All That Glitters is Not Green: Impact of Biophilic Designs on Customer Experiential Values

Abstract

Since COVID-19, people appreciate fully immersing themselves in nature. Bringing elements of nature into service spaces has been an important concern for marketers. Yet, there have been only a few studies addressing the impact of natural and biophilic aspects within servicescapes. This study investigated the effect of biophilic design on experiential values such as esthetics, escapism, economic value, and attitude toward hotels and the role of the hotel segment and its environmental beliefs regarding green behavior on the relationships. The results indicated that in a luxury hotel setting, the biophilic design engendered better esthetic perceptions, escapism, economic value, and attitude toward the hotel. At a midscale hotel, a non-biophilic design induced higher experiential values. In addition, customers’ environmental beliefs had significant effects on experiential values. Results provided practical suggestions for hotel managers, marketers, and interior designers on how biophilic servicescapes can enhance a hotel’s marketing effectiveness.

Keywords

biophilic design experiential marketing luxury hotel marketing segmentation servicescape

Highlights

The study investigated the effect of biophilic design on experiential values in the hotel context.

The study explored different hotel designs/servicescapes between midscale and luxury segments.

Biophilic designs at luxury hotels induce better esthetic perceptions, escapism, economic value, and attitude toward the hotel.

Customers at midscale hotels found the non-biophilic design more pleasant and attractive, showing a real sense of harmony and attention to design details.

The study offers a novel angle to show how users/perceivers react selectively to environmental stimuli based on their ability to respond

Introduction

The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic has shaken up nearly every customer category, influencing customer behaviors and values, including shifts in people’s perception of travel. People are now more interested in nature. People believe that nature, wildlife, and visiting local green and natural places are more important to their well-being than they did before the COVID-19 restrictions went into effect (Natural England, 2020). Some people find it easier to deal with negative emotions, such as increased anxiety, in the natural environment (National Statistics, 2021). People appreciate fully immersing themselves in nature, breathing fresh air, and catching glimpses of some of the earth’s most elusive creatures (Ranahan, 2020). In addition to the surging interest in nature, people also prefer less crowded luxury places, which are soaring in popularity because they offer an escape from the crowd and effortless social distancing (Vora, 2020). According to Smith Travel Research (STR, 2021) data, travelers showed a growing interest in traveling to more outdoor and nature destinations such as mountains, parks, and ski resorts. Among them, secondary coastal cities with quieter beaches, such as Myrtle Beach, were more popular than Miami Beach. Boutique/lifestyle brands and luxury resorts in smaller cities and rural areas, where social distancing is a way of life rather than a concerted effort, outperformed the big cities.

Since the impact of COVID-19 has stimulated hotel customers’ sustainable behavioral intentions (Kim et al., 2022), a large sector of the hotel industry is responding to this changing customer preference by integrating sustainability into their architecture and implementing nature designs into their properties (“Sustainable Hospitality 2020,” 2019). Hotels are also adding green and healthy atmospheres to the hearts of their operations and to their physical presentation in order to improve the customer experience (Lee & Chuang, 2022). Marketers and interior designers bring elements of nature into the service space; specifically, they focus increased attention on the concept of biophilic design. Biophilic design encourages firms to incorporate natural systems and processes into the built environment (Kellert et al., 2011) and is based on the notion that humans have an innate urge to affiliate with nature as part of their genetic narrative and biological composition (Kellert & Wilson, 1993). Thus, building nature into the built environment helps individuals to better focus, concentrate, and relax, making the surroundings more enjoyable and resulting in preferred choice behaviors (Kaplan & Berman, 2010). Yet, despite rising customer interest and industry reaction to nature-friendly environmental designs, little research has empirically explored the role of designing green/biophilic atmospherics (Han et al., 2021). In particular, travel is motivated by the desire to acquire new experiences, get away from mundane lifestyles, and reposition oneself to feel better about one’s life after returning home (Chen et al., 2016). However, the literature overlooks empirical research on the effect of biophilic/green designs on experiential values.

Considerations for the effects of the built environment on customers’ experiences in the hotel industry are further complicated given the fragmented nature of the industry where distinct segments such as midscale and luxury hotels compete. To fulfill customers’ desires for experiencing the value of hotel products, each hotel segment develops its product, amenities, service, and decorations in a unique way (Su & Reynolds, 2019). However, research on such differences across segments has been limited to financial performance, such as differences in average daily rate, occupancy rate, and willingness to pay (Su & Reynolds, 2019; Tanford et al., 2012). Individuals also exhibit different reactions to nature because their personal values and environmental consciousness play a crucial role in the development of experiences and attitudes toward sustainable behaviors (Cai et al., 2021; Gupta et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2022). People with high environmental values may engage more in green atmospherics, due to greater concerns about sustainability, contributing to favorable responses and behaviors (Kreidler & Joseph-Mathews, 2009).

Thus, this research attempted to answer questions such as (a) whether biophilic design versus non-biophilic design induces higher experiential values such as customer perceptions of enhanced esthetics, escapism, economic value, and attitude; and (b) whether such customer perceptions vary depending on the hotel’s segment and the customer’s beliefs about the benefits of green behavior. As this nature trend continues to grow in the hotel industry, the extant study considers biophilic designs in luxury versus midscale hotel settings under the reasonable assumption that upper scale hotels are likely to respond more readily to new customer preferences by making additional investments in property modifications compared to economy or budget hotels. Economy hotels are intended to meet a customer’s basic demands for a hotel stay and provide little experiential value, whereas midscale and luxury hotels go beyond merely providing a guest room to providing experiential value that helps customers to feel centered and cared for (Su & Reynolds, 2019). Our results provide practical suggestions for hotel managers, marketers, and interior designers on how biophilic servicescapes can enhance a hotel’s marketing effectiveness.

Literature Review

Service Environments or Servicescapes

Many academics have claimed that customer responses and behaviors are influenced by indoor atmospheres or servicescapes (e.g., Bitner, 1992; Han et al., 2021; Purani & Kumar, 2018). Service environments are important cues shaping customer perceptions of service quality. Because service experience involves tangible and intangible spaces where customer-provider interactions take place, customers frequently look for cues to help them evaluate a company’s capabilities (Nilsson & Ballantyne, 2014). Bitner’s servicescape framework includes the dimensions of ambient conditions, spatial layout/functionality, and signs/symbols/artifacts (Bitner, 1992). The physical environment has been viewed as a crucial element of hospitality and tourism services, together with other tangible factors—such as equipment, physical facilities, and employees—and the term “servicescape” translates into a brand’s physical expression (Purani & Kumar, 2018). As a result, a variety of environmental cues and physical elements assist customers in forming a comprehensive picture of the overall servicescape (Lin, 2004).

Many researchers have examined the role of various servicescapes’ design elements including color (Tantanatewin & Inkarojrit, 2016), scent, lighting, music (Biswas, 2019), and esthetics (Lin, 2016). These design elements are known to generate desired customer responses such as emotive, cognitive, and behavioral reactions (Bitner, 1992), self-image congruity (Breazeale & Ponder, 2013), and preferred choices (Lin, 2016). For example, Bitner (1992) illustrated the effects of the servicescape on customers’ quality perceptions and behavioral responses. Physical artifacts and service atmospherics result in positive consumption and trustworthy experiences (Gupta et al., 2019). The servicescape influences customers’ desires to stay in a leisure service setting for an extended period of time and their patronage intentions (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1996).

In the hotel industry, a hotel’s indoor atmosphere is also a critical aspect shaping customers’ cognitive, emotional, and conative evaluations of their stay (Han et al., 2021). Research has found that hotel atmospherics, such as social and room design, positively affect customer satisfaction, leading to better customer engagement (Choi & Kandampully, 2019). From the hotel guest’s standpoint, mood clarity, mood monitoring, and mood repair indirectly affect customer relational value through customer participation (Taheri et al., 2017). Furthermore, Alfakhri et al. (2018) argued that hotelscape (e.g., esthetics and design) can influence customer experience for hedonic-driven hotel guests, influencing their subsequent purchasing and referral behaviors.

Biophilic Designs

In recent years, biophilic design has gained popularity in environmental psychology, marketing, and health studies (Brengman et al., 2012; Tifferet & Vilnai-Yavetz, 2016). Several characteristics of biophilia are linked to both direct and indirect experiences of nature, space, and place (Kellert & Wilson, 1993). It comprises environmental stimuli such as plants, air, water, natural light, natural materials, and natural colors (Gillis & Gatersleben, 2015). Biophilic design is based on the notion that humans have an innate urge to affiliate with nature as part of their genetic narrative and biological composition (Kellert & Wilson, 1993). However, in urbanized and industrialized settings, people have limited interaction with nature (Gillis & Gatersleben, 2015). Since biophilic design encourages businesses to use natural systems and processes in the design of the built environment, it fulfills the human need for exposure to nature (Kellert et al., 2011).

Numerous benefits are associated with green atmospherics enhancing occupants’ positive responses and behaviors, such as relieving their stress and improving mental and physical health outcomes (e.g., Vujcic et al., 2017). Additionally, customers have favorable attitudes and behaviors in the biophilic retail environment. For example, Purani and Kumar (2018) found that biophilic servicescapes provided greater attention recovery levels (fascination and being away) and affective responses (pleasure and excitement) than non-biophilic servicescapes. Their study also showed more preferred choices for biophilic designs, especially in hedonic, experiential service contexts (e.g., restaurant and spa). Kumar et al. (2020) further examined the effect of an indirect nature experience in servicescape designs and found a positive influence on customers’ attention restoration, perceived place identity, and servicescape preference. Biophilia design elements also stimulate customers’ neural activities associated with excitement, interest, decreased stress, engagement, attention, and relaxation, thus explaining why shoppers respond positively to natural elements in retail contexts, such as greenery, fountains, and wildlife, compared to no natural settings (Rosenbaum et al., 2018).

Green atmospheres in a hotel have recently been viewed as an emerging technique for improving customers’ positive experiences and favorable behaviors (Lee & Chuang, 2022). For example, Han et al. (2021) investigated the attributes of green indoor atmospherics (e.g., green ambient conditions, green items, and green spaces/areas) and found they had a positive influence on customers’ and employees’ mental well-being, place dependence, and behavioral intentions. Lee (2019) examined whether implementing biophilic design (plants, water, and natural light) enhanced customers’ emotional responses, perceived quality, and behavioral intentions and found that biophilic designs elicited stronger positive emotional and behavioral responses than non-biophilic designs. Additionally, Lee (2020) investigated the impacts of positive design factors on customers’ responses in the hotel setting. She found that corporate social responsibility toward the environment (i.e., environmental-friendly design), escapism (i.e., escape from routines), and compatibility (i.e., sense of belonging) positively affected customers’ well-being, which led to customers’ brand loyalty.

However, other research contradicts the claim about biophilic design outcomes. For example, Song et al. (2022) found no evidence that the presence of biophilic components affected customers’ psychological responses or subjective well-being. Also, introducing vegetation to the store environment did not evoke feelings of excitement, perhaps because customers are too familiar with such natural elements, so the presence of plants was not enough to surprise/excite shoppers (Brengman et al., 2012). Furthermore, customer perceptions were moderated by exposure to greenery in daily life, in that it has been found that plants have a significant impact on perceived service quality among respondents who reported low exposure to greenery in their everyday lives, but not among those who reported a high exposure (Tifferet & Vilnai-Yavetz, 2017). In another study, millennials reported higher satisfaction and stronger emotions evoked by design style and biophilic elements in hotel lobby design than non-millennials (Nanu et al., 2020). Female and male customers reacted differently to biophilic elements in the context of hotel patronage: Female customers were more responsive than their male counterparts to the biophilic environment (Lee, 2019).

In sum, while servicescapes are widely advocated to evoke or restore positive cognitive and affective responses, few service studies, including in hospitality and tourism, have explored the role of natural or biophilic elements in servicescapes (Kumar et al., 2020; Purani & Kumar, 2018; Rosenbaum & Massiah, 2011). Even though the restorative effect of biophilic servicescapes has drawn additional attention in recent years, studies have shown inconsistent findings with regard to the performance/outcomes of biophilic designs. Thus, it may be helpful to look at the effects of nature/biophilic design by considering its contextual and individual differences.

Experiential Value

The current work’s framework is based on stimulus–organism–response (S-O-R) theory. Derived from environmental psychology, the S-O-R is a theoretical framework that explains how environmental cues (stimuli) affect customers’ emotional and cognitive reactions (organism), which consequently affects their behavior (response; Mehrabian & Russell, 1974). The S-O-R paradigm considers how affect caused by various environmental stimuli (Gupta et al., 2019) evokes emotional and cognitive reactions in customers, which might include experiential value perceptions. In this situation, customers react in one of two ways: approach or avoid. Approach responses include behaviors such as attitude toward the environment, and avoidance reactions include a desire to stay away from the environment (Kreidler & Joseph-Mathews, 2009). Either behavior is an outcome of a customer’s assessment that the environment has the potential to shape meaningful consumption experiences (Baker et al., 2002).

Visual esthetics have been recognized as important factors in determining the success of marketing efforts since they simulate the viewer’s mind to create images on its own (Krishna et al., 2016). Visual cues that appeal to the basic senses can have a significant impact on customer experience and response by influencing value comprehension (Krishna et al., 2017). The physical environment is inextricably exposed to those inside the built environment (Bitner, 1992). Customers carefully observe the cues present in a service setting since the tangible cues reflect product/service elements and create experiential values (Baker et al., 2002). Because of how the brain processes visual information, customers are more inclined to select more visually salient options and increase their positive perceptions of its value (Krishna et al., 2016, 2017).

Customer value is one of the cornerstones of service and marketing research. Customer experience from service interactions could consist of four main dimensions: esthetics, escapism, economic value, and service excellence (Mathwick et al., 2001). First, esthetics assesses the visual perception and emotional response the establishment’s atmosphere evokes (Mathwick et al., 2001). Customers enjoy being in the environment without impacting or altering the nature of the environment provided to them; they passively appreciate, or are influenced by, the way the surroundings appeals to their senses (Pine & Gilmore, 1998). According to Oh et al. (2007), the importance of the esthetic experience is well reflected in the concepts of servicescape or atmospherics for services marketing (Bitner 1992); that is, the physical setting and service of a business have a significant impact on customers’ patronage. Most people have a strong esthetic reaction to natural green plants (Kellert & Wilson, 1993). Thus, through their impact on perceived esthetic value, nature/biophilic features in hotel designs enhance experiential value (Apaolaza et al., 2020).

Second, escapism addresses the intrinsic enjoyment that results from enabling the customer to temporarily escape dull or mundane aspects of daily life (Mathwick et al., 2001). Customers enjoy finding new alternatives to refresh themselves in order to escape the boredom of their daily lives (Oh et al., 2007). People take a trip primarily to search for a meaningful life and/or center the self away from their daily life (Cohen, 1979). As customers spend extended periods of time in the service provider’s physical surroundings (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1996), their perceptions of a biophilic servicescape may play an important role in helping them to become immersed in the servicescape, to feel like they are living in a different time or place, and to enjoy the moment of escaping the routine aspects of daily life.

Third, economic value involves the customers’ perceived net gain from experiencing a service (Mathwick et al., 2001). The physical environment (e.g., décor and artifacts, spatial layout, and ambient conditions) strongly influences how customers perceive price (Han & Ryu, 2009). Firms can charge a higher price for highly esthetic products when buyers place a higher value on design than money (Townsend & Sood, 2012). In fact, customers are willing to pay more for products in retail environments that employ biophilia design esthetics than those that do not (Wolf, 2005). In the absence of direct contact with nature, replicating natural forms in designs can help to establish a preference for the servicescape, resulting in increased willingness to pay (Kumar et al., 2020).

Lastly, firms can strategically employ servicescape designs to create a positive impression on customers and promote customer behaviors (Rosenbaum et al., 2018). Nature/biophilic features in hospitality service designs contribute to a higher experiential value through their effect on perceived esthetic value, satisfaction, and loyalty (Apaolaza et al., 2020). Introducing biophilic elements can result in desirable behavioral intentions compared to the standard design (Lee, 2019). Based on the literature, it is reasonable to infer that biophilic servicescape elements possess a strong potential to affect customer perceptions of the hotel.

H1: Biophilic designs lead to more favorable evaluations of (a) esthetics, (b) escapism perceptions, (c) economic value, and (d) attitude toward the hotel than do non-biophilic designs.

Hotel Segments

While the S-O-R framework explains the customer-environment interaction and resultant experiences and behaviors, environments and servicescapes should be understood in terms of how people experience them. Hotels are classified based on factors such as price, function, location, scale, and ownership (Su & Reynolds, 2019). Typical hotel categories include economy hotels, midscale hotels, and luxury hotels. Their level of service and amenities vary, and each category attracts different customer segments with different needs (Knutson et al., 1993; Su & Reynolds, 2019). To give an example, economy hotels are designed to meet the customer’s basic demands for a hotel stay; as a result, they often offer guest rooms as the product’s primary component. Economy/budget hotels reflect favorable cost propositions but provide limited services (Brotherton, 2004), and little to no public areas, food and beverage services, or experiential value (Su & Reynolds, 2019). Midscale hotels go beyond merely providing a guest room to including a variety of facilities and amenities, such as more food and beverage options, public areas, and meeting/function spaces (Su & Reynolds, 2019). Lastly, luxury hotels feature décor and one-of-a-kind furnishings and offer a full array of services and amenities, including a concierge service, several food and beverage operations, and full room service. Luxury hotels are more closely related to consumption of status as they provide a personalized service that makes guests feel centered and cared for.

There are significant differences in responsiveness and tangibles across economy, midscale, and luxury hotels (Knutson et al.,1993). Each hotel category boasts its own unique market position, targeted customers, services, facilities, and brand personality traits (Su & Reynolds, 2019). Therefore, hospitality researchers need to “recognize the nuances of each sector” within the broader industry (Crick & Spencer, 2011, p. 472). According to LODGSERV (Knutson et al., 1993), expectations rise when travelers pay more for hotels. Due to their different products and services, markets, and positioning, a hotel segment can moderate customers’ evaluations of nature/biophilic servicescapes.

We argue that biophilic design is likely to be more effective in the luxury consumption context for several reasons. Luxury customers seek unique products that relate to status aspiration (Eastman et al., 2021); for example, nature/biophilic elements in the built environment may express higher levels of uniqueness, attractiveness, and status. Luxury hotels differ from other hotels in their sophisticated physical surroundings, and the physical surroundings heavily influence customers’ value perceptions of luxury hotels (Mattila, 1999). Customers also perceive hotels with biophilic designs as superior in quality, which is associated with upper segments of the industry (Lee, 2019). When the design is perceived to be superior in quality and luxuriousness, these luxury amenities enhance customers’ overall evaluation of the hotel and increase their willingness to pay (Heo & Hyun, 2015). In particular, luxury hotels constantly strive to provide green atmospherics since their customers tend to embrace sustainability as not only their design preference but also as one of their moral codes (Han et al., 2021). Altruistic incentives are more efficient at influencing the acquisition of luxury, and hedonic products over basic, utilitarian products, because engaging in socially responsible activities minimizes the sense of pleasure or guilt created when luxurious products are consumed (Kang et al., 2012). Based on these previous studies, it is reasonable to infer that customers’ responses to nature/biophilic elements in a luxury setting would enhance their perceptions of experiential value.

H2: Hotel segments moderate the relationship between the hotel designs and experiential values.

H2a: Biophilic designs at luxury hotels have more favorable evaluations than non-biophilic designs of (a) esthetics, (b) escapism, (c) economic value, and (d) attitude toward the hotel.

On the other hand, midscale hotels are designed to satisfy customers’ needs for accommodation and limited services, and, according to Knutson et al. (1993), target customers who want experiential value, but on a limited budget. Quality is likely to be a concern even for customers looking for accommodation with reasonable prices, as it is a key factor in determining the value they will receive (Rauch et al., 2015). Consequently, hotel operators must understand how midscale customers conceptualize experiential values. Midscale customers are more price sensitive, have lower expectations, and prefer standardized services (Tanford et al., 2012). Guests’ expectations of midscale hotels may be lower in terms of expected amount of staffing and the quality of interactions with staff. In fact, midscale guests place a higher value on tangible service (such as the cleanliness of the bedrooms) than on intangible service delivery factors such as courteous staff (Rauch et al., 2015). Customers appreciate a high degree of standardized services because midscale service environments and product items often fall short of meeting guest expectations or providing value (Fiorentino, 1995). Given these aspects of the midscale segment, it is reasonable to infer that those guests in midscale segments prioritize a more functional, standardized design over a biophilic design. Thus, it was proposed:

H2b: Non-biophilic designs at midscale hotels have more favorable evaluations than biophilic designs of (a) esthetics, (b) escapism, (c) economic value, and (d) attitude toward the hotel.

Individuals’ Environmental Beliefs

In general, green interventions via servicescapes may fall under the scope of green building designs that aim to outperform their conventional design equivalents (Purani & Kumar, 2018). All actions that produce and facilitate any exchanges aimed at satisfying human needs or wants with little negative impact on the natural environment can be leveraged as an effective marketing strategy (Polonsky, 2011). Differences exist in the extent to which individuals are attracted and connected to nature (Kreidler & Joseph-Mathews, 2009).

Customers are more inclined to act in an environmentally responsible manner if they believe that making green purchases will benefit the environment, other people, and/or themselves (Line & Hanks, 2016). Customers with a greater preference for a greener and healthier physical environment—during the COVID-19 pandemic in particular—demonstrated a higher level of feelings of wellbeing, happiness, and sustainable behavioral intention (Cai et al., 2021). Similarly, customers are more likely to view staying in a green hotel that engages in and encourages green behaviors favorably when they think they can help save the environment by practicing sustainable behaviors (Miao & Wei, 2013).

When hotel customers see nature/biophilic elements incorporated into the built environment, they may associate the design with green behaviors because service firms’ atmospherics significantly shape and influence customers’ perception of value (Dedeoglu et al., 2018). This situation implies that customers use environmental and biophilic cues as surrogates of product/service quality and overall core social responsibility (Cai et al., 2021; Gupta et al., 2019; Kreidler & Joseph-Mathews, 2009). Hence, given the implications of nature/biophilic elements in the physical service environment, customers with such pro-environmental beliefs are likely to be more immersed in the natural environment, display a higher level of personal relevance, engage in more active cognitive processing of green stimuli, and give more favorable evaluations of their overall service experience (Petty et al., 1981). Therefore, we proposed:

H3: Biophilic designs will lead to more favorable evaluations of (a) esthetics, (b) escapism perceptions, (c) economic value, and (d) overall attitude toward the hotel for customers with stronger pro-environmental beliefs than those with weaker pro-environmental beliefs.

Methodology

Experimental Design

An experimental research design was chosen because the researcher was able to control the research setting so that cause and effect relationships among variables could be evaluated (Zikmund et al., 2013). Our conceptual framework encompassed the customer’s behavioral mechanism that undergirds performance of biophilic indoor atmospherics, which positively influences individuals’ experiential values. As shown in Figure 1, the goal of this study was to examine how hotel designs affect esthetics, escapism, economic value, and overall attitude toward a hotel, and how these differ between hotel segments. In addition, this study assessed the effect of pro-environmental beliefs on these relationships. To these ends, the study employed a 2 (hotel design: biophilic vs. non-biophilic) x 2 (hotel segment: luxury vs. midscale) factorial experiment.

Figure 1.

Conceptual Representation of the Research Hypotheses.

Stimuli

To create the intended experimental conditions, this study used real photos of anonymous hotels that have incorporated biophilic elements in their built environment. Researchers found that the photograph simulation method was effective for shaping environmental preferences that could be derived from exposure to the real environment (Stamps, 1990). Previous studies on biophilic aspects frequently used similar photograph methods to create the conditioning stimuli (Brengman et al., 2012; Purani & Kumar, 2018; Lee, 2019). In the hotel context, photos serve as tangible evidence of customer experience and play an important role in evaluating marketing tools such as websites and brochures, because of their suitability for measuring customer perceptions of servicescape designs (Pullman & Robson, 2007).

This study focused on the lobby and guest room as venues to solicit feedback on the designs and to gauge the visual images’ impact because (a) lobby design plays into a guest’s experience during arrival and check-in (Countryman & Jang, 2006), and (b) guests typically spend a long time in the guest room. Therefore, both areas offered a greater potential for noticing design features as well as for affecting overall hotel experiential value (Pullman & Robson, 2007). Photos that appear to show standing eye-level views were selected for use in this study (Purani & Kumar, 2018). We excluded other elements such as hotel customers and employees because such non-design elements could confound the respondents’ design-specific perceptions (Rosenbaum et al., 2018). Uniformity and consistency in the dimensions featured in the photos was controlled for in order to minimize response bias (Purani & Kumar, 2018; see Figure 1 in the online supplemental material).

Several photos were compiled for the experimental scenarios. To ensure validity, five lodging experts—one hospitality industry expert and four academic experts—evaluated these photos by matching the design images with the two hotel segments (i.e., luxury and midscale). Only those photographs that all judges agreed on were included in the study. The experts confirmed that the photos and matching scenarios portrayed a realistic encounter at luxury and midscale hotels, respectively.

In the experimental scenario, the respondents were instructed to imagine themselves planning a leisure trip with their spouse or significant other. Then, while shopping for a place to stay on a travel website, they saw photos of the hotel’s lobby and its guest rooms, which represent the property’s overall design theme. The duration of the trip, the reason for the trip, and the source of the booking were kept consistent for all four scenarios. After seeing the lobby and guest rooms photos, the respondents were asked to describe common design characteristics using two to three words so that they were probed to pay closer attention to the photos and immerse themselves in the built environment. Comments included descriptions of the hotel designs as “very luxurious and esthetical view of indoor design.” Using this probing method, we tried to elicit progressively deeper and more elaborate evaluations of the hypothetical lobby and room designs (Zikmund et al., 2013).

Several attention check questions were planted across the survey to evaluate whether respondents paid attention to the images and read the instructions carefully. For example, one of the attention check questions asked, “In the images you just saw, what was not included?” Responses were removed from the data analysis if they answered at least one of the attention questions incorrectly. The questionnaire also included manipulation check questions along with research variables measures such as esthetics, escapism, economic value, and attitude.

Measurement

Except for attitude and economic value, all variables in this study were measured with multiple items on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from “completely disagree” to “completely agree.” Esthetics was measured through three items (e.g., the physical design theme of the hotel provides pleasure to my senses; Mathwick et al., 2001; Oh et al., 2007). Escapism was measured through five items (e.g., I would completely escape from reality; Lee, 2020; Oh et al., 2007). Environmental beliefs about the benefits of green behavior were measured through five items (e.g., green behavior may improve the health of nature; Line & Hanks, 2016). Economic value was measured through three items (e.g., low/high), and attitude was adapted from Spears and Singh (2004) and measured through five items (e.g., unappealing/appealing) on a 7-point semantic differential scale.

A pilot study was conducted with participants from MTurk (n = 64) to check for manipulations, realism, and measurement reliability. The pilot respondents were 75% male, 65% younger than 35 years old, and 69% holding a 4-year degree. In this study, we operationalized a biophilic design that incorporates nature and biophilic elements to be seen as sustainable because, as mentioned earlier, the perception of sustainability could be associated with luxury hotel customers’ stronger preferences and have greater moral and social desirability, which could also reflect superior quality in hotel offerings. We tested our logic in a pilot study by first measuring whether respondents perceived a hotel’s design theme as unsustainable or sustainable. To confirm our position, we conducted an independent t test to compare the biophilic and non-biophilic hotel design themes and the results showed that there was a significant difference between the two designs (M _biophilic = 5.86 vs. M _{non-biophilic} = 5.21, t = 4.044, p < .05). In addition, a significant positive correlation of the sustainable scale with quality perception was found (r = .586, p < .05).

Furthermore, service excellence was compared based on the photos within the same hotel segment scenarios in the pilot study. The differences were insignificant (M _biophilic = 6.25 vs. M _{non-biophilic} = 6.43, F = .786, p = .379), which supports the designs being compatible in service. Scenario realism was high in that the respondents reported experiencing hotels with a similar design theme when they tried to book a hotel room on the Internet (m = 6.1). Measurement reliability met the suggested criteria for escapism (α = .773), esthetics (α = .761), and attitude (α =. 883). A few questions were added to the survey according to the feedback received from the pilot sample (e.g., willingness to pay).

Data Collection

For the main study, a purposive sampling technique was used in which the experienced investigators selected the sample based on a set of agreed characteristics, in the interests of speed of data collection, lower costs, and convenience. Data were gathered through MTurk’s respondent pool using an online survey method. MTurk samples were used because they offer ease and a cost advantage and are a reasonable proxy for the larger population (Hauser & Schwarz, 2016).

The participants had to qualify for several criteria to take part in the survey. An invitation was extended to those residing in the United States who had stayed at a hotel in the past 6 months for leisure. An additional criterion was having an annual household income higher than $75,000 as this demographic represents a population that would be more likely to stay at both a luxury and a midscale hotel.

The random assignment of subjects and treatments to groups was carried out to equally distribute the effects of extraneous variables to one of the four conditions, using the built-in function of Qualtrics. A recommended minimum cell size was 20 observations per group (Hair et al., 2006). Because this study had four conditions, a minimum of 80 observations were required for an adequate analysis. Multivariate analysis of variance was used to test the hypotheses.

Results

Sample

A sample of 283 individuals provided data for this study, 30 of whom were removed from the analysis because they answered at least one of the attention check questions incorrectly. Of the 253 respondents included in data analyses, 58% were male, 32% between 26 and 34 years old, 32% between 35 and 44 years old, and 17% between 18 and 25 years old. Almost 64% held a college degree as their highest level of education. The annual income levels for 29% were US$50,000 to 74,999, 23% US$75,000 to 99,999, and 12% US$100,000 or more. In all, 44% lived in urban areas, 29% in suburban areas, and 27% in rural areas. About half of the respondents reported having last traveled to an urban destination (55%) and spending around US$100 to 200 for a room per night (68%; see supplement Table 1).

Manipulation Checks

To assess the experimental manipulations, respondents were asked to rate the elements on two semantic differential scale items: unsustainable–sustainable and non-environmental–environmental. The manipulation check results showed significant differences in the expected directions (sustainable: M _biophilic = 5.95 vs. M _{non-biophilic} = 5.45, t = 12.043, p < .001; and environmental: M _biophilic = 6.12 vs. M _{non-biophilic} = 5.54, t = 14.266, p < .001). The respondents were also asked to write down how much they were willing to pay for a room for one night to check, albeit indirectly, whether they differentiated between the two hotel segments from the photos. There was a significant difference between their willingness to pay for a luxury and midscale hotel, given the photos and descriptions (M _luxury = US$229 vs. M _midscale = US$192, t = 5.333, p < .05). The study participants perceived the hotel’s design themes to be realistic (M = 4.08). These results indicate that the experimental manipulations of the hotel designs and hotel segments were successful. The results also showed that the research design and measurement items were suitable for testing the proposed hypotheses.

Measurement Model

The measurement items used in this study appear in Table 1. The measurement scales were assessed for their reliability and validity using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Based on goodness-of-fit indices, reliability, and convergent and discriminant validities of the construct, CFA uses the maximum-likelihood estimation method (Hair et al., 2006). As shown in Table 2, the composite reliabilities for esthetics, escapism, economic value, and attitude ranged from 0.677 to 0.867, most of which exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.7 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). The average amount of variance extracted (AVE) was above the suggested cutoff of 0.50 for all variables (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). In addition, all maximum shared variance (MSV) values were less than the lowest AVE, and Maximal Reliability (MaxR [H]) was above 0.7, meeting the criteria for convergent validity and discriminant validity (Bagozzi & Phillips, 1991). Goodness of fit was acceptable: χ² = 183.316, df = 88, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.066, CFI = 0.955, IFI = .955, NFI = .917.

Table 1.

Measurement Model Constructs (n = 253).

	Mean	SD	CFA	α	CR	AVE
Esthetic				0.73	0.68	0.51
The physical design theme of the hotel gives a real sense of harmony.	5.59	1.11	0.78
Just staying at the hotel would be very pleasant.	5.71	1.03	0.65
The physical design theme of the hotel provides pleasure to my senses.	5.89	0.93	0.63
Escapism				0.89	0.87	0.57
I would feel like I am living in a different time or place.	5.40	1.42	0.93
The experience here would let me imagine being someone else.	5.23	1.52	0.79
I would completely escape from reality.	5.29	1.41	0.65
I would totally forget about my daily routine.	5.52	1.38	0.68
I would feel I am in a different world.	5.46	1.43	0.69
Economic Value				0.80	0.81	0.58
Very inexpensive – Very expensive	5.80	1.05	0.83
Low – High	5.87	0.97	0.73
Not pricey at all – Pricey	5.90	1.08	0.73
Attitude towards this hotel				0.85	0.84	0.51
Unappealing – Appealing	6.01	1.11	0.76
Bad – Good	5.94	1.09	0.76
Unpleasant – Pleasant	5.98	1.03	0.66
Unfavorable – Favorable	6.04	1.02	0.68
Unlikable – Likable	6.10	1.04	0.69

Note. All variables are measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale; CFA = confirmatory factor analysis standardized item loadings; AVE = average variance extracted based on CFA; CR = composite reliability based on CFA.

Table 2.

Scales’ Reliability and Validity Indices.

	CR	AVE	MSV	MaxR (H)	Economic Value	Esthetics	Attitude
Economic value	0.805	0.580	0.503	0.814	0.761
Esthetics	0.677	0.514	0.420	0.870	0.608	0.717
Attitude	0.836	0.506	0.503	0.923	0.709
Escapism	0.867	0.571	0.420	0.958	0.626	0.648	0.487

Note. Goodness of fit: χ² = 183.316, df = 88, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.066, CFI = 0.955, IFI = .955, NFI = .917.

Hypotheses Testing

A two-way, between-groups multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to examine the impact of the hotel designs and hotel segments on esthetics, escapism, economic value, and attitude. There were no significant main effects for the design (F = .908, p > .05), not supporting H1. However, there were significant interaction effects for the combination of hotel designs and segments (Wilks’ lambda = .947, F = 3.442, p = .009), supporting H2. When the results for the dependent variables were considered separately, scores for esthetics (F = 3.127, p = .078) and attitude (F = 3.301, p = .070) were found to be moderately different, and escapism (F = 5.588, p = .019) and economic value (F = 13.346, p < .001) were found to be significantly different, supporting H2a to H2d.

As shown in Figure 2, the participants showed a slight difference in esthetics responses towards the biophilic design of the luxury hotel (M _luxury= 5.9 vs. M _midscale = 5.8), but, interestingly, their esthetics responses were higher, albeit marginally, towards the non-biophilic design at the midscale hotel (M _luxury = 5.5 vs. M _midscale = 5.8, p < .10). Figure 2 also indicates that participants showed more escapism responses towards the biophilic design of the luxury hotel (M _luxury= 5.6 vs. M _midscale = 5.4), whereas their escapism responses were higher towards the non-biophilic design of the midscale hotel (M _luxury = 5.0 vs. M _midscale = 5.5, p < .05). Similarly, participants perceived the biophilic design as more expensive and of higher economic value at the luxury hotel (M _luxury = 6.0 vs. M _midscale = 5.7). On the other hand, their economic value was higher for the non-biophilic design of the midscale hotel (M _luxury = 5.6 vs. M _midscale = 6.1, p < .001). Lastly, participants showed slightly higher levels of attitude towards biophilic design at the luxury hotel (M _luxury = 6.1 vs. M _midscale = 6.0) than towards the non-biophilic design of the midscale hotel (M _luxury = 5.8 vs. M _midscale = 6.1, p < .10), as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 2.

Interaction Effect of Design x Segment on Esthetics and Escapism.

Figure 3.

Interaction Effect of Design x Segment on Economic Value and Attitude.

The participants were divided into two groups based on their environmental beliefs about green behavior. A two-way, between-groups MANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of the hotel designs and customers’ environmental beliefs on esthetics, escapism, economic value, and attitude. There was a statistically significant main effect for the environmental beliefs (Wilks’ lambda = .696, F = 26.850, p < .001). The interaction effect between the biophilic designs and customers’ environmental beliefs was moderately significant (Wilks’ lambda = .965, F = 2.233, p = .066), supporting H3. When the results for the dependent variables were considered separately, only the escapism score was found to be significantly different (F = 6.723, p = .010). The participants with greater environmental beliefs about green behavior displayed more escapism responses towards the biophilic design (M _{more green} = 6.1 vs. M _{less green} = 4.8, p < .05).

Discussion

This study investigated (a) the effect of biophilic design on experiential values such as esthetics, escapism, economic value, and attitude toward the hotel, and (b) the role of the hotel segment and its environmental beliefs about green behavior. Our findings indicated that biophilic designs did not lead to more favorable evaluations of experiential values than did non-biophilic designs, unlike previous studies where the customers in the natural environment reacted with enhanced emotion and approach behaviors (e.g., Baker et al., 2002; Kumar et al., 2020; Lee, 2019; Purani & Kumar, 2018). These inconsistent findings could be explained by theory of affordance. Researchers first used affordance to describe an individual’s opportunities for action afforded by the environment’s features (Gibson, 2014; Heft, 1989). While the surfaces’ composition and layout may constitute what they afford (Gibson, 2014), environment affordances are seen in relation to the subject/perceiver (Chemero, 2003). Affordances are defined by the environment’s qualities in relation to the subject. For example, a chair affords an adult “sit-ability” to rest for reading and “stand-ability” so that they can change a light bulb or reach a high shelf. However, the same chair does not afford either of these actions for a toddler, but it affords them “climb-ability” and allows them to hide and crawl beneath the chair. When an individual perceives affordances, it may lead to actions based on the environment’s functional characteristics, the individual’s abilities, the history of their interaction, and social learning (Heft, 1989). Thus, physical artifacts and atmospherics should be understood according to how the users perceive them.

In line with the theory of affordance, tourist experience is a result of the tourist interacting and engaging with the external environment (Tomej & Xiang, 2020). The impact of biophilic designs were only evident in luxury settings. The results indicated that the hotel segment moderated the relationship between hotel designs and experiential values. Specifically, in a luxury hotel setting, the biophilic design engendered higher esthetic perceptions, escapism, economic value, and attitudes toward the hotel. At a midscale hotel, the non-biophilic design induced higher experiential values. Our results were consistent with other studies that have claimed that its effects depended on contextual and individual factors such as individuals’ exposure to greenery in their everyday lives (Tifferet & Vilnai-Yavetz, 2017), personality traits (Jani & Han, 2014), gender (Lee, 2019), and age (Nanu et al., 2020).

In addition, customers’ environmental beliefs about green behavior had significant effects on experiential values, indicating that customers with stronger pro-environmental beliefs exhibited higher esthetics, escapism, economic value, and attitude toward the biophilic hotel than those with weaker beliefs. The finding was consistent with previous studies arguing that people with high environmental values were more open to new experiences and were highly sensitive to information asymmetry and complexity of green service elements (e.g., Gifford & Nilsson, 2014; Gupta et al., 2019). Also, customers’ environmental beliefs significantly moderated the relationship between hotel designs and experiential values. Customers with stronger pro-environmental beliefs reported higher escapism responses (e.g., “I would completely escape from reality”) towards the biophilic design, compared to those with weaker pro-environmental beliefs.

Theoretical Implications

This study offers several theoretical contributions. First, few studies have addressed the impact of natural and biophilic aspects within servicescapes. Servicescapes were frequently used to elicit positive cognitive and affective responses (Kumar et al., 2020; Purani & Kumar, 2018; Rosenbaum & Massiah, 2011). Especially in the hospitality industry, particularly upscale/luxury hotels, where the customer is likely to consume the hotel for hedonic reasons, environmental factors such as esthetics and ambience were likely to be an important determinant of service experience (e.g., Countryman & Jang, 2006; Jani & Han, 2015). For marketers and interior designers, bringing elements of nature into service spaces has been important, yet few studies have empirically explored how designing green/biophilic atmospherics results in performance (Han et al., 2021). Thus, this study contributes to this body of knowledge by investigating the effect of biophilic design on experiential values in the hotel context.

Second, hotels have different segments associated with unique market position, targeted customers, service, facilities and, overall, sets of unique brand personality traits (Su & Reynolds, 2019). Yet, researchers have often considered the hotel industry as a whole and/or focused solely on a specific segment of the hotel industry without considering the industry’s different hotel segments such as midscale hotels and luxury hotels, which have distinguishable characteristics (Akbaba, 2006). The current study attempts to fill the gap by exploring different hotel designs between midscale and luxury segments. Customers’ responses to nature/biophilic elements in a luxury setting enhanced their perceptions of experiential value, whereas customers in a midscale setting prefer non-biophilic designs. The results are somewhat in line with previous studies in that guests have different service expectations (Knutson et al.,1993) and that persuasive features on hotel websites are different (Díaz & Koutra, 2013) across economy, midscale, and luxury hotels.

Third, this research also contributed to the literature by supporting the theory of affordances to ascertain the effects of natural/biophilic designs in servicescapes. The S-O-R model explains how atmospheric cues impact the internal state, which leads to a response (Mehrabian & Russel, 1974). However, we found that biophilic atmospheric cues do not automatically affect customers’ responses. The theory of affordances was introduced to provide at least a plausible explanation for why H1 was not supported in our study. While considering hotel segment and individual environmental beliefs, this study offered a novel angle to see how a service environment influences reactions to numerous environmental stimuli and found that users/perceivers react selectively to those stimuli based on their ability to respond.

Practical Implications

As more customers now appreciate fully immersing themselves in nature, hotel marketers and managers should be proactive in designing their hotel atmosphere and offering service environments according to customers’ emerging needs and wants. Our findings suggested that the biophilic design attracts luxury customers and elicits their positive esthetic perceptions, and sense of escapism and economic value, resulting in a more favorable attitude toward the hotel. With this study, we recommend that hotel operators use biophilic and nature elements in their servicescapes for luxury products. In the biophilic design, luxury customers will feel like they are completely escaping from reality and will forget about their mundane daily routine. Also noteworthy was that customers perceive the biophilic design as more expensive and of higher economic value at a luxury hotel. Perhaps luxury customers consider the biophilic design as high quality, creative, and rare, associating it with an image of good taste and sophistication, and differentiating it from ordinary products (Kapferer, 2010). Thus, biophilic elements in servicescapes should be incorporated into marketing initiatives at luxury hotels.

On the other hand, midscale hotel marketers and managers are recommended to use the non-biophilic, contemporary design in their built environment. Customers at midscale hotels found the non-biophilic design theme more pleasant and attractive, and the non-biophilic design gave them a real sense of harmony and showed attention to design details. Customers at midscale hotels perceived the non-biophilic design as highly priced. These results may imply that customers at midscale hotels expect high degrees of standardized and economical services (Fiorentino, 1995), or that some tourists view green elements in service encounters as an inconvenience and tend largely to ignore them (Gupta et al., 2019). Lastly, we recommend that hoteliers use the biophilic design when targeting customers with stronger pro-environmental beliefs. Particularly, those with high levels of environmental beliefs about green behaviors will feel like they are living in a different time or place, and the experience will let them imagine being someone else if they were to stay at the biophilic-design hotel.

Limitations and Future Research

Despite its critical implications, this research was not completely free from limitations. The experiment was conducted online, and the respondents may not have been in a quiet place and focused on answering the questions, which eventually may affect the results. For future studies, the experiment could be done in a lab, as such a highly controlled setting would produce stronger experimental effects (i.e., strong internal validity). Although an experimental design approach allowed researchers to test the effects of designs on customers’ responses, this method in conjunction with the questionnaire only recorded respondents’ conscious responses. The application of an experiment tracking eye movements can measure the effects of physical designs more objectively and capture unconscious responses because the influence is reflected in eye movement patterns (Renshaw et al., 2004).

For future studies, other direct biophilic elements (i.e., light, air, and water) and indirect biophilic elements (i.e., images of nature, natural materials, and natural colors) could be used (Kellert et al., 2011). Other contextual and individual factors could be considered as moderators on the effects of biophilic design and its performance, such as hotel location (city vs. remote). For hotel location, the greater the match between the destination image and the hotel design theme, the more likely that customers may have a favorable attitude toward that biophilic/nature-related design, as in self-congruity (Breazeale & Ponder, 2013). While this study is focused on the effects of biophilic atmospheric cues/servicescapes on customers’ responses, it would be interesting to include staffing level and quality of interactions with hotel personnel at a biophilic designed versus a non-biophilic designed hotel. Finally, the purposive sampling technique was used as participants were recruited through MTurk. Thus, the results may not be generalizable to a broader range and should be interpreted with caution.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jht-10.1177_10963480221134547 – Supplemental material for All That Glitters is Not Green: Impact of Biophilic Designs on Customer Experiential Values

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jht-10.1177_10963480221134547 for All That Glitters is Not Green: Impact of Biophilic Designs on Customer Experiential Values by Seung Hyun (Jenna) Lee, Chen-Wei (Willie) Tao, Alecia C. Douglas and Haemoon Oh in Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Seung Hyun (Jenna) Lee

Chen-Wei (Willie) Tao

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Seung Hyun (Jenna) Lee, Ph.D. (leese14@ecu.edu) is an associate professor of East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, U.S.A.

Chen-Wei (Willie) Tao, Ph.D. (willie.tao@okstate.edu) is an assistant professor of Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK. U.S.A.

Alecia C. Douglas, Ph.D. (acd0011@auburn.edu) is an associate professor of Auburn University, Auburn, AL, U.S.A.

Haemoon Oh, Ph.D. (OH@sc.edu) is a professor of University of South Carolina.

References

Akbaba

(2006). Measuring service quality in the hotel industry: A study in a business hotel in Turkey. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 25(2), 170–192.

Alfakhri

Harness

Nicholson

Harness

(2018). The role of aesthetics and design in hotelscape: A phenomenological investigation of cosmopolitan consumers. Journal of Business Research, 85, 523–531.

Apaolaza

Hartmann

Fernández-Robin

Yáñez

(2020). Natural plants in hospitality servicescapes: The role of perceived aesthetic value. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(2), 665–682.

Baker

Parasuraman

Grewal

Voss

G. B.

(2002). The influence of multiple store environment cues on perceived merchandise value and patronage intentions. Journal of Marketing, 66(2), 120–141.

Bagozzi

R. P.

(1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.

Bagozzi

R. P.

Phillips

L. W.

(1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 421–458.

Biswas

(2019). Sensory aspects of retailing: Theoretical and practical implications. Journal of Retailing, 95(4), 111–115.

Bitner

M. J.

(1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 57–71.

Breazeale

Ponder

(2013). Get the picture? Visual servicescapes and self-image congruity. Journal of Business Research, 66(7), 839–846.

10.

Brengman

Willems

Joye

(2012). The impact of in-store greenery on customers. Psychology & Marketing, 29(11), 807–821.

11.

Brotherton

(2004). Critical success factors in UK budget hotel operations. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 24(9), 944–969.

12.

Cai

Gao

(2021). The green B&B promotion strategies for tourist loyalty: Surveying the restart of Chinese national holiday travel after COVID-19. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 94, Article 102704.

13.

Chemero

(2003). An outline of a theory of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 15, 181–195.

14.

Chen

C. C.

Huang

W. J.

Petrick

J. F.

(2016). Holiday recovery experiences, tourism satisfaction and life satisfaction—Is there a relationship? Tourism Management, 53, 140–147.

15.

Choi

Kandampully

(2019). The effect of atmosphere on customer engagement in upscale hotels: An application of S-O-R paradigm. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 77, 40–50.

16.

Cohen

(1979). Rethinking the sociology of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(1), 18–35.

17.

Countryman

C. C.

Jang

(2006). The effects of atmospheric elements on customer impression: The case of hotel lobbies. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 18(7), 534–545.

18.

Crick

A. P.

Spencer

(2011). Hospitality quality: New directions and new challenges. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 23(4), 463–478.

19.

Dedeoglu

B. B.

Bilgihan

B. H.

Buonincontri

Okumus

(2018). The impact of servicescape on hedonic value and behavioral intentions: The importance of previous experience. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 72, 10–20.

20.

Díaz

Koutra

(2013). Evaluation of the persuasive features of hotel chains websites: A latent class segmentation analysis. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 34, 338–347.

21.

Eastman

J. K.

Iyer

Dekhili

(2021). Can luxury attitudes impact sustainability? The role of desire for unique products, culture, and brand self-congruence. Psychology & Marketing, 38(11), 1881–1894.

22.

Fiorentino

(1995). Budget hotels: Not just minor hospitality products. Tourism Management, 16(6), 455–462.

23.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800313

24.

Gibson

J. J.

(2014). The ecological approach to visual perception: Classic edition. Psychology Press.

25.

Gifford

Nilsson

(2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: A review. International Journal of Psychology, 49(3), 141–157.

26.

Gillis

Gatersleben

(2015). A review of psychological literature on the health and wellbeing benefits of biophilic design. Buildings, 5(3), 948–963.

27.

Gupta

Dash

Mishra

(2019). All that glitters is not green: Creating trustworthy ecofriendly services at green hotels. Tourism Management, 70, 155–169.

28.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

Tatham

R. L.

(2006). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson.

29.

Han

Lee

J. S.

Koo

(2021). Impact of green atmospherics on guest and employee well-being response, place dependence, and behavior in the luxury hotel sector. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(10), 1613–1634.

30.

Han

Ryu

(2009). The roles of the physical environment, price perception, and customer satisfaction in determining customer loyalty in the restaurant industry. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 33(4), 487–510.

31.

Hauser

D. J.

Schwarz

(2016). Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behavior Research Methods, 48(1), 400–407.

32.

Heft

(1989). Affordances and the body: An intentional analysis of Gibson’s ecological approach to visual perception. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 19(1), 1–30.

33.

Heo

C. Y.

Hyun

S. S.

(2015). Do luxury room amenities affect guests’ willingness to pay? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 46, 161–168.

34.

Jani

Han

(2014). Personality, satisfaction, image, ambience, and loyalty: Testing their relationships in the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 37, 11–20.

35.

Kang

K. H.

Stein

Heo

C. Y.

Lee

(2012). Consumers’ willingness to pay for green initiatives of the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(2), 564-572.

36.

Kapferer

J. N.

(2010). All that glitters is not green: The challenge of sustainable luxury. European Business Review, 2, 40–45.

37.

Kaplan

Berman

M. G.

(2010). Directed attention as a common resource for executive functioning and self-regulation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(1), 43–57.

38.

Kellert

S. R.

Heerwagen

Mador

(2011). Biophilic design: The theory, science and practice of bringing buildings to life. John Wiley & Sons.

39.

Kellert

S. R.

Wilson

E. O.

(Eds.). (1993). The biophilia hypothesis. Island press.

40.

Kim

Lee

J. C.

Park

(2022). Threat-induced sustainability: How Covid-19 has affected sustainable behavioral intention and sustainable hotel brand choice. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/10963480221116060

41.

Knutson

Stevens

Patton

Thompson

(1993). Consumers’ expectations for service quality in economy, mid-price and luxury hotels. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 1(2), 27–43.

42.

Kreidler

N. B.

Joseph-Mathews

(2009). How green should you go? Understanding the role of green atmospherics in service environment evaluations. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3(3), 228–245.

43.

Krishna

Cian

Aydınoğlu

N. Z.

(2017). Sensory aspects of package design. Journal of Retailing, 93(1), 43–54.

44.

Krishna

Cian

Sokolova

(2016). The power of sensory marketing in advertising. Current Opinion in Psychology, 10, 142–147.

45.

Kumar

D. S.

Purani

Viswanathan

S. A.

(2020). The indirect experience of nature: Biomorphic design forms in servicescapes. Journal of Services Marketing, 34(6), 847–867.

46.

Lee

S. A.

(2020). Investigating the importance of positive hotel design. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 88, Article 102523.

47.

Lee

S. H.

(2019). Effects of biophilic design on consumer responses in the lodging industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 83, 141–150.

48.

Lee

Chuang

N. K.

(2022). Applying expanded servicescape to the hotel industry. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 46(4), 771–796.

49.

Lin

I. Y.

(2004). Evaluating a servicescape: The effect of cognition and emotion. International Journal of hospitality management, 23(2), 163–178.

50.

Lin

I. Y.

(2016). Effects of visual servicescape aesthetics comprehension and appreciation on consumer experience. Journal of Services Marketing, 30(7), 692–712.

51.

Line

N. D.

Hanks

(2016). The effects of environmental and luxury beliefs on intention to patronize green hotels: The moderating effect of destination image. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(6), 904–925.

52.

Mathwick

Malhotra

Rigdon

(2001). Experiential value: Conceptualization, measurement and application in the catalog and Internet shopping environment☆. Journal of Retailing, 77(1), 39–56.

53.

Mattila

(1999). Consumer’s value judgments: How business travelers as evaluate luxury-hotel services. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 40–46.

54.

Mehrabian

Russell

J. A.

(1974). An approach to environmental psychology. MIT Press.

55.

Miao

Wei

(2013). Consumers’ pro-environmental behavior and the underlying motivations: A comparison between household and hotel settings. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32, 102–112.

56.

National Statistics. (2021). How has lockdown changed our relationship with nature? https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/articles/howhaslockdownchangedourrelationshipwithnature/2021-04-26

57.

Natural England. (2020, April 22). People and nature survey. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/people-and-nature-survey-for-england

58.

Nanu

Ali

Berezina

Cobanoglu

(2020). The effect of hotel lobby design on booking intentions: An intergenerational examination. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 89, Article 102530.

59.

Nilsson

Ballantyne

(2014). Reexamining the place of servicescape in marketing: A service-dominant logic perspective. Journal of Services Marketing, 28(5), 374–379.

60.

Fiore

A. M.

Jeong

(2007). Measuring experience economy concepts: Tourism applications. Journal of Travel Research, 46(2), 119–132.

61.

Petty

R. E.

Cacioppo

J. T.

Goldman

(1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(5), 847.

62.

Pine

B. J.

Gilmore

J. H.

(1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard Business Review. July-August, 97–105.

63.

Polonsky

M. J.

(2011). Transformative green marketing: Impediments and opportunities. Journal of Business Research, 64(12), 1311–1319.

64.

Pullman

M. E.

Robson

S. K.

(2007). Visual methods: Using photographs to capture customers’ experience with design. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 48(2), 121–144.

65.

Purani

Kumar

D. S.

(2018). Exploring restorative potential of biophilic servicescapes. Journal of Services Marketing, 32(4), 414–429.

66.

Ranahan

(2020, June 21) In a socially distant world, camping is gearing up to become more popular than ever. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jaredranahan/2020/06/21/camping-is-more-popular-than-ever/?sh=7d9241507d19

67.

Rauch

D. A.

Collins

M. D.

Nale

R. D.

Barr

P. B.

(2015). Measuring service quality in mid-scale hotels. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(1), 87–106.

68.

Renshaw

J. A.

Finlay

J. E.

Tyfa

Ward

R. D.

(2004). Understanding visual influence in graph design through temporal and spatial eye movement characteristics. Interacting With Computers, 16(3), 557–578.

69.

Rosenbaum

M. S.

Massiah

(2011). An expanded servicescape perspective. Journal of Service Management, 22(4), 471–490.

70.

Rosenbaum

M. S.

Ramirez

G. C.

Camino

J. R.

(2018). A dose of nature and shopping: The restorative potential of biophilic lifestyle center designs. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 40, 66–73.

71.

Song

Ali

Cobanoglu

Nanu

Lee

S. H. J.

(2022). The effect of biophilic design on customer’s subjective well-being in the hotel lobbies. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 52, 264–274.

72.

Spears

Singh

S. N.

(2004). Measuring attitude toward the brand and purchase intentions. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 26(2), 53–66.

73.

Stamps

A. E

III . (1990). Use of photographs to simulate environments: A meta-analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71(3), 907–913.

74.

Smith Travel Research. (2021). Post-covid research opportunities & insights. https://str.com/

75.

Reynolds

(2019). Categorical differences of hotel brand personality: Identifying competition across hotel categories. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31(4), 1801–1818.

76.

Sustainable hospitality 2020. (2019, March 4). Hotel Yearbook. https://www.hotel-yearbook.com/edition/37000026.html

77.

Taheri

Coelho

F. J.

Sousa

C. M. P.

Evanschitzky

(2017). Mood regulation, customer participation, and customer value creation in hospitality services. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(12), 3063–3081.

78.

Tanford

Raab

Kim

Y. S.

(2012). Determinants of customer loyalty and purchasing behavior for full-service and limited-service hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(2), 319–328.

79.

Tantanatewin

Inkarojrit

(2016). Effects of color and lighting on retail impression and identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 46, 197–205.

80.

Tifferet

Vilnai-Yavetz

(2017). Phytophilia and service atmospherics: The effect of indoor plants on consumers. Environment and Behavior, 49(7), 814–844.

81.

Tomej

Xiang

(2020). Affordances for tourism service design. Annals of Tourism Research, 85, Article 103029.

82.

Townsend

Sood

(2012). Self-affirmation through the choice of highly aesthetic products. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(2), 415–428.

83.

Vora

(May 15, 2020). Remote destinations for luxurious isolation. CNN travel. https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/remote-destinations-coronavirus/index.html

84.

Vujcic

Tomicevic-Dubljevic

Grbic

Lecic-Tosevski

Vukovic

Toskovic

(2017). Nature based solution for improving mental health and well-being in urban areas. Environmental Research, 158, 385–392.

85.

Wakefield

K. L.

Blodgett

J. G.

(1996). The effect of the servicescape on customers’ behavioral intentions in leisure service settings. Journal of Services Marketing, 10(6), 45–61.

86.

Wolf

K. L.

(2005). Business district streetscapes, trees, and consumer response. Journal of Forestry, 103(8), 396–400.

87.

Zikmund

W. G.

Babin

B. J.

Carr

J. C.

Griffin

(2013). Business research methods. Cengage Learning.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

1.29 MB