing minds: the effect of a school gardening program on the science achievement of elementary students. HortTechnol2005; 15: 448–452.
53.
SmithLLMotsenbockerCE. Impact of hands-on science through school gardening in Louisiana public elementary schools. HortTechnol2005; 15: 439–443.
54.
DanforthPEWaliczekTMMaceySMZajicekJM. The effect of the National Wildlife Federation’s Schoolyard Habitat Program on fourth-grade students’ standardized test scores. HortTechnol2008; 18: 356–360.
55.
CookTDCampbellDT. Quasi-experimentation: design & analysis issues for field settings, Boston, MA: Hougton Mifflin, 1979.
56.
SpielbergerCDGorsuchRLVaggPRJacbosGA. Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory, Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1983.
57.
KaplanR. The nature of the view from home: psychological benefits. Environ Behav2001; 33: 507–542.
58.
HanKT. A reliable and valid self-rating measure of the restorative quality of natural environments. Landsc Urban Plan2003; 64: 209–232.
59.
LaumannKGarlingTStormarkKM. Ratting scale measures of restorative components of environments. J Environ Psychol2001; 21: 31–44.
60.
HanKTHungCY. Influences of physical interactions and visual contacts with plants on students’ psycho-physiology, behaviors, academic performance, and health. Scient Agric2012; 59: 195–210.
61.
NeumanWL. Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches, Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon, 2006.
62.
QinJZhouXSunCLengHLianZ. Influence of green spaces on environmental satisfaction and physiological status of urban residents. Urban Urban Green2013; 12: 490–497.
63.
QinJSunCZhouXLengHLianZ. The effect of indoor plants on human comfort. Indoor Built Environ2014; 23: 709–723.
64.
GeorgeDMalleryP. SPSS for Windows step by step: a simple guide and reference. 11.0 update, 4th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 2003.
MayrSErdfelderEBuchnerAFaulF. A short tutorial of GPower. Tutor Quant Meth Psychol2007; 3: 51–59.
67.
LanLLianZ. Application of statistical power analysis-how to determine the right sample size in human health, comfort and productivity research. Build Environ2009; 45: 1202–1213.
68.
Van den BergAECustersMHG. Gardening promotes neuroendocrine and affective restoration from stress. J Health Psychol2016; 16: 3–11.
69.
ParkSALeeHSLeeKWSonKCShoemakerCA. The metabolic costs of gardening tasks in children. HortTechnol2013; 23: 589–594.
70.
DijkstraKPieterseMPruynA. Stress-reducing role of perceived attractiveness. Prev Med2008; 47: 279–283.
71.
ParsonsH. What happened at Hawthorne?Science1974; 183: 922–932.
