Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39736894›Full record

ArticlePlant-environment interactions (Hoboken, N.J.)2024

Exploring the Indoor Plant-People Relationship Through Qualitative Responses.

B Le Busque, C Litchfield, C L Shaw

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plant-environment interactions (Hoboken, N.J.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

B Le BusqueStem University of South Australia Adelaide South Australia Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9096-1897
C LitchfieldConservation Psychology and Applied Animal Behaviour Research Group, Justice & Society University of South Australia Adelaide South Australia Australia.
C L ShawAdelaide Business School University of Adelaide Adelaide South Australia Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Humans have a long-standing relationship with the natural world, particularly in how they engage with plants-referred to as people-plant relationships. While plants naturally live outdoors, people have been including them inside built environments for centuries. Although the benefits of indoor plants are well documented in research, there is limited exploration of individuals' subjective relationships with their indoor plants. To address this gap, we examined the perceived benefits of owning indoor plants and how people describe their relationships with them through open-ended qualitative survey items. Data were collected from 115 indoor plant owners in Australia, and the qualitative responses were analyzed using a combination of thematic analysis and qualitative segmentation. On average, participants owned 15 indoor plants and in total participants identified 11 benefits. The most common being decorative and aesthetic value, improved air quality, and calming effects. Participants fell into one of four types of relationships with their indoor plants: highly connected, engaged, limited engagement, and no relationship. This qualitative segmentation approach allowed us to achieve a key goal of exploratory qualitative research-providing new insights to inform future quantitative studies. Given that we found that not all indoor plant-people relationships are equal, and that people have varying levels of connection to their plants, future research should explore these relationship types using quantitative methods.

Indexed as

biophiliaconnection to natureindoor plantsplant–people relationshipqualitative segmentation

Identifiers

PMID39736894
PMCPMC11683047

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.