This study was conducted on 150 users and 150 non-users of IPRS who were randomly selected. Participants were male and female office workers aged 20 years or older. An online survey was administered (http://form.office.naver.com) from January 23–30, 2020, and all 300 responses were deemed to be reliable and used in the final analysis.

The survey items for this study were tailored to the study topic; they referred to the items from previous studies related to rental services and the use of indoor plants (Choi, 2016: Hong, 2016: Kim, 2019: Song, 2019), and included the following for both IPRS users and non-users: their perceptions of office indoor plants (11 items) and OIPRS (11 items); the factors necessary for the development of OIPRS (16 items); their willingness to use IPRS in the future (1 item); and demographic characteristics (5 items). There were 44 items in total; 38 items used a 5-point Likert scale and 6 items used a nominal scale. Respondents' perceptions of indoor plants and IPRS, and their perceptions of the development direction of IPRS were analyzed using frequency analysis, descriptive statistics, cross-tabulation analysis, independent samples t-tests, and one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs). Two-way ANOVAs were performed if there was a difference between each item, depending on whether the respondents used such services or not. For the post-hoc analysis, Duncan's multiple range test was used. All statistics were processed using SPSS Statistics version 25.0 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA).

Based on the responses to the survey, the gender ratio of OIPRS users was similar, with males and females accounting for 50.7% and 49.3% of respondents, respectively; among non-users, however, there were more females (62%) than males (38%) (p < .05; Table 1). As for the age of respondents, both gender groups were mostly in their 30s, but the ratio of non-users in their 20s was found to be higher than that of users (p < .001). As for work experience, the largest number of users had more than 5 to less than 10 years’ experience (26%), while non-users had more than 10 to less than 15 years’ experience (23.3%) (p < .01; Table 1). An analysis of the educational background of both groups (users and non-users) showed that most were bachelor's degree holders, but the number of non-users with a master's degree or higher was higher than that of the user group (p < .05). In terms of residential area, it was found that the majority of users resided in major cities (51.3%), while non-users mainly resided in Seoul (32.7%) and major cities (32.7%) (p < .01; Table 1). The difference in demographic characteristics between users and non-users may have occurred given that the IPRS user samples surveyed in this study were obtained from specific companies located in major cities.

The survey responses exploring users' and non-users' perceptions of the advantages of office indoor plants on a 5-point Likert scale identified that the biggest perceived advantages among both groups were that indoor plants beautify the space (aesthetic enhancements; 4.30) and relax the mind (relaxation of the mind; 4.20), regardless of whether they used IPRS (Fig. 1). Air purification effects (3.89), humidification effects (3.71), and space shielding effects (3.68) were also recognized as advantages of indoor plants by the respondents, but the advantage that the introduction of indoor plants was expected to promote conversation among workers (more conversation) was found to be the lowest perceived benefit, as indicated by below-average ratings (2.82). According to a previous analysis of the public perceptions of, and preferences for, a “smart green office,” it was noted that the most common perceived advantage was that indoor plants had air purification effects (83.6%), while interior design function was identified as an advantage by only 6.2% (Oh et al., 2019). However, this study found that not only office workers, but also the general public, prioritized aesthetic functions in their perceptions of indoor plants, showing a difference from the results of previous research. Korean workers, who once prioritized their company and business, are shifting toward valuing individual life and showing trends of pursuing a so-called work-life balance (WLB); it is considered that they want a happy work life that can provide them with satisfaction as their values change from well-working to well-being, and for this, they recognize the need to create a beautiful and pleasant work space (Kim and Yu, 2016). The perception of the role of plants is gradually changing, with a focus on the emotional stability effects on humans, rather than functional values of plants (Seok, 2009). As the respondents showed the highest satisfaction with a beautiful workspace, it may be necessary to pay attention to an office interior that utilizes the aesthetic effects of plants while providing psychological stability.

Based on the results of the two-way ANOVAs, where both the advantages of indoor plants and whether respondents used IPRS were used as two independent variables, there was not only a significant difference (P_q < .001) for each advantage-related item, but it was also found that non-users (3.83) perceived the advantages of indoor plants to be higher than users did (3.71), depending on whether they used IPRS (P_user = .003). It was found that there was a difference in the perception of each advantage-related item depending on whether they used IPRS (P_user×q = .001); there was no difference in the perception between users and non-users for aesthetic enhancement and relaxation of the mind due to indoor plants; however, non-users were more likely to perceive the air purification and humidification effects as advantages compared to users (p < .05). It may be that the non-users who have not experienced IPRS have higher expectations for the environmental functions of indoor plants than the users, which is thought to be affected by the marketing of the “air purification effect” of indoor plants. On the other hand, users were more likely than non-users to perceive that indoor plants have space-shielding effects as an advantage, which can be intuitively experienced, rather than air purification and humidification effects, which cannot be immediately felt when using indoor plants. In addition, with respect to the advantage of more conversation, both users and non-users scored this item below average (3 scores). In previous studies, it has been reported that interactions with plants through horticultural activities help to improve sociability in group life (Sin and Lee, 2010; Choi et al., 2013); however, since the sensory experience of seeing and enjoying plants are not sufficient for active communication alone, it was regarded that hands-on activities should also take place in order to promote conversation through indoor plants (Lee, 2020).

For the survey items about the disadvantages of office indoor plants, all of them were ranked below average (3 scores), indicating that the disadvantages were not recognized as significant (Fig. 2). Based on the results of the two-way ANOVA, where both the disadvantages of indoor plants and whether a respondent used IPRS served as two independent variables, users (1.98) perceived the disadvantages of indoor plants as lower than non-users did (2.82), depending on whether they used IPRS (P_user < .001). Regardless of whether they used IPRS, respondents perceived that plant pests (2.84) and water leakage from pots (2.67) were the biggest disadvantages of indoor plants, followed by the idea that many plants were bothersome (2.55) and stuffy in occupied spaces (2.26). The perceived disadvantage that plants can cause allergies (1.66) was found to be ranked the lowest (P_q < .001).

There was a difference in the perceived disadvantages between users and non-users depending on whether they used IPRS (P_user×q = .001), but this resulted from the difference in the recognition level of each disadvantage-related item, depending on whether they used such rental services. For all disadvantage-related items, users who had experience of using services perceived these disadvantages to be lower than non-users did (p < .001). For the non-user group, it was thought that the disadvantages were perceived to be higher due to the lack of knowledge and experience in growing plants (Kim et al., 2019), while for the user group, all the disadvantages related to indoor plants were perceived to be low. This indicates that the items initially expected to be regarded as disadvantages of office indoor plants did not actually cause many problems. Therefore, it is necessary to alleviate the general public’s fears of keeping plants close by increasing horticultural education through the introduction of various theories and practices, and by increasing publicity efforts (Suh et al., 2010, Kim et al., 2019).

Reduced plant management burden (4.06), design suitable for space (4.04), experience with various plants (4.01), and professional plant management (4.00) were perceived to be the greatest advantages of OIPRS, regardless of whether a respondent used such services. However, the advantage of low initial installation costs (3.57) was found to be ranked relatively low when compared to the other advantages (Fig. 3). On the other hand, for the disadvantages of OIPRS, the respondents answered that expensive rental costs (3.29) and burdensome service contract periods (3.21) were the biggest disadvantages (Fig. 4), followed by limited choice for plant container design (2.91) and plant species (2.81), and access to external managers for plant management (2.81). The disadvantage that IPRS would lead to the loss of the pleasure of caring for plants (2.45) was recognized as the lowest, indicating that the respondents’ willingness to directly manage plants was low. This result is thought to be due to the fears associated with a lack of experience growing plants and the burden of plant management during busy working hours (Kim et al., 2019). The reason why respondents chose expensive rental costs as the biggest disadvantage was likely because they thought it was better to purchase rather than rent plants if they plan to use them for a long time, as reported in the existing rental-related research (www.embrain.com). To this end, it is necessary to raise awareness about how plant rental services are more economical, which can be achieved by presenting contract terms stating that customers can own rental plants at the end of the rental contract period, providing more diverse designs to satisfy customers, or offering a more reasonable price.

For the disadvantage-related items of OIPRS, users (2.77) perceived them to be lower when compared to non-users (3.10; P_user < .001). There was a difference in the perceptions between the disadvantage-related items of OIPRS, depending on whether respondents used these services (P_user×q = .001), but only for the disadvantage-related item of limited choice for plant species and container design, there was no difference according to whether or not respondents used these services. For the other disadvantage-related items, service users perceived the disadvantages to be lower compared to non-users (p < .001). It is thought that the non-user group perceived the disadvantages of OIPRS to be high, as they were influenced by their preconceptions, which may have resulted from not having experienced such services. The user group, who already experienced these services, evaluated that the items reflecting the expected disadvantages were not, in fact, significant problems.

As for the management method of OIPRS, it was found that the most preferred method was on-site management through expert visits (3.89; Fig. 5A), followed by online, real-time management consultation (3.37); however, users' own management (2.75) or contactless management through video (2.67) were not preferred. Respondents showed a high degree of preference for professional plant management visit due to the respondents’ lack of experience growing plants (Kim et al., 2019). However, when looking at recent reports on the structural growth of water purifier rental services, a representative product in the home appliance rental industry, it is expected that price competitiveness will increase and lead to further growth of the water purifier rental market through the adoption of a management approach in which consumers replace filters or clean the water outlet themselves (https://www.biztribune.co.kr). Likewise, it is expected that OIPRS will be able to develop a direct management method to reduce rental costs when users become accustomed to indoor plants.

Regarding the cost of OIPRS, the respondents answered that more diverse and subdivided designs and prices (3.61) were the most required, and they were also highly willing to pay an additional cost (3.41) for designs desired by users (Fig. 6). By comparison, the item that lower cost is more important than design (3.15) was evaluated lower than the items that valued design. However, the item that cost does not matter for such services (2.02) was ranked the lowest, indicating that cost is also an important factor to be considered in OIPRS. In a survey of the cost of services currently being used targeting OIPRS users, the respondents ranked the lowest price for all items (data source not shown) as the highest option, which reflected the consumers' desire to save costs; however, in reality, it was noted that respondents’ awareness of the price of indoor plants was insufficient. In addition, it was thought that people's values change in various ways, and they spend generously on services that can improve their quality of life, and pursue the design, service method, and price range they prefer. Similarly, it was found that the demand for design and function was higher than low price; thereby, the respondents showed high interest in the aesthetic effects and existing environmental functions of plants, including air purification and humidification through the rental of indoor plants. By capturing these changes, it is necessary to present a range of high-quality and diversely designed indoor plant rental products (Yoon, 2014).

By surveying the factors expected from OIPRS, it was found that respondents expected the most in terms of interior improvement (4.16) and functionality, such as air purification (4.13; Fig. 7). In addition, they considered reasonable rental costs (3.90) and a proper management approach (3.85) as more important factors than container design (3.65) and indoor plant species (3.62). The effect of indoor plants on the improvement of work performance (3.34) was also recognized as important, but it was found to be less important than other factors. However, the item related to brand awareness (2.73), which was expected to be an important factor, was evaluated as the lowest among all items, so it was judged that there were no brands that have gained great awareness in the OIPRS field so far. Depending on whether they used OIPRS, there was a difference in the perception of items related to respondents’ expectations of such services (P_user×q < .001). Non-users had higher expectations for container design, brand awareness, and plant species than users who had experience with these services, indicating that users' needs were becoming more specific through their experience.

Just as respondents perceived that the biggest advantages of office indoor plants were aesthetic enhancements and relaxation of the mind (Fig. 1), they regarded a design that was suitable for the space as an advantage of OIPRS (Fig. 3), and they chose the design they wanted over the cost of such services (Fig. 6), as one of the items they expected the most from OIPRS was improvement of the interior space (Fig. 7). Since design was recently identified as a core factor influencing the competitiveness of a company, it is strategically being approached from multiple angles, beyond the styling (Yoon, 2014). While existing customers considered the functional aspect of a product to be an important factor when purchasing, today's customers regard design as an important factor; therefore, it is judged that consumers are willing to pay more for the added value of design and pursue psychological benefits. Unlike in the past, the value of indoor plants is defined by consumers, and their preferences are also diverse; as such, it is necessary to study a wide range of functions and alternatives so consumers can enjoy freedom of choice when seeking these services.

Only 48% of IPRS users answered that they are willing to use IPRS in the future, even though they are currently using these services, while non-users showed a higher willingness to use such services (62%) when compared to users, even though they had no experience with them (χ² = 5.939, p < .05) (Table 2). The reason why experienced users showed a lower willingness to use such services in the future when compared to non-experienced users is judged to be due to their low satisfaction with the indoor plant rental products and services currently being used. Based on the results from this study, it may be the case that companies that provide OIPRS could increase OIPRS users' willingness to use the services on a continuous basis by creating beautiful and diverse plant species and container designs to satisfy customers’ desire for the aesthetic functions of indoor plants, which they deem to be most important. Service providers also need to evolve to expand upon and subdivide the management methods used and overall price range of OIPRS, so that customers can choose from a wider variety of service options.