Biodiversity loss is one of the most pressing issues living species face today. Ecosystems all around the world are being destroyed in favor of industrialism and consumerism, displacing countless numbers of native species, and posing a huge risk to human health. Not only does protecting biodiversity ensure the web of species interactions on earth is not interrupted, but it also promotes overall human health. Various studies were examined in the creation of this blog, but a few seemed especially relevant when considering
Recently, there has been much more of an emphasis on the effects that nature can have on human health. Specifically, “green spaces” in urban settings have been shown to decrease overall stress levels and improve immune function (Cox, 2017). According to the Center for Disease Control, closures of parks and green spaces during the pandemic poses a great risk for those living in urban areas, with no other form of nature surrounding them. This article by the CDC aims to illustrate the importance of these areas, and what could result in their closure. Not only is it known that activity outdoors can improve physical health, but it is now suggested that even exposure to these green spaces can have positive effects as well. For example, green spaces can lower blood pressure, risk of heart disease, stroke, obesity, and stress (Slater, 2020).
In a world where much of people’s time is spent indoors or staring at a screen, access and usage of nature has never been more important. For those living in urban areas, this access can be especially limited. According to a study, increasing urbanization will cause more people to suffer the effects of having fewer green resources. This study aimed to pinpoint the correlation between green spaces and health. It found that in homes surrounded by 90% green showed that only 10.2% of its residents felt unhealthy. However, when homes were surrounded by only 10% green, 15.5% felt unhealthy. This shows a considerable difference between those with access to green spaces and those without. As this study points out, urbanization is constantly increasing, which means the 15.5% of the urban population that feels unhealthy will only continue to grow. Therefore, it is so important to preserve biodiversity and nature by creating more parks and areas for people to go to experience the effects of green space (Lai, 2019).
Humans spend over 85% of their lives indoors. The link between nature and human health is well established, but what can be said about nature that is experienced indoors? Indoor plants have been popular since the ancient Egyptians grew them. They are still extremely popular today—they’re given as gifts, congratulations, and for basically any positive event in one’s life. Is all this due to their aesthetic, or is there something more that keeps the love of indoor plants alive? A study published by the Journal of Environmental Psychology sought to shed light on this topic. The study focused mainly on the psychological benefits of indoor foliage. It concluded that indoor plants could cause stress reduction as well as increased pain tolerance.
Another tested the human response to window views and indoor plants in the workplace. It provided various scenarios in which the workers were able to experience levels of nature at different increments. This study concluded that the workers who had access to window views and indoor plants reported better aesthetics, increased psychological and psychophysiological well-being, and improved stress recovery (Chang, 2005). Although this was a study relating to workplace environments, it can be argued that the same may be true for campus life.
Indiana University does a great job of maintaining biodiversity on campus, but what use is this to students if many of us only experience it in the short periods between classes? Students at IU spend a great deal of time on campus inside of classroom buildings. With the stress of the college workload along with all other stressors affecting young adults, it can be easy for us to suffer psychologically. However, this only impedes us further from accomplishing our goals at university. If the buildings on campus are not providing any sort of indoor nature, or any view of it on the outside, it could be plausible that they cause more stress to students than those who do provide them.
This study will aim to use the findings in the above literature to try and determine which buildings on campus do the best at providing views of nature through windows as well as indoor plants. This will be done using a unique system to score various buildings on campus based on number of windows exposing the outdoor foliage, number of indoor plants, and amount of natural sunlight. A survey will also be involved to determine which buildings on campus are favored by students to try and establish a correlation between the buildings’ nature content and the students’ overall stress levels.
Photo 1
Photo 2
Photo 3
These are some of a few photos (photos 1-3) I have taken around campus that highlight its rich biodiversity. Even after taking nature photos, I could identify that, although my stress levels may have remained constant, it becameeasier for me to deal with this stress. I hope to use this within my study to determine if other students feel the same, and if this can also be said for indoor foliage and access to window views on campus.
The American Association for Horticulture conducted a study which focused on psychophysiological responses to window views in an office setting. They showed participants a variety of different scenes, including natural and urban, and some with or without indoor plants present. The results showed that indoor plants and nature views provided a positive psychophysiological response in those observed and found that window views of nature had a more significant impact that indoor plants. It was also shown that the participants mental well-being was improved by looking at nature (Chang, 2005).
Another study done in 2016 showed that natural sunlight and nature in the workplace can be advantageous to mental health and staff morale. It also went further to connect the presence of sunlight in the workplace to decreased depression. The results of this study were similar to those from the American Association for Horticulture (An, 2016).
This study will be similar in purpose to the aforementioned studies. However, there will be novel intents and contributions from it. The purpose of this study is focused on Indiana University specifically, and it will be geared toward students as opposed to those in the workforce. Because of this, it will focus less on physiological responses and more on mood, focus, and stress levels. It will also combine some of the aspects studied in the two previous studies. For example, both window views and indoor plants as well as natural sunlight will be examined from specific buildings at IU. As mental health is an area of concern for many college-aged adults, it is important to see if the university the students in Bloomington are attending is doing enough to supplement the amount of time spent in classroom buildings with things proven to improve mood (i.e., indoor plants, window nature views, and natural sunlight). The BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy posted an article connecting students’ mental health to their collegiate success. These findings are compelling, and they are a key point in the reasoning behind researching the buildings on IU’s campus, which students spend a large portion of their time in.
The end goal was to design a methodology that would determine whether a correlation between mood and wellbeing are related to the presence of indoor foliage, amount of natural sunlight, and quality of view of outdoor nature. This will be focused on the scope of Indiana University to see how well the institution does at providing students and faculty with a serene work/school environment. A variety of classroom buildings and other buildings on campus that allow access to students will be the focus of a survey administered to students of IU to determine which buildings on campus they enjoy, find it easiest to focus, or do not enjoy. The results of this survey will be compared to data collected by observing each building. As well as the qualitative survey, a few students will be asked to undergo a more in-depth interview about their answers to gain insight on any popular themes that are mentioned in their responses.
Some of the buildings to be observed include Sycamore Hall, Luddy Hall, Morrison Hall, the Biology Building, and Woodburn Hall. The purpose of having a range of newer, and perhaps more aesthetically pleasing buildings as well as older, less pleasing buildings is to ideally establish that students’ moods can be very different depending on their surroundings. For example, newer buildings are often more open concept, well-lit, and contain more decorations, including indoor plants. However, older buildings are often more closed in, darker, and less decorated. The survey will determine if these factors play a role in student’s moods and focus. If so, a more in-depth interview of some of the surveyed students will help determine how strong this correlation is with use of a word cloud.
The survey to be administered will include only a few questions. This will ideally encourage more people to take it, which will make the results more reliable. The first question will ask the students to list their favorite 3 buildings ranked, based on a list of the observed buildings. The second question will then ask for their 3 least favorite buildings ranked. The third question will be open-ended, asking the standards each student has for a “good” building. Results will be tabulated into categories of common answers to determine if any student mentions nature.
The expected results for this, based on the findings of related studies, would be that students find buildings containing or able to view nature. Since previous studies have found that participants in the work force showed both physiological and psychological improvements in environments like these, it is appropriate to expect students to show the same or similar results.
There are a few limitations to this methodology. To start, not all buildings on campus will be observed, as students only have access to dorms if they take residence at them. As well as this, the building observations can be difficult to standardize. To rectify this, the buildings will be rated according to a point system. Each building observed will include the atrium and one classroom. Points will be assigned based on number of indoor plants, number of windows, and number of outdoor plants able to be seen from the windows.
Photo 4
This photo (Photo 4) of the Biology building atrium was found on IU Bloomington’s Biology Website. I find it relevant to this study because it captures the essence of what a high-scoring building would look like according to the aspects being studied. It has many large windows which allow natural light to enter, and there are indoor plants present. As well as this, there is a clear view of the trees by Ballantine Hall through the windows. Thus, this is a building could be expected to be popular when students are asked their favorite buildings.
There is much evidence that establishes and supports the importance of natural sunlight on mood. One in particular assesses the significance of different window sizes and direct sunlight penetration. It found that these factors did play a role on the participants’ mood. Some lighting produced dull or distressing moods, while others produced exciting or relaxing moods (Boubekri, 1991). This affirms that natural light plays a huge role in psychological response, which is important to note in terms of this study, which assesses the correlation between natural light and other factors and students’ moods or feelings about the building. Another study explored the effect of sunlight on cognitive function. The results of this were that lower levels of natural sunlight was found to inhibit cognitive function in depressed participants (Kent, 2009). As mental health is an area of concern for many college-aged adults, this applies to this demographic. A study on mental health in college-aged students showed that mental disorders make up almost half of college students’ health issues (Hunt, 2010). Thus, in an environment where cognitive function is so important and mental health issues are so relevant, a college classroom building, it is important to cater to those who spend their time in it.
As aforementioned, the idea of this study was to create a point system which would be effective in evaluating each building in a standardized and intentional way. The point system the buildings on campus were rated on was designed in accordance with the results of a related study, which found that the amount of natural sunlight and window views was the most important factor in the participants feeling about the scenes. The presence of outdoor foliage was found to be the second most important factor, and the presence of indoor plants was found to be the least important, though it still held value. Thus, the point system tailored to IU buildings reflected this. Buildings were assigned points in the following manner:
The presence of natural sunlight was ratedin three categories: little-to-none (1 point), some (3 points), and a great amount (5 points). Views of trees were rated based on the number of trees able to be seen from the windows in the buildings and were scored by approximate number range: 0-5 trees (0 points), 5-10 trees (1 point), 10-15 trees (2 points), 15-20 trees (3 points), 20-25 trees (4 points), 25-30 trees (5 points), and greater than 30 trees (6 points). The presence of indoor plants was scored in a similar manner: 0 indoor plants (0 points), 1-3 plants (1 point), 4-6 plants (2 points), and 7-9 plants (3 points).
The buildings that were observed and scored were Sycamore Hall, Luddy Hall, Morrison Hall, Biology building, Hodge Hall, Classroom Office Building, Ballantine Hall, School of Global and International Studies Building, Woodburn Hall, and Chemistry building. Out of these buildings, Biology, Hodge, and Luddy scored the most points, at 12, 11, and 10, respectively. Biology and Hodge’s scores were due to their many windows which allowed both great amounts of natural light in as well as clear views of many trees. Luddy scored highly not due to the number of trees able to be seen (this was average), but due to the presence of 9 indoor plants in its atrium and its many windows which allowed the highest amount of natural light in.
The buildings that scored the least according to the point system were Sycamore with 1 point, and Chemistry with 4. Sycamore was by far the lowest-scoring building, as the building is located in an area that does not contain much natural light. Also, there are few windows, with not many trees able to be seen, as this building is in an area that is not populated with many trees. The Chemistry building also ranked in the lowest bracket because the building is shaped in a way that shows only a small courtyard from the atrium, thus not providing views of the concentrated foliage around that area of campus. There were also zero indoor plants present in either of the buildings’ observed areas. Figure 1 below shows how the buildings ranked in a tabulation.
Figure 1
As I visited each building, I wrote down observations about the quality of natural sunlight and number of windows. The scores seemed to reflect that buildings with full walls of windows scored much higher for natural sunlight and visible trees. For example, SGIS’ atrium possesses almost 4 full walls of windows. Luddy’s has 2.5, and Biology has 2. This allows for many more trees to be seen and much more direct sunlight to penetrate. These buildings scored highly according to the point system and also according to the survey.
Another observation I found interesting was the fact that the buildings that score highly had many students sitting in them and studying or eating, whereas the buildings that scored lowly had few to no people sitting in them, and it seemed like everyone that was present in them was there for class. This was most notable in Sycamore and Morrison—there were no people present to relax, study, or eat, and these buildings ended up scoring quite lowly according to the point system and the survey.
A survey was created to attempt to gauge IU students’ preferences regarding these buildings and determine if a correlation could be established. The survey was simple, and only contained 4 questions. Each student that took it was asked to choose their top 3 favorite and least favorite buildings out of the list provided. They were then asked to briefly explain their choices in 1-2 sentences. The survey was taken by 18 students at IU, and the results showed a slight correlation to the above findings. Out of all the buildings, the 3 that received the highest percentage of votes for being students’ favorites were School of Global and International Studies (66.7%), Biology building (55.6%), and Luddy/Chemistry, which were tied (38.9%). The three least favorite buildings were Sycamore (55.6%), Morrison (50%), and Ballantine (50%). Figure 2 illustrates these results and the rest of the results from the survey.
Figure 2
According to the results of the survey, students did not choose the buildings which ranked highest according to the visible tree count, but rather the number of windows which allow natural light into the buildings. This is evident when looking at the separate criteria each building met or did not meet. As most of the buildings scored 0-1 point regarding the indoor plant count (with Luddy as an outlier), the number of trees visible and amount of natural light were the main source of scored points for each building. Although Chemistry did not score highly regarding tree count, it did score in the highest bracket for amount of natural light/windows, as the atrium contains one full wall of windows allowing light in. This was also the case with SGIS: it scored averagely regarding tree count as well, but it was chosen as the most popular building. This is perhaps due to its extremely above average levels of natural light. In observing all the buildings, this was the one that allowed the most natural light in, as it contains almost 4 full walls of windows.
The survey also contained open ended questions, which allowed for the students who took it to provide insight on what makes their favorite buildings their favorite and their least favorite buildings their least favorite. A few responses affirmed the hypothesis that buildings who scored highly according to the point system would be buildings students enjoy being in:
“Good natural lighting, large windows, uniquely designed, adequate seating/ study areas”
“They have nice lighting and a comfortable atmosphere.”
“They have lots of natural light and pretty views”
“Open windows, appealing architecture”
“They have the prettiest landscaping and nature”
Terms used like “natural lighting”, “prettiest landscaping”, and “open windows” affirm that the building qualities being tested were some of the same qualities students look for when deciding which buildings they enjoy. There were also many responses explaining negative views about the buildings:
“They look like prisons”
“little to no windows, feels cramped”
“No natural light, very bland”
“They make me feel like I’m in a cave or a dark basement”
“not updated and dark”
In the negative category, many took issue with buildings that were undecorated, dark, and overall, aesthetically unappealing. As these responses indicate, students hold views on certain buildings largely based on if they provide enough natural light and nature views to create a serene work/study environment. Many empirical studies have been done that establish these qualities are important for both productivity and mood. Furthermore, with the amount of time college students spend in classroom buildings, it is important to evaluate which buildings are providing a serene environment and which are not.
My hypothesis was confirmed in some ways, but slightly off in others. The point system created scored buildings relatively closely to how the students scored them, but not exactly. For example, the students surveyed indicated that their favorite building was SGIS, which was not scored as the highest by the point system because of the few trees that were visible. However, this building does have almost 4 full walls of windows, which means that this building by far contained the most natural light penetration. Because there were only 5 points maximum available for presence of natural light, SGIS did not score the highest of all the buildings. This was likely a design flaw of the point system—since studies have shown that natural light was the most important factor regarding those studied, having an extreme amount of natural light like SGIS does should have scored higher than it did within the point system. Had this been the case, SGIS would have been the highest scoring building as well as the students’ favorite.
Hodge Hall and Biology building were the next two highest scoring buildings, and Biology building was the next highest scoring building according to the survey. Biology building scored as hypothesized, but Hodge Hall scored a surprising 0% in the favorite category. This is likely due to a limitation in the study: most participants who took this survey were in some sort of science program, and Hodge Hall has classes almost exclusively for business majors. Because of this, many of the participants had likely never beeninside of Hodge, which was indicated in the open-ended responses.
There were many surprises I came across when conducting this study. For example, for each building I observed, I went into the atrium and one classroom which I felt many students spent time in (i.e., large lecture halls). According to the observations I recorded for each building, many of the large lecture halls and popular classrooms many will spend time in during their IU career had little-to-no natural light present, no windows, and no indoor plants. This is an issue that should be addressed, as focus would be improved if these environments possessed the important qualities this study has been based on.
The results of this study shed light on some of the aspects IU is thriving at, and some things the institution could improve on. First, IU has a very good reputation for the amount of nature it provides on campus. It is a selling point and is very valuable to students’ mental health, as proven by countless empirical studies. However, unfortunately, students do not attend classes outdoors, and walking from class-to-class outdoors is not enough nature experience to have a significant impact, as most classes are 5-10 minute walking distance from each other. A study in Europe showed that mood changes occurred after 30 minutes of continued exposure to nature. As few walks between classes take 30 minutes, this amount of exposure to nature is inadequate in significantly improving mood (Kondo 2020). IU could still stand to improve on its indoor environments. Many of the buildings I visited were dark, dingy, and closed off. Furthermore, only 2 of the buildings had the presence of indoor plants. This was concerning, as indoor plants have been proven to improve the mood and focus of those around them. It was obvious that the newer buildings on campus were built with the ideal environment in mind, but it was also obvious that the older buildings still felt dark and depressing. Although IU is an old campus and old buildings are inevitable, it is important that IU begin to focus on improving the environments its students spend their time in.
Sources
An M., Colarelli S.M., O’Brien K., Boyajian M.E. (2016). Why We Need More Nature at Work: Effects of Natural Elements and Sunlight on Employee Mental Health and Work Attitudes. PLoS ONE. 11(5).
Benedetti, F., Colombo, C., Barbini, B., Campori, E., & Smeraldi, E. (2001). Morning sunlight reduces length of hospitalization in bipolar depression. Journal of affective disorders, 62(3), 221-223.
Boubekri, M., Hull, R. B., & Boyer, L. L. (1991). Impact of window size and sunlight penetration on office workers’ mood and satisfaction: A novel way of assessing sunlight. Environment and Behavior, 23(4), 474-493.
Bratman, G. N., Hamilton, J. P., & Daily, G. C. (2012). The impacts of nature experience on human cognitive function and mental health. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1249(1), 118-136.
Chang, C., & Chen, P. (2005). Human Response to Window Views and Indoor Plants in the Workplace, HortScience. 40(5), 1354-1359.
Cox, D. T., Shanahan, D. F., Hudson, H. L., Plummer, K. E., Siriwardena, G. M., Fuller, R. A.,… & Gaston, K. J. (2017). Doses of neighborhood nature: the benefits for mental health of living with nature. BioScience, 67(2), 147-155.
Dean, J., van Dooren, K., & Weinstein, P. (2011). Does biodiversity improve mental health in urban settings? Medical hypotheses, 76(6), 877-880.
Eisenberg, D., Golberstein, E., & Hunt, J. B. (2009). Mental health and academic success in college. The BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 9(1).
Frumkin, H., Bratman G. N., Breslow, S. J., Cochran, B., Kahn, P. H., Lawler, J., Levin, P. S., Tandon, P. S., Varanasi, U., Wolf, K. L. & Wood, S. (2017). Nature Contact and Human Health: A Research Agenda Environmental Health Perspectives. 125(7).
Hunt, J., & Eisenberg, D. (2010). Mental health problems and help-seeking behavior among college students. Journal of adolescent health, 46(1), 3-10.
Dean, J., Dooren, K., Weinstein, P. (2011). Does biodiversity improve mental health in urban settings? Medical Hypotheses. 76(6). 877-880.
Kent, M., & Schiavon, S. (2020). Evaluation of the effect of landscape distance seen in window views on visual satisfaction. Building and Environment, 183, 107160.
Kent, Shia T., et al. “Effect of sunlight exposure on cognitive function among depressed and non depressed participants: a REGARDS cross-sectional study.” EnvironmentalHealth 8.1 (2009): 1-14.
Kondo, M. C., Triguero-Mas, M., Donaire-Gonzalez, D., Seto, E., Valentín, A., Hurst, G., … & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2020). Momentary mood response to natural outdoor environments in four European cities. Environment international, 134, 105237.
Ming, K. (2015). How might contact with nature promote human health? Promising mechanisms and a possible central pathway, Frontiers in Psychology. 6.
Lai, H., Flies, E. J., Weinstein, P., & Woodward, A. (2019). The impact of green space and biodiversity on health. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 17(7), 383–390.
Novak, V., Hajjar, I. The relationship between blood pressure and cognitive function. Nat Rev Cardiology, 686–698 (2010).
Pilotti, M., Klein, E., Golem, D., Piepenbrink, E., & Kaplan, K. (2015). Is Viewing a Nature Video After Work Restorative? Effects on Blood Pressure, Task Performance, and Long-Term Memory. Environment and Behavior, 47(9), 947.
Slater S.J., Christiana R.W., & Gustat J. (2020). Recommendations for Keeping Parks and Green Space Accessible for Mental and Physical Health During COVID-19 and Other Pandemics. Prev Chronic Dis.
Bringslimark, T., Hartig, T., Patil, G. G. (2009). The psychological benefits of indoor plants: A critical review of the experimental literature, Journal of Environmental Psychology. 29(4), 422-433.
Qin, J., Sun, C., Zhou, X., Leng, H., & Lian, Z. (2014). The effect of indoor plants on human comfort. Indoor and Built Environment, 23(5), 709-723.
Leave a Reply