Abstract
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic heightened mental health challenges in urban life. Engaging in gardening can improve emotions and reduce stress. However, the emotional and stressful effects of indoor seed pot care (SPC) during germination are poorly understood. This study investigated the emotional and stress-relieving effects of SPC on germination during the COVID-19 pandemic. In an exploratory randomized controlled trial, 60 university students were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups. The experimental group cared for basil seed pots for 14 days and their daily emotions and perceived life stress (PLS) levels were recorded. The control group continued their usual activities. The experimental group consistently demonstrated a significant increase in pleasure over the 14-day study period. On day 4, the experimental group reported significantly higher viewing frequency, stress reduction, and emotional improvement than those on most other days, likely because of seed germination. Although the seed pots did not germinate on day 1, the experimental group experienced significantly more pleasure than the control group, possibly because of the expectancy effect. However, beyond day 1, no significant differences in pleasure, arousal, or PLS were observed between the experimental and control groups. On day 4, although the control group experienced emotions that were more aligned with excitement, the experimental group demonstrated a smaller increase in arousal, indicating that SPC may have cultivated an emotional state characterized by pleasure or relaxation. Overall, SPC did not negatively affect pleasure, arousal, or PLS, and the indoor use of seed pots was encouraged.
Urban development has been linked to several mental health issues (McDonald et al. 2018). Isolation and lockdowns during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have exacerbated these mental health challenges for those living in cities (Berdejo‐Espinola et al. 2021; Sia et al. 2022; Theodorou et al. 2021). Engaging with nature is a beneficial strategy that can mitigate negative effects on mental health caused by significant stressful life events (Berdejo‐Espinola et al. 2021). Contact with nature (e.g., home gardening activities) can help reduce stress and promote mental well-being when confined to the home (Egerer et al. 2022; Sia et al. 2022; Theodorou et al. 2021). Numerous studies have highlighted the benefits of gardening activities for physical and mental health (Hassan et al. 2018; Kelley et al. 2017; Kim et al. 2021; Lee et al. 2017; Makizako et al. 2019; Park et al. 2016a; Soga et al. 2017). Therefore, gardening offers significant mental health benefits.
Gardening activities include plant cultivation, garden observation, creative flower arrangements, sensory exploration, and social and communal gardening experiences (Scott 2017). Gardening courses often span several weeks, covering the entire cycle from planting and harvesting to cooking, and are supplemented by plant-related classes and travel (Han et al. 2018; Kenmochi et al. 2019; Park et al. 2016a; Siu et al. 2020; Yang et al. 2022; Zhu et al. 2016). Garden maintenance is also a course that provides practical skills training regarding fertilization, weeding, watering, and harvesting, as well as creative and social activities such as flower arrangement, flower pressing, tea time, garden parties, and garden walks, as seen in countries such as South Korea (Kim and Park 2018; Lee et al. 2018; Park et al. 2016b), Japan (Kojima and Kunimi 2013), Sweden (Palsdottir et al. 2020), Singapore (Sia et al. 2018), and Serbia (Vujcic et al. 2017). A comprehensive gardening course series often encompasses the aforementioned activities and covers the entire spectrum of gardening experiences and skills (Lee and Kim 2008).
Studies that explore the benefits of individual gardening activities such as plant cultivation, growing specific plants, and flower arrangement are relatively scarce. This research gap highlights the need for a more focused investigation of the distinct advantages of gardening practices. For example, Lee et al. (2017) observed that although flower tea consumption positively affected self-esteem, it had no significant effect on life satisfaction or ego integrity. Mochizuki-Kawai et al. (2018) reported that a structured floral arrangement improves visuospatial memory and recognition, but it does not significantly affect digit span, block tapping, and apathy levels. Gong et al. (2020) demonstrated that lavender essential oil significantly reduced temporary anxiety more than other essential oils such as rose and citrus. Examining the specifics of gardening activities can contribute to the development of future practices.
Indoor plants compensate for the lack of natural views of indoor environments (Bringslimark et al. 2011). Doxey et al. (2009) found that indoor plants had the greatest impact on students in classrooms lacking natural elements and sometimes even serve as substitute for windows. Cultivation of indoor plants is a daily gardening activity that improves mental health. Lohr et al. (1996) found that indoor plants in a windowless workplace significantly enhanced productivity and attention and reduced stress among undergraduate students. Lee et al. (2015) noted that engaging in transplanting activities with the common indoor plant Peperomia dahlstedtii could reduce psychological stress more effectively than mental work among male university students. Dravigne et al. (2008) found that individuals who work in offices with plants and windows reported higher levels of job satisfaction. Toyoda et al. (2020) demonstrated that regular interaction with preferred indoor plants for 4 weeks in a work environment could effectively reduce physiological stress among office workers. Spano et al. (2021) reported that having plant pots at home is associated with fewer negative emotions. Yan et al. (2022) determined that most surveyed individuals experienced anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic, and that many supported the idea that indoor plants could help alleviate anxiety, indicating an indirect psychological benefit.
Seed sowing and seedling growth are common horticultural activities (Chu et al. 2019; Lai et al. 2018; Sia et al. 2018; Zhu et al. 2016). These activities offer participants novel and enjoyable experiences without the pressure of performance or outcomes (Pálsdóttir et al. 2014). Observing seeds develop into mature plants can instill a sense of hope (Kim et al. 2020b; Pálsdóttir et al. 2014; Siu et al. 2020). However, current research of the psychological benefits of seed germination remains limited.
Although observing and caring for indoor plants can improve mental health, several aspects remain unknown. Indoor seed pots, which are involved in stages such as sowing, germination, growth, and maintenance, are popular for indoor horticultural activities. These pots housing densely arranged seeds allowed for varied growth stages and rapid germination, thus making them ideal for small indoor spaces (e.g., offices and apartments). Despite their commonality in gardening activities, few studies have focused on the emotional and stress-relieving benefits of indoor seed pot care (SPC), particularly during germination. Considering the rapid growth and unique characteristics of different seeds, this study aimed to investigate the emotional and stress effects of caring for indoor seed pots, specifically during high-stress periods such as the COVID-19 pandemic. This study explored which stages of SPC most improve mental health and focused on the understudied germination phase, which is a symbol of the beginning of life.
University students’ mental health has rarely been explored within the context of horticultural therapy. A 2019 survey conducted in the United States identified anxiety, depression, and stress as significant factors that impact academic performance (American College Health Association 2019). Key stressors that contribute to these issues include academic pressure, drivers of success, and concerns about postgraduation plans (Beiter et al. 2015). During the COVID-19 pandemic, economic stressors, disruptions in daily life, and academic delays were positively linked to increased anxiety among university students (Cao et al. 2020). Although prior randomized controlled trials of horticultural therapy have primarily targeted older adults (Tu 2022), this study addressed the mental health needs of university students.
Materials and Methods
Study design and participants.
This study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee at National Cheng Kung University (Approval No. NCKU HREC-E-111-081). This was an exploratory randomized controlled trial (RCT). The required sample size was determined using G*Power (Faul et al. 2007, 2009). This study planned to use an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with α set at 0.05, β set at 0.2, and power set at 0.8. Because previous research of the effects of horticultural therapy on mental health has demonstrated a large effect size (Tu 2022), the effect size was set at 0.40. The sample size was 52. We recruited 60 participants who were randomly assigned to the experimental and control groups to account for potential dropouts during recruitment.
The research process included enrollment, intervention allocation, follow-up, and analysis. During the enrollment process, this study was conducted with university-level and master-level students at National Chung Hsing University. The socioeconomic backgrounds of the student groups were similar, which may have reduced their influence on the study findings. Previous studies have also conducted horticultural therapy studies of students (An et al. 2021; Chang and Chen 2005). Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, study participants were recruited online using a recruitment announcement posted on social networks and communication boards about campus life and students from 13 to 29 Apr 2022. Applicants read the research consent form, completed the online application form, and entered their names into a signature box to complete the research consent form. Ultimately, 60 participants were included in this study.
This study involved university students who shared similar educational backgrounds, marital statuses, and income levels. Additionally, because of the absence of complex racial dynamics in Taiwan, the study primarily focused on age and sex as key variables. During the intervention allocation process, all 60 study participants were randomly assigned to the control and experimental groups according to sex using an Excel random number table. The control and experimental groups included 30 participants (21 women and 9 men). The age ranges of the control and experimental groups were 19 to 28 years and 18 to 24 years, respectively. The age difference between the two groups was not significant [χ2 = 0.11; degrees of freedom (df) = 2; P < 0.946], indicating equivalent age distributions. The study was conducted on 2 May 2022 using a pretest electronic questionnaire. The pretest was conducted on day 0. After the initial assessment, the experimental group began the intervention using indoor seed pots. The follow-up period spanned from 3 to 16 May 2022, comprising 14 d that were labeled days 1 to 14. Twenty-one and 19 participants in the control and experimental groups, respectively, completed the study, including the pretest and posttest assessments (Fig. 1).
This study used an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. The ITT method of the RCT ensured that participants were analyzed in their original groups regardless of withdrawal, maintenance of randomization integrity, and trial validity (McCoy 2017; Polit and Gillespie 2010). The ITT analysis included 30 participants in each group; missing values were addressed using multiple imputation methods.
Intervention activities.
The intervention used seed pots containing basil (Ocimum basilicum), which is a plant species safe for consumption and suitable for germination and growth indoors under low-light conditions. A potting mix composed of equal parts peatmoss and vermiculite was selected for its optimal drainage, aeration, and suitability for low-light indoor environments. The mixture was placed into 2-inch plastic pots. On 2 May 2022 (day 0), following completion of a pretest questionnaire, participants in the experimental group gathered in a classroom at the Department of Horticulture at National Chung Hsing University. The first author demonstrated the sowing procedure and explained the experimental protocol. Participants independently sowed basil seeds in a group setting and then took their seeded pots home and placed them on their desks. Participants were responsible for maintaining plant care over 14 d, conducting daily observations for 15 s, photographing the plant, and uploading images to document growth. Posttest questionnaires were completed via e-mail at 7:00 PM each evening during days 1 to 14 (Fig. 2).
The growth of basil microgreens from days 1 to 14.
Citation: HortScience 60, 7; 10.21273/HORTSCI18587-25
As instructed, the participants placed the seed pot on their desk, observed it for 15 s, photographed and uploaded its growth process, and completed a posttest questionnaire sent via e-mail at 7:00 PM every evening during days 1 to 14 (Fig. 2). Most recorded germination by day 3. The control group was asked to engage in their usual daily activities and complete pretest and posttest questionnaires. The timing of the pretest and posttests was consistent in both groups.
Instrument: Emotion and perceived life stress.
During the follow-up period, the participants completed the questionnaire daily. To evaluate emotions and stress throughout the 14-d SPC period, participants completed identical questionnaire items daily. Because of the prolonged survey duration, the large number of questionnaire items could cause fatigue and increase dropout rates. Therefore, brief versions of these scales were used to enhance participant engagement and ensure data collection.
The pretest and posttest questionnaires included items about pleasure, arousal, and perceived life stress (PLS). The emotion scale uses pleasure and arousal to measure emotional states with adequate reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity (Russell et al. 1989). Previous studies have used pleasure and arousal to assess emotions (Chang et al. 2013; Lin and Wu 2021; Medeiros et al. 2022). A 9-point scale (range, −4 to 4) was used to assess emotions. Higher scores indicated greater pleasure or arousal. We measured PLS using the perceived stress scale (Cohen et al. 1983). This study used a brief version of four items (inability to control life, confidence in handling problems, things going well, and difficulties accumulating) that have adequate reliability and predictive validity, thus making it a reliable tool for measuring PLS (Cohen and Williamson 1988; Karam et al. 2012; Vallejo et al. 2018; Warttig et al. 2013). Higher scores indicated greater PLS. From day 0 to day 14, the α reliability ranged between 0.72 to 0.92, indicating strong internal consistency for PLS. Test–retest reliability values across the same period were 0.85 for pleasure, 0.87 for arousal, and 0.93 for PLS, demonstrating high reliability over the same period.
Instrument: Variables of SPC.
Between days 1 and 14, the experimental group was asked three additional questions regarding SPC, including the effects of SPC on viewing frequency, stress improvement, and emotional improvement. The frequency question, “In the past 24 h, how frequently did you observe the seed pot?”, was answered using a 7-point scale, with 1 indicating “very infrequently” and 7 indicating “very frequently.” The stress improvement question was “In the past 24 h, how effective was the seed pot in relieving your stress?” The emotion improvement question was “In the past 24 h, how effective was the seed pot in improving your emotions?” Both questions were answered using a 7-point scale, with 0 indicating “not at all” and 6 indicating “very helpful.” Between days 1 and 14, test–retest reliability values were 0.89 for viewing frequency, 0.89 for stress improvement, and 0.78 for other measures, respectively, indicating good reliability. This study used a single-item measure for certain variables; this method is considered appropriate for exploratory research and contexts involving weaker effect sizes or smaller samples (Diamantopoulos et al. 2012).
On day 14, the final survey for the experimental group included three additional questions regarding their intentions to grow gardening-related plants, grow seed pots, and eat seed pots. The questions were as follows: “In the future, would you like to continue growing gardening-related plants?”; “In the future, would you like to continue growing seed pots?”; and “In the future, would you like to eat the plants grown from the seed pots?” These three questions were answered using a 7-point scale, with 1 indicating “very unwilling” and 7 indicating “very willing.”
Instrument: Control variables.
Because the survey was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, it measured perceived COVID-19 stress daily using a single item. A 7-point scale was used, with 1 indicating “strongly disagree” and 7 indicating “strongly agree.” Higher scores indicated greater COVID-19 stress. The test–retest reliability value for COVID-19 stress from day 0 to day 14 was 0.97, indicating excellent reliability. Because positive or negative events could be potential influencing factors, the final survey on day 14 given to the experimental and control groups asked whether they had experienced any positive or negative events during the past 2 weeks. The question for positive events was as follows: “Apart from this study, have you experienced anything that made you happy in the past 2 weeks?” The question for negative events was as follows: “Apart from this study, have you experienced anything that caused stress in the past 2 weeks?” Both questions used a 7-point scale, with 0 indicating “not at all” and 6 indicating “very much.”
Data analysis.
An independent samples t test was used to examine the effects of the control variables across the experimental and control groups. When significant differences in the control variables were identified between groups, these variables were included in subsequent analyses. A paired sample t test was used to assess differences in emotion and PLS of the experimental and control groups between the pretest (baseline) and posttest (follow-up, 1–14 d) to identify significant changes over time. An ANCOVA was conducted using pretest scores (baseline) as a covariate to evaluate the effect of intervention activities to explore whether significant differences in emotions and PLS existed between groups. Additionally, a one-way analysis of variance was used to investigate the effects of SPC on stress relief, emotion improvement, and observation frequency in the experimental group; post hoc tests were applied to assess differences across follow-up days and examine the effect of seed pot growth conditions. Finally, means and standard deviations (SDs) were calculated to assess gardening intentions after seed potting.
Results and Discussion
Effect of SPC on pleasure, arousal, and PLS.
Because no significant differences were observed in the control variables between the experimental and control groups, the analysis indicated that COVID-19 stress and the frequencies of positive and negative events were consistent across both groups. Therefore, control variables were not included in subsequent analyses. The control group showed a significant increase in pleasure on follow-up days 2 to 6, 8, and 10 to 14; however, no significant changes were observed on days 1, 7, or 9 (Table 1). In contrast, the experimental group consistently increased pleasure across days 1 to 14. The ANCOVA results indicated a significant increase in pleasure for the experimental group compared with that of the control group on follow-up day 1 [mean difference = 1.04; standard error (SE) = 0.52; F = 4.06; P < 0.05; η2 = 0.07) after adjusting for baseline pretest covariance (Table 2). On day 1, although the seed pots had not yet germinated, the experimental group demonstrated a significant increase in pleasure compared with that of the control group, possibly because of the expectancy effect associated with the seed pots. Throughout days 1 to 14, the experimental group showed increased pleasure, indicating no negative effects of placing the seed pots indoors. Although the ANCOVA did not show a significant difference between the experimental and control groups from days 2 to 14, this observation may have been affected by the small sample size.
Mean differences of pleasure, arousal, and stress in each group according to a paired sample t test.
The mean difference in pleasure between the control and experimental groups.
The control group showed a significant increase in arousal on days 4 to 6, with no significant changes on days 1 to 3 or days 7 to 14 (Table 1). The experimental group showed significantly increased arousal on days 4 to 6 and days 12 to 13. The ANCOVA results determined that the control group had a significant increase in arousal compared to that of the experimental group on follow-up day 4 (mean difference = −0.94; SE = 0.33; F = 8.17; P < 0.01; η2 = 0.13) (Table 2). On follow-up day 4, a significant increase in pleasure was observed in both the control and experimental groups (Table 1). In general, high pleasure combined with elevated arousal corresponds to a state of excitement, whereas moderate arousal levels align more closely with a state of pleasure, and low arousal levels are associated with relaxation (Russell et al. 1989). The findings of this study indicated that the control group on follow-up day 4 experienced emotions that were more closely associated with excitement on follow-up day 4. In contrast, the experimental group experienced a smaller increase in arousal, suggesting that the SPC may have fostered an emotional state that was more reflective of pleasure or relaxation.
The control group showed a significant reduction on days 4 to 5, with no significant changes noted on days 1 to 3 or days 6 to 14 (Table 1). The experimental group showed a significant reduction in stress levels on days 3, 6, and 12. Throughout days 1 to 14, the experimental group experienced no stress from placing seed pots indoors. However, the ANCOVA results revealed no significant difference in stress levels between the control and experimental groups on any follow-up day (Table 2).
Several studies have shown that indoor plants can reduce perceived stress among workers (Toyoda et al. 2020), university students (Lohr et al. 1996), junior high school students (Han 2018), dental patients (Elsadek et al. 2023), and patients in hospital rooms (Dijkstra et al. 2008). Transplanting plants indoors can also reduce university students’ perceived stress (Lee et al. 2015). Several studies have reported that indoor plants can reduce and promote negative emotions (Archary and Thatcher 2022; Chang and Chen 2005; Elsadek et al. 2023; Hassan et al. 2018, 2020; Kim et al. 2020a). However, other studies have not supported the idea that indoor plants improve emotions or perceived stress (Evensen et al. 2015). Evensen et al. (2015) observed that workplace plants did not provide restorative effects when compared with inanimate objects. Michels et al. (2022) reported that green plant pictures benefit from positive emotions compared with green objects, grayscale plants, and grayscale objects, but not from negative emotions or stress. This study included an RCT, which was a major difference from previous studies. In a randomized crossover study, Lee et al. (2015) used the activity of transplanting indoor plants to reduce perceived stress. In comparison, transplanting indoor plants allowed participants to view the plants directly, potentially resulting in a stronger stress-reducing effect, whereas the seed pots required more time to grow into mature plants.
This study’s primary contribution was the use of an exploratory RCT to assess the benefits of SPC. We did not find any evidence that SPC enhances pleasure or reduces PLS. The control group exhibited excitement-related emotions, whereas the experimental group experienced emotions aligned more with pleasure or relaxation. Additionally, placing the seed pot did not decrease pleasure or increase the PLS in the experimental group. Therefore, placing seed pots indoors does not produce any negative effects, and maintaining indoor seed pots can be considered safe.
Viewing frequency, stress improvement, and emotion improvement of seed pots.
A repeated measures analysis revealed significant differences in the frequency of viewing seed pots between days 1 and 14 (F = 2.42; df = 13; P < 0.05) (Table 3). Pairwise comparisons indicated that day 4 had a significantly higher viewing frequency when compared to most other days. Moreover, the viewing frequency on day 7 was significantly higher than that on days 2 and 10. Significant differences in stress improvement (F = 2.90; df = 13; P < 0.05) and emotion improvement (F = 3.37; df = 13; P < 0.05) attributed to seed pots were noticed across days 1 to 14. Pairwise comparisons revealed significantly greater stress improvement on day 4 compared to days 1, 2, 5, and 7 to 14. Similarly, significantly greater stress improvement was observed on day 3 compared to days 1, 2, 8, 10, and 12. Moreover, significantly greater emotional improvement was observed on day 4 compared to days 1, 2, 7, and 10. Significantly less stress and emotional improvement were observed on days 1, 2, and 10 compared to most of the other days.
The effect of seed pots on improving stress and emotion in the treatment group.
Overall, higher levels of viewing frequency, stress improvement, and emotional improvement when viewing the seed pots were observed on follow-up day 4. This pattern likely occurred because day 4 coincided with the critical germination phase. In contrast, lower viewing frequency, reduced stress relief, and fewer emotional benefits occurred on days 1, 2, and 10. The lower viewing frequency on days 1 and 2 may be related to the seeds not yet germinating (Fig. 2). On day 10, which was a Saturday, the viewing frequency may have decreased because the participants were likely to return home.
In practical and research applications, the germination stage of seed pots, even before the plants were fully grown, effectively improved stress and emotions in the experimental group. This finding supports the integration of indoor plants into workplaces, schools, and homes where individuals seek relaxation. Organizations and institutions can promote the use of small seed pots in shared spaces, especially for those seeking to enhance pleasure or reduce life stress. This form of biophilic design is low-cost and space-saving, providing a practical solution for environments with limited space.
Gardening intention after SPC.
In the experiment group, the mean values (SDs) of the intention to use potted plants and the intention to use seedling pots were 5.92 (0.95) and 5.63 (1.10), indicating high willingness to use potted plants and seedling pots. The mean (SD) value of the willingness to eat basil was 4.27 (1.78), indicating ordinary willingness to eat basil. This is because basil is small or used mainly for ornamental purposes.
Limitations of the study and recommendations for future research.
This study had three limitations. First, the sample size was small, making it difficult to achieve statistically significant differences. For example, Tu (2022) reported that many RCTs of horticultural therapy did not show significant results, likely because of small sample sizes. However, a meta-analysis that included samples from various studies revealed that horticultural therapy improved mental health (Tu 2022). Therefore, future research should consider increasing the sample size or conducting similar studies to accumulate more results and samples for meta-analyses.
Second, the inability to control daily activities of participants in the experimental and control groups during the 2-week observation period was problematic. The participants may have engaged in their preferred activities, leading to differences in daily activities between groups. This study had a 2-week follow-up period and was not conducted in a well-controlled laboratory environment, which may explain its findings. Thatcher et al. (2020) noticed that although indoor plants improved work performance in a laboratory setting, these positive effects were not replicated in two field studies that used various performance and well-being measures over 6 to 14 weeks of exposure. Because of the nonlaboratory environment, the usual daily activities of the control group did not consistently involve similar tasks. Therefore, this was a field study in which the results reflected the real-world conditions. However, from the perspective of random assignments, daily activities could be randomly distributed across both groups. Therefore, future studies should track daily activities as potential control variables.
Third, the green area provided by the seed pot was too small to significantly affect the emotions or PLS. Because seed pots are space-saving and easy to maintain, the greenery area was small, which may explain why this study did not affect emotions and stress. Increasing the green area of the seeds or plant pots may enhance this effect. Lei et al. (2021) suggested a 12% greenery ratio for biophilic designs because 0.2% and 5% were insufficient to create restorative effects. Rhee et al. (2023) found that indoor vegetation density optimally enhanced well-being by 13% to 24%. Future research should consider horticultural care activities in larger green areas. According to Lei et al. (2021) and Rhee et al. (2023), greenery areas must be more than 12%; however, exceeding 24% greenery coverage reduced psychological effects. If plants require care for more than 2 weeks, as in this study, then choosing options that are easy to maintain to avoid the negative effects of plant death is crucial.
Future research should use different outcome variables and tools in addition to emotions and perceived stress. Genjo et al. (2019) indicated that observing vegetables and foliage plants, particularly mint and basil, could reduce eye fatigue among office workers. Bringslimark et al. (2007) determined that the number of indoor plants at a work desk has a small effect on reducing the number of sick days and promoting productivity. Ng et al. (2021) explored the effects of horticultural activities on social connectedness and biological inflammation. Relative physical, mental, social, and biological effects are potential variables for future studies.
Conclusions
This study explored the long-term effects of SPC on pleasure, arousal, and PLS through an exploratory RCT. Although the seedling pots did not germinate on day 1, the experimental group experienced increased pleasure, possibly because of the expectancy effect. However, beyond day 1, no significant impact on pleasure, arousal, or PLS was observed. However, the experimental group consistently demonstrated an increase in pleasure over the 14-d period. On day 4, the experimental group reported higher viewing frequency, stress reduction, and emotional improvement, likely because of seed germination. On day 4, although the control group experienced emotions that were more aligned with excitement, the experimental group experienced a smaller increase in arousal, indicating that the SPC may have cultivated an emotional state characterized by pleasure or relaxation. Overall, SPC did not negatively affect pleasure, arousal, or PLS, and the indoor use of seedling pots was encouraged. Therefore, future research should focus on increasing the sample size and expanding the greenery of seed pots.
References Cited
American College Health Association. 2019. American College Health Association-National College Health Assessment II: Reference Group Executive Summary Spring 2019. American College Health Association, Silver Spring, MD, USA.
An SY, Hong JW, Jang EJ, Kim J. 2021. Comparison of stress relieving effects of horticultural therapy programs between judging and perceiving personality types among female undergraduate students. J People Plants Environ. 24(1):63–73. https://doi.org/10.11628/ksppe.2021.24.1.63.
Archary P, Thatcher A. 2022. Affective and cognitive restoration: Comparing the restorative role of indoor plants and guided meditation. Ergonomics. 65(7):933–942. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2021.2003873.
Beiter R, Nash R, McCrady M, Rhoades D, Linscomb M, Clarahan M, Sammut S. 2015. The prevalence and correlates of depression, anxiety, and stress in a sample of college students. J Affect Disord. 173:90–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2014.10.054.
Berdejo‐Espinola V, Suárez‐Castro AF, Amano T, Fielding KS, Oh RRY, Fuller RA. 2021. Urban green space use during a time of stress: A case study during the COVID‐19 pandemic in Brisbane, Australia. People Nat. 3(3):597–609. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10218.
Bringslimark T, Hartig T, Patil GG. 2007. Psychological benefits of indoor plants in workplaces: Putting experimental results into context. HortScience. 42(3):581–587. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.42.3.581.
Bringslimark T, Hartig T, Patil GG. 2011. Adaptation to windowlessness: Do office workers compensate for a lack of visual access to the outdoors? Environ Behav. 43(4):469–487. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916510368351.
Cao W, Fang Z, Hou G, Han M, Xu X, Dong J, Zheng J. 2020. The psychological impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on college students in China. Psychiatry Res. 287:112934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112934.
Chang CY, Chen PK. 2005. Human response to window views and indoor plants in the workplace. HortScience. 40(5):1354–1359. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.40.5.1354.
Chang JH, Huang CL, Lin YC. 2013. Exploring the mechanism of psychological displacement paradigm in diary-writing: The effects of emotion peacefulness and mindfulness. Bull Educ Psychol. 44(3):589–607. https://doi.org/10.6251/BEP.20120407.
Chu HY, Chen MF, Tsai CC, Chan HS, Wu TL. 2019. Efficacy of a horticultural activity program for reducing depression and loneliness in older residents of nursing homes in Taiwan. Geriatr Nurs. 40(4):386–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gerinurse.2018.12.012.
Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. 1983. A global measure of perceived stress. J Health Soc Behave. 24(4):385–396. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136404.
Cohen S, Williamson G. 1988. Perceived Stress in a Probability Sample of the United States, p 31–67. In: Spacapan S, Oskamp S (eds). The social psychology of health: Claremont symposium on applied social psychology. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
Diamantopoulos A, Sarstedt M, Fuchs C, Wilczynski P, Kaiser S. 2012. Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: A predictive validity perspective. J Acad Mark Sci. 40(3):434–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0300-3.
Dijkstra K, Pieterse ME, Pruyn A. 2008. Stress-reducing effects of indoor plants in the built healthcare environment: The mediating role of perceived attractiveness. Prev Med. 47(3):279–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.01.013.
Doxey JS, Waliczek TM, Zajicek JM. 2009. The impact of interior plants in university classrooms on student course performance and on student perceptions of the course and instructor. HortScience. 44(2):384–391. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.44.2.384.
Dravigne A, Waliczek TM, Lineberger RD, Zajicek JM. 2008. The effect of live plants and window views of green spaces on employee perceptions of job satisfaction. HortScience. 43(1):183–187. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.43.1.183.
Egerer M, Lin B, Kingsley J, Marsh P, Diekmann L, Ossola A. 2022. Gardening can relieve human stress and boost nature connection during the COVID-19 pandemic. Urban For Urban Green. 68:127483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127483.
Elsadek M, Xie J, Jie G. 2023. The impact of indoor plants on patient recovery: Physiological and psychological effects in dental clinics. HortScience. 58(11):1376–1382. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI17326-23.
Evensen KH, Raanaas RK, Hagerhall CM, Johansson M, Patil GG. 2015. Restorative elements at the computer workstation: A comparison of live plants and inanimate objects with and without window view. Environ Behav. 47(3):288–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916513499584.
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG. 2009. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 41(4):1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149.
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. 2007. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 39(2):175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146.
Genjo K, Matsumoto H, Ogata N, Nakano T. 2019. Feasibility study on mental health‐care effects of plant installations in office spaces. Japan Architectural Review. 2(3):376–388. https://doi.org/10.1002/2475-8876.12098.
Gong M, Dong H, Tang Y, Huang W, Lu F. 2020. Effects of aromatherapy on anxiety: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Affect Disord. 274:1028–1040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.05.118.
Han AR, Park SA, Ahn BE. 2018. Reduced stress and improved physical functional ability in elderly with mental health problems following a horticultural therapy program. Complement Ther Med. 38:19–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2018.03.011.
Han KT. 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. Indoor Built Environ. 27(6):818–830. https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326X17691328.
Hassan A, Chen Q, Liu Y, Jiang T, Guo L, Mingyan J, et al. 2020. Do plants affect brainwaves? Effect of indoor plants in work environment on mental stress. Eur J Hortic Sci. 85(4):279–283. https://doi.org/10.17660/eJHS.2020/85.4.9.
Hassan A, Qibing C, Tao J, Bing-Yang L, Nian L, Li S, Tng LY, Li JZ, Ziyue SG, Tahir MS. 2018. Effects of plant activity on mental stress in young adults. HortScience. 53(1):104–109. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI12447-17.
Karam F, Bérard A, Sheehy O, Huneau M-C, Briggs G, Chambers C, Einarson A, Johnson D, Kao K, Koren G, Martin B, Polifka JE, Riordan SH, Roth M, Lavigne SV, Wolfe L, OTIS Research Committee 2012. Reliability and validity of the 4-item perceived stress scale among pregnant women: Results from the OTIS antidepressants study. Res Nurs Health. 35(4):363–375. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.21482.
Kelley RJ, Waliczek TM, Duc FA. 2017. The effects of greenhouse activities on psychological stress, depression, and anxiety among university students who served in the U.S. armed forces. HortScience. 52(12):1834–1839. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI12372-17.
Kenmochi T, Kenmochi A, Hoshiyama M. 2019. Effects of horticultural therapy on symptoms and future perspective of patients with schizophrenia in the chronic stage. J Ther Hortic. 29(1):2–10.
Kim KH, Park SA. 2018. Horticultural therapy program for middle-aged women’s depression, anxiety, and self-identify. Complement Ther Med. 39:154–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2018.06.008.
Kim SO, Oh YA, Park SA. 2020a. Foliage plants improve concentration and emotional condition of elementary school students performing an intensive assignment. HortScience. 55(3):378–385. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI14757-19.
Kim SO, Pyun SB, Park SA. 2021. Improved Cognitive Function and Emotional Condition Measured Using Electroencephalography in the Elderly during Horticultural Activities. HortScience. 56(8):985–994. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI15818-21.
Kim YH, Park CS, Bae H-O, Lim EJ, Kang KH, Lee ES, Jo SH, Huh MR. 2020b. Horticultural therapy programs enhancing quality of life and reducing depression and burden for caregivers of elderly with dementia. J People Plants Environ. 23(3):305–320. https://doi.org/10.11628/ksppe.2020.23.3.305.
Kojima H, Kunimi M. 2013. The effect of horticultural activity on the cognitive performance of healthy elderly individuals. J Ther Hortic. 23(2):5–18. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24865239.
Lai CK, Kwan RY, Lo SK, Fung CY, Lau JK, Mimi MY. 2018. Effects of horticulture on frail and prefrail nursing home residents: A randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 19(8):696–702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2018.04.002.
Lee JH, Choi HS, Yun SY, Choi BJ, Jang EJ. 2017. Effects of horticultural activities and flower tea drinking based on reminiscent storytelling on demented elders’ cognitive and emotional functions. J People Plants Environ. 20(4):351–360. https://doi.org/10.11628/ksppe.2017.20.4.351.
Lee MJ, Oh W, Jang JS, Lee JY. 2018. A pilot study: Horticulture-related activities significantly reduce stress levels and salivary cortisol concentration of maladjusted elementary school children. Complement Ther Med. 37:172–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2018.01.004.
Lee MS, Lee J, Park BJ, Miyazaki Y. 2015. 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 Anthropol. 34(1):21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40101-015-0060-8.
Lee Y, Kim S. 2008. Effects of indoor gardening on sleep, agitation, and cognition in dementia patients—a pilot study. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 23(5):485–489. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.1920.
Lei Q, Yuan C, Lau SSY. 2021. A quantitative study for indoor workplace biophilic design to improve health and productivity performance. J Clean Prod. 324:129168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129168.
Lin JH, Wu DY. 2021. Exercising with embodied young avatars: How young vs. older avatars in virtual reality affect perceived exertion and physical activity among male and female elderly individuals. Front Psychol. 12:693545. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.693545.
Lohr VI, Pearson-Mims CH, Goodwin GK. 1996. Interior plants may improve worker productivity and reduce stress in a windowless environment. J Environ Hortic. 14(2):97–100. https://doi.org/10.24266/0738-2898-14.2.97.
Makizako H, Tsutsumimoto K, Doi T, Makino K, Nakakubo S, Liu-Ambrose T, Shimada H. 2019. Exercise and horticultural programs for older adults with depressive symptoms and memory problems: A randomized controlled trial. J Clin Med. 9(1):99. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9010099.
McCoy CE. 2017. Understanding the intention-to-treat principle in randomized controlled trials. West J Emerg Med. 18(6):1075–1078. https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2017.8.35985.
McDonald RI, Beatley T, Elmqvist T. 2018. The green soul of the concrete jungle: The urban century, the urban psychological penalty, and the role of nature. Sustain Earth. 1(1):3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42055-018-0002-5.
Medeiros L, Bosse T, Gerritsen C. 2022. Can a chatbot comfort humans? Studying the impact of a supportive chatbot on users’ self-perceived stress. IEEE Trans Human-Mach Syst. 52(3):343–353. https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2021.3113643.
Michels N, Debra G, Mattheeuws L, Hooyberg A. 2022. Indoor nature integration for stress recovery and healthy eating: A picture experiment with plants versus green color. Environ Res. 212(Pt E):113643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.113643.
Mochizuki-Kawai H, Kotani I, Mochizuki S, Yamakawa Y. 2018. Structured floral arrangement program benefits in patients with neurocognitive disorder. Front Psychol. 9:1328. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01328.
Ng TKS, Gan DR, Mahendran R, Kua EH, Ho RC. 2021. Social connectedness as a mediator for horticultural therapy’s biological effect on community-dwelling older adults: Secondary analyses of a randomized controlled trial. Soc Sci Med. 284:114191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114191.
Pálsdóttir AM, Persson D, Persson B, Grahn P. 2014. The journey of recovery and empowerment embraced by nature—Clients’ perspectives on nature-based rehabilitation in relation to the role of the natural environment. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 11(7):7094–7115. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph110707094.
Palsdottir AM, Stigmar K, Norrving B, Petersson IF, Åström M, Pessah-Rasmussen H. 2020. The nature stroke study; NASTRU: A randomized controlled trial of nature-based post-stroke fatigue rehabilitation. J Rehabil Med. 52(2):jrm00020–7. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-2652.
Park S-A, Cho M-K, Yoo MH, Kim S-Y, Im E-A, Song J-E, Lee J-C, Jun IG. 2016a. Horticultural activity program for improving emotional intelligence, prosocial behavior, and scientific investigation abilities and attitudes in kindergarteners. HortTechnology. 26(6):754–761. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH03489-16.
Park SA, Lee AY, Son KC, Lee WL, Kim DS. 2016b. Gardening intervention for physical and psychological health benefits in elderly women at community centers. HortTechnology. 26(4):474–483. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH.26.4.474.
Polit DF, Gillespie BM. 2010. Intention‐to‐treat in randomized controlled trials: Recommendations for a total trial strategy. Res Nurs Health. 33(4):355–368. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20386.
Rhee JH, Schermer B, Cha SH. 2023. Effects of indoor vegetation density on human well-being for a healthy built environment. Dev Built Environ. 14:100172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2023.100172.
Russell JA, Weiss AF, Mendelsohn GA. 1989. Affect grid: A single-item scale of pleasure and arousal. J Pers Soc Psychol. 57(3):493–502. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.57.3.493.
Scott TL. 2017. Horticultural Therapy, p 161–165. In: Pachana NA (ed). Encyclopedia of geropsychology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-082-7_268.
Sia A, Ng KST, Ng MK, Chan HY, Tan CH, Rawtaer I, et al. 2018. The effect of therapeutic horticulture on the psychological well-being of elderly in Singapore: A randomised controlled trial. J Ther Hortic. 28(1):1–10. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26598039.
Sia A, Tan PY, Wong JCM, Araib S, Ang WF, Er KBH. 2022. The impact of gardening on mental resilience in times of stress: A case study during the COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore. Urban For Urban Green. 68:127448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127448.
Siu AM, Kam M, Mok I. 2020. Horticultural therapy program for people with mental illness: A mixed-method evaluation. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 17(3):711. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17030711.
Soga M, Gaston KJ, Yamaura Y. 2017. Gardening is beneficial for health: A meta-analysis. Prev Med Rep. 5:92–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2016.11.007.
Spano G, D’Este M, Giannico V, Elia M, Cassibba R, Lafortezza R, Sanesi G. 2021. Association between indoor-outdoor green features and psychological health during the COVID-19 lockdown in Italy: A cross-sectional nationwide study. Urban For Urban Green. 62:127156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127156.
Thatcher A, Adamson K, Bloch L, Kalantzis A. 2020. Do indoor plants improve performance and well-being in offices? Divergent results from laboratory and field studies. J Environ Psychol. 71:101487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101487.
Theodorou A, Panno A, Carrus G, Carbone GA, Massullo C, Imperatori C. 2021. Stay home, stay safe, stay green: The role of gardening activities on mental health during the Covid-19 home confinement. Urban For Urban Green. 61:127091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127091.
Toyoda M, Yokota Y, Barnes M, Kaneko M. 2020. Potential of a small indoor plant on the desk for reducing office workers’ stress. HortTechnology. 30(1):55–63. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH04427-19.
Tu HM. 2022. Effect of horticultural therapy on mental health: A meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 29(4):603–615. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpm.12818.
Vallejo MA, Vallejo-Slocker L, Fernández-Abascal EG, Mañanes G. 2018. Determining factors for stress perception assessed with the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-4) in Spanish and other European samples. Front Psychol. 9:37. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00037.
Vujcic M, Tomicevic-Dubljevic J, Grbic M, Lecic-Tosevski D, Vukovic O, Toskovic O. 2017. Nature based solution for improving mental health and well-being in urban areas. Environ Res. 158:385–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.06.030.
Warttig SL, Forshaw MJ, South J, White AK. 2013. New, normative, English-sample data for the Short Form Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-4). J Health Psychol. 18(12):1617–1628. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105313508346.
Yan L, Liu F, Meng X. 2022. Questionnaires assessing the anxiety alleviation benefits of indoor plants for self-isolated population during COVID-19. Int J Low-Carbon Technol. 17:300–307. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlct/ctab102.
Yang Y, Kwan RY, Zhai HM, Xiong Y, Zhao T, Fang KL, Zhang HQ. 2022. Effect of horticultural therapy on apathy in nursing home residents with dementia: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Aging Ment Health. 26(4):745–753. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2021.1907304.
Zhu S, Wan H, Lu Z, Wu H, Zhang Q, Qian X, Ye C. 2016. Treatment effect of antipsychotics in combination with horticultural therapy on patients with schizophrenia: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Shanghai Arch Psychiatry. 28(4):195–203. https://doi.org/10.11919/j.issn.1002-0829.216034.