Indoor vertical greenery systems (iVGSs) are usually linked to drawbacks such as high initial investment and maintenance costs, and possible damage to buildings. Plants may attract insects and mosquitoes, and some release excessive pollen if indoors. Moss gardening might be an alternative solution because bryophytes are environment friendly in conserving water, controlling erosion, filtering hazardous chemicals and rainwater, and sequestering carbon. The aim of this study is to develop a Moss-iVGS design protocol by considering the characteristics of a Moss-iVGS prototype, foliage thickness, and the influence of lighting on moss cultivation in the tropics. A mixed approach combining experiments and a questionnaire survey was adopted. Results show that Moss-iVGS can withstand 45 days of drought without any water supply or regular maintenance. The moss was able to absorb moisture from humid air to maintain its survival. Moss is abundant in nature, easy to maintain, has high aesthetic value, and has numerous environmental benefits in the long run. Conventional VGS drawbacks could be possibly solved or mitigated by Moss-iVGS. Not limited to a pattern, Moss-iVGS could have various types of design such as moss tile and moss carpet for indoor use. Different species of moss could be tested in various indoor environments in a further study to assist commercialization.
PérezGComaJMartorellICabezaL.Vertical greenery systems (VGS) for energy saving in buildings: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2014;
39: 139–165.
2.
JimC.Greenwall classification and critical design-management assessments. Ecol Eng2015;
77: 348–362.
3.
TakácsZLichtenthalerHKTubaZ.Fluorescence emission spectra of desiccation-tolerant cryptogamic plants during a rehydration-desiccation cycle. J Plant Physiol2000;
156: 375–379.
4.
SafikhaniTAbdullahAOssenDBaharvandM.A review of energy characteristic of vertical greenery systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2014;
40: 450–462.
5.
MartinA.The magical world of moss gardening.
Portland, OR:
Timber Press, 2015.
6.
KempterHKrachlerMShotykWZacconeC.Major and trace elements in sphagnum moss from four southern German bogs, and comparison with available moss monitoring data. Ecol Indicators2017;
78: 19–25.
7.
UrosevicMAVukovićGJovanovićPVujičićMTomaševićM.Urban background of air pollution: evaluation through moss bag biomonitoring of trace elements in botanical garden. Urban For Urban Green2017;
25: 1–10.
8.
BoqueteMTAboalJRCarballeiraAFernándezJA.Do mosses exist outside of Europe? A biomonitoring reflection. Sci Total Environ2017;
593/594: 567–570.
9.
WattanavateeKKrmarMBhongsuwanT.A survey of natural terrestrial and airborne radionuclides in moss samples from the peninsular Thailand. J Environ Radioact2017;
177: 113–127.
10.
MesquitaCPBKnelmanJEKingAJFarrerECSudingKN.Plant colonization of moss-dominated soils in the alpine: microbial and biogeochemical implications. Soil Biol Biochem2017;
111: 135–142.
11.
DebenSFernándezJACarballeiraAAboalJR.Using devitalized moss for active biomonitoring of water pollution. Environ Pollut2016;
210: 315–322.
12.
DongYLiuXSunXSongWLiuC.Inter-species and intra-annual variations of moss nitrogen utilization: implications for nitrogen deposition assessment. Environ Pollut2017;
230: 506–515.
13.
FiketZMedunićGTurkMFIvanićMKniewaldG.Influence of soil characteristics on rare earth fingerprints in mosses and mushrooms: example of a pristine temperate rainforest in Slavonia, Croatia. Chemosphere2017;
179: 92–100.
14.
ShewekaSMMohamedNM.Green facades as a new sustainable approach towards climate change. Energy Procedia2012;
18: 507–520.
15.
KobayashiKDKaufmanAJGriffisJMcconnellJ.Using houseplants to clean indoor air.
Manoa:
Publisher of College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, 2007.
16.
KondoMToriyamaT.Experimental research on the effectiveness of using green in reducing of visual fatigue caused by VDT operation. J Jpn Inst Landscape Archit1989;
52: 139–144.
17.
DijkstraKPieterseMEPruynA.Stress-reducing effects of indoor plants in the built healthcare environment: the mediating role of perceived attractiveness. Prev Med2008;
47: 279–283.
18.
FjeldT. The effects of plants and artificial daylight on the well-being and health of office workers, school children and health-care personnel. In: International plants for people symposium, Floriade, Amsterdam, NL, June, Flower Council of Holland, NL, 2002.
19.
AlmusaedA.Biophilic and bioclimatic architecture.
Berlin:
Springer, 2011.
20.
SpagnuoloVFiglioliFDe NicolaFCapozziFGiordanoS.Tracking the route of phenanthrene uptake in mosses: an experimental trial. Sci Total Environ2017;
575: 1066–1073.
21.
SchmidRBrodoIMSharnoffSDSharnoffS.Lichens of North America. Brittonia2002;
54: 213–214.
22.
BernardGBuckWR.Systematics of the bryophyta (mosses): from molecules to a revised classification. Monogr Syst Bot2004;
98: 205–239.
23.
WongNJusufSWinAThuHNegaraTXuchaoW.Environmental study of the impact of greenery in an institutional campus in the tropics. Build Environ2007;
42: 2949–2970.
24.
WongNTanATanPChiangKWongN.Acoustics evaluation of vertical greenery systems for building walls. Build Environ2010;
45: 411–420.
25.
KimmererR.Gathering moss: a natural and cultural history of mosses.
Corvallis:
Oregon State University Press, 2003.
26.
ZelitchI.Photosynthesis, photorespiration, and plant productivity.
New York:
Academic Press Inc., 1971.
27.
PeterC.Bonsai masterclass.
New York:
Sterling Publishing, 1993.
28.
BakarNMansorMHarunN.Vertical greenery system as public art? Possibilities and challenges in Malaysian urban context. Procedia Soc Behav Sci2014;
153: 230–241.
29.
BeckettRPMarschallMLauferZ.Hardening enhances photoprotection in the moss Atrichum androgynum during rehydration by increasing fast rather than slow relaxing quenching. J Bryol2005;
27: 7–12.
30.
CleavittNL.Stress tolerance of rare and common moss species in relation to their occupied environments and asexual dispersal potential. J Ecol2002;
90: 785–795.
31.
FrancisRLorimerJ.Urban reconciliation ecology: the potential of living roofs and walls. J Environ Manage2011;
92: 1429–1437.
32.
GhaffarianhoseiniADahlanNBerardiUGhaffarianhoseiniAMakaremiNGhaffarianhoseiniM.Sustainable energy performances of green buildings: a review of current theories, implementations and challenges. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2013;
25: 1–17.
33.
CollinsRSchaafsmaMHudsonMD.The value of green walls to urban biodiversity. Land Use Policy2017;
64: 114–123.
34.
ProdanovicVZhangKHattBMcCarthyDDeleticA.Optimisation of lightweight green wall media for greywater treatment and reuse. Build Environ2018;
131: 99–107.
35.
SujetovienėGGalinytėV.Effects of the urban environmental conditions on the physiology of lichen and moss. Atmos Pollut Res2016;
7: 611–618.
36.
DjedjigRBelarbiRBozonnetE.Green wall impacts inside and outside buildings: experimental study. Energy Procedia2017;
139: 578–583.
37.
PettitTIrgaPJAbdoPTorpyFR.Do the plants in functional green walls contribute to their ability to filter particulate matter?Build Environ2017;
125: 299–307.
38.
VoxGBlancoISchettiniE.Green façades to control wall surface temperature in buildings. Build Environ2018;
129: 154–166.
39.
VecansD.Green roof and green wall: improvement to environment.
Aarhus:
VIA University College Press, 2012. [Mismatch]
40.
JohnsonRLMorganGB.Survey scales: a guide to development, analysis, and reporting.
New York:
Guilford Press, 2016.
41.
WangCErSAbdul-RahmanH.Indoor vertical greenery system in urban tropics. Indoor Built Environ2016;
25: 340–356.
