IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0192429.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Greenery in the university environment: Students’ preferences and perceived restoration likelihood

Author

Listed:
  • Nicole van den Bogerd
  • S Coosje Dijkstra
  • Jacob C Seidell
  • Jolanda Maas

Abstract

A large body of evidence shows that interaction with greenery can be beneficial for human stress reduction, emotional states, and improved cognitive function. It can, therefore, be expected that university students might benefit from greenery in the university environment. Before investing in real-life interventions in a university environment, it is necessary to first explore students’ perceptions of greenery in the university environment. This study examined (1) preference for university indoor and outdoor spaces with and without greenery (2) perceived restoration likelihood of university outdoor spaces with and without greenery and (3) if preference and perceived restoration likelihood ratings were modified by demographic characteristics or connectedness to nature in Dutch university students (N = 722). Digital photographic stimuli represented four university spaces (lecture hall, classroom, study area, university outdoor space). For each of the three indoor spaces there were four or five stimuli conditions: (1) the standard design (2) the standard design with a colorful poster (3) the standard design with a nature poster (4) the standard design with a green wall (5) the standard design with a green wall plus interior plants. The university outdoor space included: (1) the standard design (2) the standard design with seating (3) the standard design with colorful artifacts (4) the standard design with green elements (5) the standard design with extensive greenery. Multi-level analyses showed that students gave higher preference ratings to the indoor spaces with a nature poster, a green wall, or a green wall plus interior plants than to the standard designs and the designs with the colorful posters. Students also rated preference and perceived restoration likelihood of the outdoor spaces that included greenery higher than those without. Preference and perceived restoration likelihood were not modified by demographic characteristics, but students with strong connectedness to nature rated preference and perceived restoration likelihood overall higher than students with weak connectedness to nature. The findings suggest that students would appreciate the integration of greenery in the university environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicole van den Bogerd & S Coosje Dijkstra & Jacob C Seidell & Jolanda Maas, 2018. "Greenery in the university environment: Students’ preferences and perceived restoration likelihood," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-19, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0192429
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192429
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0192429
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0192429&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0192429?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0192429. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.