Nowadays, people spend most of their times indoors; accordingly, plants are increasingly used in these environments, including residential areas, due to their psychological benefits and aesthetic values. However, there is little evidence on how to maximize the inhabitants' indoor greenery (IG) preferences. The present study analysed the preferences of 363 inhabitants of two residential complexes with 38% and 6% green space in Tabriz, Iran through investigating greenery quantity and physical characteristics of the plant by the use of a simulated photo questionnaire from the interior spaces of the home. Results suggest that the preferences are not the same in various parts of the home. In general, high greenery quantity and flowering plants are the most preferred and tall foliage plants with wide leaves are the least preferred. Moreover, the effect of green spaces in residential complexes on inhabitants' IG preferences was studied. Results show that there is a significant difference between inhabitants' preferences of the two complexes, in terms of ‘plant colour', ‘leaf size' and ‘plant type'. The obtained results of the research can be utilized for interior designers and landscape architects in order to increase the application of the green space in residential complexes.
LeeM-SLeeJParkB-JMiyazakiY.Interaction with indoor plants may reduce psychological and physiological stress by suppressing autonomic nervous system activity in young adults: a randomized crossover study. J Physiol Anthropol2015;
34: 21.
2.
GasconMSánchez-BenavidesGDadvandPMartínezDGramuntNGotsensXCirachMVertCMolinuevoJLCrous-BouMNieuwenhuisenM.Long-term exposure to residential green and blue spaces and anxiety and depression in adults: a cross-sectional study. Environ Res2018;
162: 231–239.
3.
KimJChaSHKooCTangS-K.The effects of indoor plants and artificial windows in an underground environment. Build Environ2018;
138: 53–62.
4.
BowlerDEBuyung-AliLMKnightTMPullinAS.A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health2010;
10: 456.
5.
NisbetEKZelenskiJMMurphySA.Happiness is in our nature: exploring nature relatedness as a contributor to subjective well-being. J Happiness Stud2011;
12: 303–322.
6.
McMahanEAEstesD.The effect of contact with natural environments on positive and negative affect: a meta-analysis. J Positive Psychol2015;
10: 507–519.
7.
ZelenskiJMDopkoRLCapaldiCA.Cooperation is in our nature: nature exposure may promote cooperative and environmentally sustainable behavior. J Environ Psychol2015;
42: 24–31.
8.
GuéguenNStefanJ. “
Green altruism” short immersion in natural green environments and helping behavior. Environ Behav2016;
48: 324–342.
9.
LachowyczKJonesAP.Greenspace and obesity: a systematic review of the evidence. Obes Rev2011;
12: e183–e189.
10.
VilleneuvePJJerrettMSuJGWeichenthalSSandlerDP.Association of residential greenness with obesity and physical activity in a US cohort of women. Environ Res2018;
160: 372–384.
11.
Benjamin-NeelonSEPlattABacardi-GasconMArmstrongSNeelonBJimenez-CruzA.Greenspace physical activity, and BMI in children from two cities in northern Mexico. Prev Med Rep2019;
14: 100870.
12.
ChoiJYParkSAJungSJLeeJYSonKCAnYJLeeSW.Physiological and psychological responses of humans to the index of greenness of an interior space. Complement Ther Med2016;
28: 37–43.
13.
ParkSSongCOhY-AMiyazakiYSonK-C.Comparison of physiological and psychological relaxation using measurements of heart rate variability, prefrontal cortex activity, and subjective indexes after completing tasks with and without foliage plants. Int J Environ Res Public Health2017;
14: 1087.
14.
DemouryCThierryBRichardHSiglerBKestensYParentM-E.Residential greenness and risk of prostate cancer: a case-control study in Montreal, Canada. Environ Int2017;
98: 129–136.
15.
WangRZhaoJMeitnerMJ.Urban woodland understory characteristics in relation to aesthetic and recreational preference. Urban For Urban Green2017;
24: 55–61.
16.
MangoneGCapaldiCAvan AllenZMLuscuereP.Bringing nature to work: preferences and perceptions of constructed indoor and natural outdoor workspaces. Urban For Urban Green2017;
23: 1–12.
17.
HarrisVKendalDHahsAKThrelfallCG.Green space context and vegetation complexity shape people's preferences for urban public parks and residential gardens. Landscape Res2018;
43: 150–162.
18.
SuppakittpaisarnPJiangBSlavenasMSullivanWC.Does density of green infrastructure predict preference?Urban For Urban Green2019;
40: 236–244.
19.
SuppakittpaisarnPLarsenLSullivanWC.Preferences for green infrastructure and green stormwater infrastructure in urban landscapes: differences between designers and laypeople. Urban For Urban Green2019;
43: 126378.
20.
Van DongenRPTimmermansHJ.Preference for different urban greenscape designs: a choice experiment using virtual environments. Urban For Urban Green2019;
44: 126435.
21.
FengXAstell-BurtT.Residential green space quantity and quality and child well-being: a longitudinal study. Am J Prev Med2017;
53: 616–624.
22.
van den BergMvan PoppelMSmithGTriguero-MasMAndrusaityteSvan KampIvan MechelenWGidlowCGražulevičieneRNieuwenhuijsenMJKruizeHMaasJ.Does time spent on visits to green space mediate the associations between the level of residential greenness and mental health?Urban For Urban Green2017;
25: 94–102.
23.
WuWWangMXZhuNZhangWSunH.Residential satisfaction about urban greenness: heterogeneous effects across social and spatial gradients. Urban For Urban Green2019;
38: 133–144.
24.
MarkevychIStandlMSugiriDHarrisCMaierWBerdelDHeinrichR.Residential greenness and blood lipids in children: a longitudinal analysis in GINIplus and LISAplus. Environ Res2016;
151: 168–173.
25.
SarkarC.Residential greenness and adiposity: findings from the UK Biobank. Environ Int2017;
106: 1–10.
26.
KorpelaKDe BloomJSianojaMPasanenTKinnunenU.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.
27.
KooshaliADParviziRAzeriARKHosseiniSB.The role of nature (green space) in parallel with promotion of relaxation and satisfaction of residents of residential complexes. Procedia Soc Behav Sci2015;
202: 361–372.
28.
ThompsonCWRoeJAspinallPMitchellRClowAMillerD.More green space is linked to less stress in deprived communities: evidence from salivary cortisol patterns. Landsc Urban Plan2012;
105: 221–229.
29.
YooMLeeE-H.The impact of modulized interior landscape on office workers' psychological wellbeing – a pilot study of focused on the office wall. Korean Inst Interior Des J2014;
23: 220–230.
30.
AugustinSFrankelNColemanC.Place advantage: applied psychology for interior architecture.
Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons, 2009.
31.
DravigneAWaliczekTMLinebergerRZajicekJ.The effect of live plants and window views of green spaces on employee perceptions of job satisfaction. HortScience2008;
43: 183–187.
32.
BringslimarkTHartigTPatilGG.Psychological benefits of indoor plants in workplaces: putting experimental results into context. HortScience2007;
42: 581–587.
33.
IkeiHKomatsuMSongCHimoroEMiyazakiY.The physiological and psychological relaxing effects of viewing rose flowers in office workers. J Physiol Anthropol2014;
33: 6.
34.
MontacchiniETedescoSRondinoneT.Greenery for a university campus: does it affect indoor environmental quality and user well-being?Energy Procedia2017;
122: 289–294.
35.
WilsonE.Biophilia.
Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1986, p.157.
KaplanRHerbertEJ.Cultural and sub-cultural comparisons in preferences for natural settings. Landsc Urban Plan1987;
14: 281–293.
39.
YuenBHienWN.Resident perceptions and expectations of rooftop gardens in Singapore. Landsc Urban Plan2005;
73: 263–276.
40.
MisgavA.Visual preference of the public for vegetation groups in Israel. Landsc Urban Plan2000;
48: 143–159.
41.
KendalDWilliamsKArmstrongL.Preference for and performance of some Australian native plants grown as hedges. Urban For Urban Green2008;
7: 93–106.
42.
WhiteEVGaterslebenB.Greenery on residential buildings: does it affect preferences and perceptions of beauty?J Environ Psychol2011;
31: 89–98.
43.
LarsenLAdamsJDealBKweonBSTylerE.Plants in the workplace: the effects of plant density on productivity, attitudes, and perceptions. Environ Behav1998;
30: 261–281.
44.
LeeKEWilliamsKJSargentLDFarrellCWilliamsNS.Living roof preference is influenced by plant characteristics and diversity. Landsc Urban Plan2014;
122: 152–159.
45.
HamiATarashkarM.Assessment of women's familiarity perceptions and preferences in terms of plants origins in the urban parks of Tabriz, Iran. Urban For Urban Green2018;
32: 168–176.
46.
ManakerGH.Interior plantscapes: installation, maintenance, and management. 3rd ed.
Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall, 1997.
47.
TodorovaAAsakawaSAikohT.Preferences for and attitudes towards street flowers and trees in Sapporo, Japan. Landsc Urban Plan2004;
69: 403–416.
48.
SevenantMAntropM.The use of latent classes to identify individual differences in the importance of landscape dimensions for aesthetic preference. Land Use Policy2010;
27: 827–842.
49.
PolatATAkayA.Relationships between the visual preferences of urban recreation area users and various landscape design elements. Urban For Urban Green2015;
14: 573–582.
50.
CochranWG.Sampling techniques. 3rd ed.
New York:
Wiley, 1977.
51.
Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran. National survey of the household budget in urban areas of Iran, https://www.cbi.ir/page/18453.aspx (2017, accessed 23 September 2018).
52.
LyonsE.Demographic correlates of landscape preference. Environ Behav1983;
15: 487–511.
53.
WohlwillJFKohnI.Dimensionalizing the environmental manifold. In: WapnerSCohenSBKaplanB (eds) Experiencing the environment.
Boston, MA:
Springer, 1976, pp.19–53.
54.
DanielTCMeitnerMM.Representational validity of landscape visualizations: the effects of graphical realism on perceived scenic beauty of forest vistas. J Environ Psychol2001;
21: 61–72.
55.
PalmerJFHoffmanRE.Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments. Landsc Urban Plan2001;
54: 149–161.
56.
GandyRMeitnerMJ.The effects of an advanced traveler information system on scenic beauty ratings and the enjoyment of a recreational drive. Landsc Urban Plan2007;
82: 85–93.
WangRZhaoJLiuZ.Consensus in visual preferences: the effects of aesthetic quality and landscape types. Urban For Urban Green2016;
20: 210–217.
59.
WilkieSClementsH.Further exploration of environment preference and environment type congruence on restoration and perceived restoration potential. Landsc Urban Plan2018;
170: 314–319.
60.
BonthouxSCholletSBalatILegayNVoisinL.Improving nature experience in cities: what are people's preferences for vegetated streets?J Environ Manag2019;
230: 335–344.
61.
HwangYHYueZEJLingSKTanH.It's ok to be wilder: preference for natural growth in urban green spaces in a tropical city. Urban For Urban Green2019;
38: 165–176.
62.
RahnemaSSedaghathoorSAllahyariMSDamalasCAEl BilaliH.Preferences and emotion perceptions of ornamental plant species for green space designing among urban park users in Iran. Urban For Urban Green2019;
39: 98–108.
63.
ShahhosseiniHKamal BinMMBin MaulanS.Visual preferences of small urban parks based on spatial configuration of place. Iran Univ Sci Technol2015;
25: 84–93.
64.
HamiAMoulaFFMaulanSB.Public preferences toward shopping mall interior landscape design in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Urban For Urban Green2018;
30: 1–7.
65.
van den BogerdNDijkstraSCSeidellJCMaasJ.Greenery in the university environment: students' preferences and perceived restoration likelihood. PLoS One2018;
13: e0192429.
66.
DopkoRLZelenskiJMNisbetEK.Nature salience increases judgments of environmental satisfaction. Ecopsychology2014;
6: 207–217.
67.
HamiAFazleFEmamiF.Factors affecting people preferences toward environment landscape, case study: shopping mall in Kuala Lumpur. Int J Constr Eng Manag2016;
5: 108–117.
68.
KaplanRKaplanS.The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
69.
Van den BergAEKooleSLVan der WulpNY.Environmental preference and restoration: (how) are they related?J Environ Psychol2003;
23: 135–146.
70.
JiangBLarsenLDealBSullivanWC.A dose–response curve describing the relationship between tree cover density and landscape preference. Landsc Urban Plan2015;
139: 16–25.
71.
KimJ-HSeoY-HYoonY-HJooC-H.A study on the observer psychological change in accordance with index of greenness in landscape planting space. J Environ Sci Int2014;
23: 1663–1671.
72.
AvizienDPakalnisRSendzikaiteJ (eds). Preservation, assessment and management of scenic landscape in Lithuania. In: Man in the Landscape across Frontiers – IGU-LUCC Central Europe Conference, Slovenia, Austria, Slovakia and the Czech Republic, August 28–September 4 2007. Prague: Charles University, Faculty of Science.
73.
UzunOMuumlH.Visual landscape quality in landscape planning: examples of Kars and Ardahan cities in Turkey. Afr J Agric Res2011;
6: 1627–1638.
74.
OzdemirA.The effect of window views openness and naturalness on the perception of rooms spaciousness and brightness: a visual preference study. Sci Res Essays2010;
5: 2275–2287.
75.
ZhaoJXuWLiR.Visual preference of trees: the effects of tree attributes and seasons. Urban For Urban Green2017;
25: 19–25.
76.
ShahhosseiniHKamalMMaulanSB.Determining sound, smell, and touch attributes in small urban parks using NGT. ALAM CIPTAInt J Sustain Trop Des Res Pract2014;
7: 3–16.
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.
