Kaigang Li , Ashley Perrault , Wendy A. DeYoung , Emma Cameron , Chad T. Miller , Alison S. O'Connor , Mengmeng Gu , Barry Braun
{"title":"Impact of biophilic design on college student perception of mental health and environmental benefits: A dose-response study","authors":"Kaigang Li , Ashley Perrault , Wendy A. DeYoung , Emma Cameron , Chad T. Miller , Alison S. O'Connor , Mengmeng Gu , Barry Braun","doi":"10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.112318","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>We examined a dose-response relationship of plants placed in a university classroom with college students’ self-reported cognitive performance, mental and psychosomatic health, environmental quality perceptions, and objectively measured indoor air quality (IAQ) parameters. This quasi-experimental design study involved two university classrooms, a Comparison Classroom (CC) and a Biophilic Classroom (BC). In the BC, but not in the CC, 50 plants were placed in Week 4 (W4), an additional 51 in W10, and all plants removed in W14. Surveys were administered at 4 time points (T1: W3 [baseline]; T2: W7; T3: W13, and T4: W16) to assess students’ perceptions and health outcomes, including perceived stress, cognitive performance, nature connectedness, indoor environmental quality, air freshness, odor intensity, productivity, and sleepiness, with scores ranging from 0–40 (stress), 1–7 (sleepiness), or 1–5 (other variables). IAQ was monitored continuously using TSI AirAssure™ Monitors. At Baseline, 257 students completed the survey in the CC and 80 in the BC. Plants in the BC significantly improved students' perceived indoor environmental quality (T2: 4.04 vs. 3.51, p<.001; T3: 4.00 vs. 3.52, p<.001), air freshness (T2: 4.07 vs. 3.41, p<.001; T3: 3.91 vs. 3.48, p<.01), and productivity (T2: 3.33 vs. 2.91, p<.01; T3: 3.33 vs. 2.90, p<.01). However, adding more plants did not further improve these perceptions. No significant differences were found in students’ cognitive performance, perceived stress, sleepiness, nature connectedness, or IAQ parameters between CC and BC. Plants in the classroom improved students’ perceived classroom environment and productivity but did not affect the objectively measured IAQ parameters.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":9273,"journal":{"name":"Building and Environment","volume":"267 ","pages":"Article 112318"},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Building and Environment","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360132324011600","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CONSTRUCTION & BUILDING TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
We examined a dose-response relationship of plants placed in a university classroom with college students’ self-reported cognitive performance, mental and psychosomatic health, environmental quality perceptions, and objectively measured indoor air quality (IAQ) parameters. This quasi-experimental design study involved two university classrooms, a Comparison Classroom (CC) and a Biophilic Classroom (BC). In the BC, but not in the CC, 50 plants were placed in Week 4 (W4), an additional 51 in W10, and all plants removed in W14. Surveys were administered at 4 time points (T1: W3 [baseline]; T2: W7; T3: W13, and T4: W16) to assess students’ perceptions and health outcomes, including perceived stress, cognitive performance, nature connectedness, indoor environmental quality, air freshness, odor intensity, productivity, and sleepiness, with scores ranging from 0–40 (stress), 1–7 (sleepiness), or 1–5 (other variables). IAQ was monitored continuously using TSI AirAssure™ Monitors. At Baseline, 257 students completed the survey in the CC and 80 in the BC. Plants in the BC significantly improved students' perceived indoor environmental quality (T2: 4.04 vs. 3.51, p<.001; T3: 4.00 vs. 3.52, p<.001), air freshness (T2: 4.07 vs. 3.41, p<.001; T3: 3.91 vs. 3.48, p<.01), and productivity (T2: 3.33 vs. 2.91, p<.01; T3: 3.33 vs. 2.90, p<.01). However, adding more plants did not further improve these perceptions. No significant differences were found in students’ cognitive performance, perceived stress, sleepiness, nature connectedness, or IAQ parameters between CC and BC. Plants in the classroom improved students’ perceived classroom environment and productivity but did not affect the objectively measured IAQ parameters.
我们研究了在大学教室中摆放植物与大学生自我报告的认知表现、心理和心身健康、环境质量感知以及客观测量的室内空气质量(IAQ)参数之间的剂量反应关系。这项准实验设计研究涉及两个大学教室,一个是对比教室(CC),另一个是亲生物教室(BC)。在 BC 中,第 4 周(W4)摆放了 50 盆植物,第 10 周又摆放了 51 盆植物,第 14 周移走了所有植物。在 4 个时间点(T1:第 3 周[基线];T2:第 7 周;T3:第 13 周;T4:第 16 周)进行调查,评估学生的感知和健康结果,包括感知压力、认知表现、与自然的联系、室内环境质量、空气清新度、气味强度、工作效率和嗜睡程度,评分范围为 0-40(压力)、1-7(嗜睡)或 1-5(其他变量)。室内空气质量由 TSI AirAssure™ 监测器进行连续监测。在基线调查中,257 名学生完成了 CC 区的调查,80 名学生完成了 BC 区的调查。BC 中的植物明显改善了学生对室内环境质量的感知(T2:4.04 vs. 3.51,p<.001;T3:4.00 vs. 3.52,p<.001)、空气新鲜度(T2:4.04 vs. 3.51,p<.001;T3:4.00 vs. 3.52,p<.001)、空气清新度(T2:4.07 vs. 3.41,p<.001; T3:3.91 vs. 3.48,p<.01)和工作效率(T2:3.33 vs. 2.91,p<.01; T3:3.33 vs. 2.90,p<.01)。然而,增加植物并没有进一步改善这些看法。在学生的认知表现、感知压力、嗜睡、与自然的联系或室内空气质量参数方面,CC 和 BC 之间没有发现明显的差异。教室中的植物改善了学生对教室环境的感知,提高了学习效率,但并未影响客观测量的室内空气质量参数。
期刊介绍:
Building and Environment, an international journal, is dedicated to publishing original research papers, comprehensive review articles, editorials, and short communications in the fields of building science, urban physics, and human interaction with the indoor and outdoor built environment. The journal emphasizes innovative technologies and knowledge verified through measurement and analysis. It covers environmental performance across various spatial scales, from cities and communities to buildings and systems, fostering collaborative, multi-disciplinary research with broader significance.