The Influence of Multistakeholder Value Cognition and Risk Attitudes on Sustainable Interior Landscape Design Decisions

Abstract

With the increasing demand for interior landscapes, sustainable interior landscape design (SILD) has become part of a desirable lifestyle. However, consumer attitudes and a lack of consciousness and understanding of SILD have led to potentially negative impacts on design decisions regarding the use of sustainability in SILD. This study recruited 405 stakeholders to explore the relationships among value cognition, risk attitude, and decision intention. The value–attitude–behavior (VAB) model method was adopted to evaluate stakeholders’ cognitions and attitudes toward sustainable design and factors that influence sustainable design practices. The results demonstrated a positive correlation between multistakeholders’ value cognition, risk attitude, and SILD decisions. The relationship between value cognition and SILD decision intention is mediated by risk attitude. Furthermore, the value cognition of multistakeholders impacts risk attitude on the practice of SILD, thus changing design decisions. These findings provide insights into the sustainability of interior landscapes and design, particularly in terms of addressing diverse needs within multistakeholder practices.

1. Introduction

Interior landscape design (ILD) is the participation of public visitors with scientific and appropriate insight to beautify open Spaces [1,2]. Concern for urban environmental quality and well-being has become a key area of sustainable design research [3]. Based on the ultimate goal of sustainable development, the concept of sustainable design is not only a traditional design form [4] but also an optimization of design behavior to create better human settlements and solve environmental problems [5]. The concept of sustainable design has been integrated into ILD and plays an important role in social needs and quality of life. However, rapid urbanization has introduced environmental, social, and economic considerations to sustainable global development. In recent years, the application of sustainability principles in ILD in the architecture industry has also aroused the interest of practitioners, scholars, governments, and the public. According to statistics from the National Survey of Patterns of Human Activity (NHAPS), people spend 87% of their time indoors with limited access to nature, indicating a further disconnect from nature [6]. As an important part of interior architecture, the influence of ILD is amplified. In recent decades, numerous studies have shown the innate connection between humans and nature, and interior landscape has become a new way to integrate positive experiences of nature into the design of the built environment [7].

The practice of sustainable design concepts in ILD has a significant impact on occupants’ comfort, moods, behaviors, and presentation, as well as their general physical and mental health and well-being. The development of sustainable ILD (SILD) has supported the development of the architecture industry, and some companies have begun to promote sustainable landscapes as a project feature. The creation of real estate projects in the name of sustainable landscapes may violate the purpose of sustainability itself and lead to excessive profitability. Scholars are currently most interested in developing SILD in esthetic and functional experiences [8]. Therefore, the question of how to make interior landscapes sustainable and vibrant is worth discussing. In terms of interior architectural sustainability, a balance needs to be struck between project profitability and project sustainability, with relevant landscape elements reflecting functional needs while satisfying emotional values. Therefore, SILD value can be a project development priority. At the same time, stakeholders who play an important role in SILD practice can improve the quality of SILD projects through value cognition, attitude, and willingness to make decisions.

In this context, this paper explores the relationship between stakeholders’ cognition of the value of SILD and the promotion of sustainable interior architecture. Most research on SILD has focused on designers and customers [1,2,9,10]. However, the comprehensiveness, vagueness, and complexity of SILD require more knowledge, time, and social ethics from multiple stakeholders to understand the benefits of SILD [11]. Therefore, to improve the accuracy of the study, residents and construction contractors in China’s first-tier cities and suburbs were selected as respondents. The main purpose of this study is divided into two main parts. This study entails two major stages to achieve its purpose: (a) this study establishes an SILD value cognition system and study multistakeholder cognition of SILD-related value, and (b) the value cognition–risk attitude–decision intention model is adopted to describe the formation of the decision intention of multistakeholders. The framework contributes to the research and practice of SILD.

Theoretically, this study adopts the value–attitude–behavior (VAB) model and combines it with multistakeholder risk attitude, which expands the value cognition and risk attitude research and practice. In addition, the potential process of establishing decision intention is illustrated based on the VAB system theory. From a practical point of view, an SILD project based on the value judgment of residents and construction contractors is more meaningful and conforms to the preferences of multiple stakeholders. Combining these projects with the cognitive attitudes and behavioral intentions of multiple stakeholders can better promote the sustainable development of ILD. In addition, SILD research can provide enlightened insights into interior architecture and other subject areas, and this knowledge can be transformed into sustainable education tools to update the sustainable database. This study chose the ILD of the Taiyanggong Shopping Mall in Ruihong New Town, Hongkou District, Shanghai, China, as a case study and collected information from local residents through standardized questionnaires and construction contractors.

2. Literature Review

Similar to the consensus on sustainability principles and strategies in other built environment designs, SILD concepts usually include sustainable space division, thermal energy treatment, green material application, the purification of environmental quality related to plants and microorganisms, or traditional handicraft techniques produced using local materials [12,13]. Much of the focus of SILD revolves around the choice of green materials and the environmental quality of plant treatment. The consensus on the need for SILD practices has led to many studies on the mental and physical health of residents. Recently, scholars have combined ILD with virtual reality (VR) simulation to present SILD through VR technology or other virtual environment methods. The importance of SILD has gradually attracted the attention of scholars.

In the context of the development of sustainable interior environment design, value can be a vital influence in decision making. This study examined the period from 2016 to 2022, in which the Chinese government issued a series of guidelines and implementation plans to guide sustainable interior environment design. For example, in 2020, China’s Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development (MOHURD) announced the “Office Building Design Standard”, which added requirements for the SILD of office buildings. In 2019, the “Green Building Evaluation Standards” (ESGB) were released and implemented the technical publicity of green building facilities for residents. In 2018, the “Technical Standards for Green Renovation of Existing Communities” and “Calculation Standards for Green Performance of Civil Buildings” were released, which proposed standards for improving indoor green performance. In 2017, the “Technical Code for Operation and Maintenance of Green Buildings” was published. These practice mechanisms give the building industry core values toward sustainable development. Several studies have suggested adding SILD to the site development of building projects to promote sustainable value, as this approach has the potential to reduce pollution in the indoor built environment, thus benefiting local green building assessments and meeting the functional needs of residents while providing esthetic experiences. Therefore, the need to understand the value of SILD in achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has become even more urgent.

Many studies on sustainably built environment design focus on stakeholders. In addition to developing ESGB, many scholars emphasize the relevance of interior sustainable design and local multistakeholders. A similar conclusion can be found that multistakeholder cognition and attitudes contribute to the development of SILD. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is often adopted to identify and develop these frameworks for knowledge management as well as to evaluate multistakeholder decision performance [14]. In terms of barriers to sustainable design, multistakeholder cognition and attitudes seem to be regarded as high barriers [8]. Multistakeholder participation in project management can increase trust and public interest in sustainability and its positive impacts, reveal sustainable design strategies that could satisfy local needs, and contribute to the sustainability of decision making [15]. Therefore, our research provides a solid theoretical basis for multistakeholder research objects.

Following most SILD studies, the literature review in this paper is divided as follows: 1. the multistakeholder cognition of the value of SILD is explored; 2. the relationship between value cognition and the decision intention, the influence of risk attitude on behavioral attributes, the implementation process of appraisal value cognition, and risk attitude and decision intention are discussed; and 3. a design questionnaire and a discussion of the research results of the multistakeholder transition to sustainable design practices is proposed.

2.1. Value Cognition and Decision Intention of SILD

SILD usually relies on green materials to materialize sustainable resources into design elements. However, most current practices for sustainable building projects focus on design elements (e.g., esthetically pleasing products, materials, and finishes) [16]. In addition, green materials are closely related to design elements. Interior landscapes make it possible to reveal sources of sustainable identity separate from design elements, thus linking design sustainability to existing material resources [17,18].

Social cognition stimulates attitudes, motivation, and behavior [19]. Ma and Chang [20] applied the value–attitude–behavior (VAB) model to study environmentally friendly food consumption. Rokeach [21] defined value as a persistent belief, specific behavior pattern, and social cognition that can have an impact on society [22]. The intrinsic value related to social concepts can be divided into subjective intrinsic value and objective intrinsic value. Objective intrinsic value refers to how objects are recognized and communicated as meaningful [22], as is the case in the expression of stakeholders in the process of participation, whereas subjective intrinsic value is a person’s intention to assign value or expectation to an object. Both objective and subjective intrinsic value have significant positive effects on design decisions that affect environments [23]. Although the theory of value dimension has been widely applied to the study of behavioral intention in ecological design, sustainable interior architecture, and other fields [24,25], the value of SILD cannot be measured solely based on subjective and objective intrinsic values.

Abidin [26] adopts a different view that value cognition is similar to social cognition. He believes that value cognition is a personal emotional response, and personal values have a positive impact on the decision intention that drives sustainable behavior. According to Abidin’s [26] research on the cognition and application of the concept of sustainable architecture, the cognitive dimension of sustainable concepts includes three pillars: economic cognition, social cognition, and environmental cognition. The researcher believes that implementing sustainability concepts in construction projects can improve project value. These views are more consistent with the stakeholder dimension than the previous cognitive dimension, so it is more appropriate to study sustainable architecture from the perspective of value cognition. Other scholars agree that value is based on an individual’s emotional response in a social context [27]. Based on the view that “value cognition equals social cognition”, Juan et al. [28] summarized the research on social cognition of sustainable architectural design. For example, Juan et al. [28] incorporated environmental value into the study of green buildings, believing that consumers’ awareness of environmental value is to create the ability to solve problems related to sustainability through paying attention to sustainable design, so as to produce the willingness to buy green housing. For example, Juan et al. [28] incorporated environmental value into the study of green buildings, believing that consumers’ awareness of environmental value creates the ability to solve problems related to sustainability by focusing attention on sustainable design, thus producing the willingness to buy green housing. Therefore, as an attribute of value cognition rather than an attribute of each element in value cognition, sustainability needs to be gradually realized through the establishment of systematic value cognition.

Qiu et al. [29] argued that sustainability value cognition includes esthetic values, educational and spiritual values, social and economic values, and environmental values, and these four dimensions can help predict the intentions and behaviors of stakeholders. Yang et al. [3] believes that sustainable development-oriented value should have a systematic scope to explain multi-dimensional attributes, whereas value cognition is a stakeholder-centered strategy to implement design concepts into the entire design or production life cycle. Therefore, this paper focuses on the value cognition of multiple stakeholders in sustainable interior landscape design. Through a review of the literature, the four dimensions of esthetic values, educational and spiritual values, social and economic values, and environmental values are combined with value cognition to form the concept of sustainable value cognition, which is then incorporated into the stakeholder cognitive mode, and the research model and hypothesis are established.

2.2. The Influence of Risk Attitudes on Behavior

There is growing evidence about the role of perceived risk in stakeholders’ attitudes and intentions to adopt sustainable designs or products, that is, risk perception influences stakeholders’ decisions in various ways [30,31]. For example, risk perception is related to an individual’s motivation for green consumption and the purpose of choosing sustainable design or green products [32]. In the implementation phase of sustainable design, stakeholders’ risk perceptions often change during the process of project design [33]. In the marketing stage of design, customers’ risk perceptions affect their satisfaction with green products, trust in a sustainable environment, and expectations of sustainable design. Scholars have acknowledged the important role of emotion in assessing risk [34,35]. Paek and Hove [35] discuss various approaches to assessing risk perception. Paek and Hove [35] note that the psychological literature tends to support two approaches by which an individual’s psychological characteristics affect risk perception: dimensions based on emotion and cognition and classifications based on risk communication. The application of the dimensional approach includes labels such as fear, consequences, and unknown disasters to judge the harmfulness of risks [36]. Covello explains how people perceive risk, how they process risk information, and how they make decisions accordingly. The most widely adopted approach is the risk perception model, in which the perception of risk is similar to the concept of emotion. Risk perception includes voluntariness, controllability, familiarity, fairness, interest, understanding, uncertainty, fear, trust in institutions, reversibility, personal interest, morality/moral nature, human and natural origins, and catastrophic possibilities [37]. Risk perception has also been used to study the link between positive attitude and risk perception to help stakeholders improve their trust in sustainable design [38].

Attitude is generally understood as the evaluation and judgment of the perception of risk of a given object [39]. It can be divided into risk-loving, risk-neutral, and risk-averse [40]. Judgment can be changed after exposure to information and becomes a factor that shapes decision makers’ behaviors [41]. Scholars have also measured people’s risk attitudes using various scales [38,42] (Table 1). For example, in a study on contractors’ attitudes toward risk, Wang and Yuan [41] used the following adjectives to measure the respondents’ perception: reliable, trusting, fear, dread, worry, cautious, fearless, impulsive, interesting, and confident. Liu et al. [43] measured stakeholders’ attitudes toward sustainable design or products according to their trust and acceptance.

Risk perception and attitude are defined independently in various studies, and there is no unified standard to determine the impact of these concepts on stakeholders’ adoption of sustainable design decisions. Some scholars, such as Lin and Chang [44], have found that people with high risk perception are more likely to adopt a more cautious attitude toward sustainable design. Others [45] have suggested that reducing green risk perception has a positive impact on decision making. However, none of these studies examined the effect of risk attitude on decision intention. In a survey on green products, de Medeiros and Ribeiro [46] found that respondents used discriminatory, encouraging, and abstract terms for perceived risk to express their attitudes toward the perceived value of green product design. Consequently, this study combined risk and attitude in this study to create the concept of “risk attitude”, which represents stakeholders’ trust and concerned attitudes toward the risk of sustainable landscape design. “Risk attitude” was measured using “Unconcerned–concerned and Distrust–trust” as an indicator, echoing the anchors used to measure risk and attitude in previous studies.

Table 1. Findings on risk attitudes associated with the perceived value of using and sustainable interior landscape products and the impact of these attitudes on stakeholder behavior.

The Effect of Risk Attitude on Behavior
Risk Attitudes	The most relevant papers on risk perception and addressing it.	The influence of risk attitude on stakeholder behavior.
Trust	Risk emotion perception [41].	Increased trust and security in the brand value proposition [41].
	Trust and acceptance [43].	Easy to increase value perception [43].
Concerned	High risk perception, more likely to adopt a more cautious attitude [44].	This attribute adds value perception when comparing the advantages and disadvantages of a product [44].
	Discriminatory, encouraging, and abstract [46].	This property improves security [46].

Table 1. Findings on risk attitudes associated with the perceived value of using and sustainable interior landscape products and the impact of these attitudes on stakeholder behavior.

The Effect of Risk Attitude on Behavior
Risk Attitudes	The most relevant papers on risk perception and addressing it.	The influence of risk attitude on stakeholder behavior.
Trust	Risk emotion perception [41].	Increased trust and security in the brand value proposition [41].
	Trust and acceptance [43].	Easy to increase value perception [43].
Concerned	High risk perception, more likely to adopt a more cautious attitude [44].	This attribute adds value perception when comparing the advantages and disadvantages of a product [44].
	Discriminatory, encouraging, and abstract [46].	This property improves security [46].

2.3. Value Cognition–Risk Attitude–Decision Intention

The cognitive aspects of the study of sustainable interior building design involves residents’ responses to information in the indoor built environment and, to some extent, implies residents’ expectations of a better life [47]. Previous authors [48] proposed the VAB model to explain the flow of individual cognition, by which V represents the persistent belief that a particular behavior or behavior pattern is personally and morally preferable [21]. The model is considered a valid theoretical basis for predicting behavior or intent. In the study of decision-making behavior, value cognition and expectation are expected [49]. For example, Marcon et al. [50] noted that value cognition affects consumers’ expectations of product and design attributes, and expectations of product attributes affect consumers’ attitudes toward green products and design [50]. Prior to the VAB model, Bandura [51] proposed social cognition theory, which laid the foundation for the risk perception attitude (RPA) framework developed and extended by Rimal and Real [52]. The RPA focuses on measuring changes in perception, attitude, and behavior. Shortly thereafter, Wang et al. [53] further verified and modified the risk perception attitude framework (RPAF), arguing that the main emotional state factor shown by consumers is worry, which is an important intermediary in predicting decision-making behavior in risk perception.

Since then, many studies have confirmed the relationships among value, attitude, and behavior. For example, Yang et al. [3] adopted the VAB framework to conduct a study on sustainable design thinking and value cognition and identified the link between consumers’ value cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors. In the study of sustainable behavior, Brosch and Steg [54] found a path that may affect the value cognition state, attitudes, and final decision results.

Torsney and Matewos [55] believe that people’s willingness to take environmental action is composed of multi-dimensional cognitive factors. This study extends a new cognitive model of willingness to take environmental action and proves the relationship between values, attitudes, emotions, and willingness to take environmental action, especially when evaluating green products or behaviors. Examples include sustainable design products or eco-design. Marcon et al. [50] reviewed the value perception, risk attitude, and decision-making behavior related to green product design and believed that through risk attitude, consumers can obtain more effective perceived value to choose green products. In addition, given that the ecological value of green products stimulates consumers’ perception of risk, contractors who communicate with consumers are likely to generate more accurate green product designs through risk attitudes. This is consistent with the model constructed in this study and provides strong evidence for the research theory of this study. This study aims to establish the stakeholders’ perception model of SILD (Figure 1). In this study, the term “risk attitude” is used to represent stakeholders’ trust and acceptance. The VAB model has been widely applied in the study of decision makers’ behaviors, and it is also a feasible approach to studying the decision intention of sustainable design.

This paper discusses the relationship between SILD value and sustainable design decision intention, the influence of risk attitude on behavior, and the path from value cognition to risk attitude to sustainable design decisions as our research framework. This study started with stakeholders’ perceptions of value and was supplemented by attitudes. The literature review above confirms the potential for assessing decision-making intentions in SILD.

3. Research Method

3.1. Case Study and Research Object

In the field of “Sustainable Interior Building Design” as defined by the ESGB released in 2019, green plants, ecological landscapes, and green processes have high demonstrative and experiential value, indicating the prospect of developing green landscape products. These sustainable environmental areas also make up a large part of the ESGB. In other words, it is of practical significance to extend the research and practice in this field through sustainable interior landscape development. In terms of the case selection for SILD, the project is located in Shanghai, which is considered to be the megacity of sustainable development in China. The interior landscape of Sun Palace Shopping Center in Ruihong New City, Hongkou District, Shanghai is the focus of this study. The case is located in Hongkou District, Shanghai. This 180,000-square-meter shopping center serves the surrounding large community, as shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3.

As can be seen from the current situation of most shopping malls in China, especially in Shanghai, these shopping malls do not seem to have sustainable interior landscape design in mind. Under the current circumstances, it is worth noting that Shanghai Ruihong New City Sun Palace Shopping Center is constantly exploring and practicing a new model of sustainable community, integrating the concept of sustainable development into the whole life cycle of the project design. The case’s sustainable interior landscape design achieves a high degree of coherence and readability in spatial arrangement, in which the interior public landscape of the block-style commercial space displays interior landscape elements such as greenery, seating, and daylighting tops, as shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5.

The Ruihong New City Sun Palace Shopping Center was awarded LEED Gold Certification by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) in 2021 (source: USGBC). It is worth mentioning that the interior landscape design of the shopping mall is one of the most sustainable design projects in recent years for which the contractor has taken into account the participation and needs of ordinary residents as customers. Therefore, as one of the few green commercial complexes in China that can obtain LEED Gold certification, Ruihong New City Sun Palace Shopping Center can be the best case to receive this study in its own context.

To ensure that stakeholders have a highly objective perception of the value of SILD, this study selected respondents from residents in the vicinity of the Sun Palace Shopping Center and surrounding communities in Ruihong New City, Hongkou District, Shanghai, and local contractors in Shanghai. On the one hand, the results obtained from residents and contractors are likely to apply to consumers, as consumers experience interior landscapes differently from other types of site-specific ecological landscapes [9]. For example, previous studies have shown that SILDs can be associated with many places, including shopping malls, residences, hotels, and exhibition halls [56]. As far as SILD is concerned, the contribution of stakeholders is not just consumers; stakeholders may also become consumers using or renting interior landscape products.

On the other hand, SILD is the entire process of landscape product design, with complex design procedures such as the life cycle of SILD practices, including the initial sustainable design, green procurement, mid-term maintenance and operation, late replacement, and scrap recycling of design elements. Each stage requires the cooperation of various stakeholders, whose uniqueness reveals a complex process. This complex production process is a challenge associated with sustainable interior building design. The way a sustainable interior landscape is designed and produced also requires considerable effort, money, and time from various stakeholders to understand what it means. Because the various stakeholders have a deep understanding of this approach to SILD, studying their responses can inform developments related to it. SILD provides information for the development of sustainable practices related to ILD. The ecology and energy savings of ILD also reveal the social and educational value of sustainable interior building development rather than a simple economic growth index. The higher ecological conversion rate makes it more realistic to study the formation mechanism of residents’ cognitive paths. Therefore, the focus of this study is to gather relevant information from local urban and suburban residents, interior landscape designers, and suppliers of the project.

3.2. Questionnaire Design

This study designed a two-part questionnaire to collect stakeholders’ views on the interior landscape of the Sun Palace Shopping Mall in Ruihong New Town, Hongkou District, Shanghai, in the Appendix A (

Table A1. To evaluate the impact of multistakeholder value perception and risk attitude on sustainable interior landscape design decisions.

Section A: General Information
This section aims to understand the general details of you and your organization.
1.   What is your gender?
a.   Male	b.   Female
2.   What is your age?
a.   Less than 25	b.   26–35
c.   36–45	d.   46–55
e   56 and above
3.   What is your current education level?
a.   Primary school and below	b.   Junior high school
c.   High school	b.   Junior college (technical school)
b.   Undergraduate course	b.   Postgraduate or above
4.   What is your current occupation?
a.   Students	b.   Teachers
c.   Researchers	d.   Self-employed people
e.   Design manager	f.   Business manager
g.   Purchasing manager
5.   How long has your organization been in the business?
a.   Less than 3 years	d.   16–20 years
c.   11–15 years	b.   3–10 years
e.   More than 20 years
Section B: To assess the impact of risk perception on perceived value in sustainable interior landscape design decisions
Artistic appeal (1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree)
6. The interior landscape produced using green design elements has artistic appeal.
7. The interior landscape design using green design elements is unique.
8. The interior landscape design produced using green design elements perfectly integrates artistic elements such as color and decoration.
9. The interior landscape design produced using green design elements combines the features of art, ecological symbols, and innovative products to reflect a complete concept.
Educational and Spiritual Value (1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree)
10. Interior landscape design using green design elements can arouse environmental resonance.
11. The interior landscape design using green design elements reflects the environmental protection spirit of Shanghai.
12. Interior landscape design using green design elements encourages stakeholders to think critically and approach. issues rationally and stimulates stakeholders’ thinking and values.
13. Interior landscape design using green design elements symbolizes social, environmental, and economic significance.
Social and Economic Value (1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree)
14. The use of green design elements in interior landscape design helps to reflect the local interests of individual values.
15. Interior landscape design using green design elements can enhance the value of products or brands.
16. Local communities can use interior landscape design with green design elements to run commercial landscape experiences.
Environmental Value (1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree)
17. Interior landscape design using green design elements can save energy.
18. Interior landscape design using green design elements can save materials.
19. Interior landscape design using green design elements can produce ecological value.
Risk Attitude (1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree)
20. The feelings of stakeholders in understanding SILD range from not worrying to worrying.
21. How stakeholders feel when understanding SILD ranges from distrust to trust.
SILD Decision Intention (1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree)
22. I am willing to adopt sustainable interior landscape design.
23. I will adopt sustainable interior landscape design in the future.
24. I would recommend sustainable interior landscape design to my friends.
25. I’m interested in using sustainable interior landscape design.

). The first part included the demographic characteristics of the respondents (e.g., sex, age, education, occupation, and years of work). In the second part, there were three types of measurement indicators (e.g., value cognition, risk attitude, and SILD decision), as shown in

Table 2. Measurement indicators of SILD elements.

Level 1 Indicator	Level 2 Indicator	Level 3 Indicator	Reference
Value Cognition	Esthetic Value	Artistic appeal; regional uniqueness; art element integration; esthetic features; completeness of artistic forms	[1,59,60]
	Educational and Spiritual Value	Inspire environmental resonance; reflects urban community spirit; practical value of saving material/energy; serving as political propaganda; ecological culture symbol	[61,62]
	Social and Economic Value	Participation of urban community residents; added value of green products; service value	[63,64]
	Environmental Value	Energy saving; material saving; ecological	[65,66]
Risk Attitude	Risk Attitude	Unconcerned–concerned; distrust–trust	[38,67]
SILD Decision	SILD Decision	degree of satisfaction; confirmation of expectation; degree of trust; perceived value	[50,67,68]

. Based on the path of value cognition, risk attitude and sustainable design decisions, the questionnaire started from the value of urban SILD and explored the formation mechanism of urban SILD decisions based on the rational cognition of the respondents. This study refined several value cognitive dimensions based on the value characteristics of urban SILD and added risk attitude as the intermediary variable. As a measure of independent variables [57], a 5-point scale was used in this study. The 5-point scale is less confusing and improves response rate. In order to ensure accuracy [58], a 5-point Likert scale was used in this questionnaire. Item scores were measured on a 1–5 Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 3 = general agreement; 5 = strongly agree).

The SILD of the Sun Palace Shopping Mall is a large-scale green building design project for urban communities in Shanghai. ILD projects in urban communities are recognized to follow an attribute—interest—value path [69], such as a “value-driven” experience for consumers based on the value of SILD and how consumers experience this value. The value evaluation system adopted in this study partly refers to the scale. This study classified “value cognition”, “risk attitude”, and “SILD decision” as Level 1 indicators. Then, “value cognition” includes four Level 2 indicators, namely esthetic values, educational spiritual values, social and economic values, and environmental values, and 18 Level 3 indicators. This study also uses the dimensions of not worried–neutral–worried to measure “risk attitude” (Table 2). Indicators are defined in the Appendix A (

Table A2. Definition of value perception and risk attitude indicators of SILD in urban communities in Shanghai.

Level 2 Indicator	Level 2 Indicator	Definition of Level 3 Indicator
Esthetic Value	Artistic appeal	The interior landscape produced using green design elements has artistic appeal.
	Regional uniqueness	The interior landscape design using green design elements has unique Shanghai characteristics and style.
	Art elements integration	The interior landscape design produced using green design elements perfectly integrates artistic elements such as color and decoration.
	Esthetic features	The interior landscape design using green design elements has esthetic characteristics for esthetic purposes.
	Completeness of artistic forms	The interior landscape design produced using green design elements combines the features of art, ecological symbols, and innovative products to reflect a complete concept.
Educational and Spiritual Value	Inspire environmental resonance	Interior landscape design using green design elements can arouse environmental resonance.
	Reflect urban community spirit	The interior landscape design using green design elements reflects the environmental protection spirit of Shanghai.
	Practical value of material/energy savings	Interior landscape design using green design elements encourages stakeholders to think critically and approach issues rationally and stimulates stakeholders’ thinking and values.
	Serving as political propaganda, ecological culture symbol	Interior landscape design using green design elements symbolizes social, environmental, and economic significance.
Social and Economic Value	Participation of urban community residents	The use of green design elements in interior landscape design helps reflect the local interests of individual values.
	Added value of green products	Interior landscape design using green design elements can enhance the value of products or brands.
	Service value	Local communities can use interior landscape design with green design elements to run commercial landscape experiences.
Environmental Value	Energy saving	Interior landscape design using green design elements can save energy.
	Material saving	Interior landscape design using green design elements can save materials.
	Ecological	Interior landscape design using green design elements can produce ecological value.
Risk Attitude	Unconcerned–concerned	The feelings of stakeholders in understanding SILD range from not worrying to worrying.
	Distrust–trust	How stakeholders feel when understanding SILD ranges from distrust to trust.
SILD Decision Intention	Degree of satisfaction	I am willing to adopt sustainable interior landscape design.
	Confirmation of expectation	I will adopt sustainable interior landscape design in the future.
	Degree of trust	I would recommend sustainable interior landscape design to my friends.
	Perceived value	I’m interested in using sustainable interior landscape design.

).

3.3. Research Hypothesis

Based on the literature review and research theme, this study hypothesized that stakeholders’ cognitions of the value of SILD positively influence their design decisions. Risk attitude plays an intermediary role in the relationships among the four value cognition indicators and design decisions. H1, H2, H3, and H4 are shown in Figure 6.

Hypothesis 1 (H1). 

Esthetic value is positively related to SILD decision making; risk attitude is the intermediary between esthetic value and SILD design decisions.

Hypothesis 2 (H2). 

Educational and spiritual values are positively related to SILD design decisions. Risk attitude is the mediator of educational and spiritual values in SILD decision making.

Hypothesis 3 (H3). 

Socioeconomic value is positively related to SILD decision making. Risk attitude is the intermediary between socioeconomic value and SILD decision making.

Hypothesis 4 (H4). 

Environmental value is positively related to SILD decision making. Risk attitude is the intermediary of environmental value to SILD decision making.

3.4. Sample and Data Collection

The study took place over two months and was conducted online from July 2022 to September 2022. The survey was conducted in Shanghai, which has a high level of sustainable development, to ensure that the information about residents’ and contractors’ visit intentions is practical while reducing the workload of researchers. A total of 465 questionnaires were collected during the investigation, with 405 valid questionnaires (effective recovery rate was 87.10%). Among the 465 respondents (Table 2), middle-school students dominate the consumer group, accounting for 27.9%; design managers dominated the contractors, accounting for 24.4 percent of the contractors. Just under half of these respondents (48.8%) were women; the rest of the respondents were men. People aged 26 to 35 dominated the sample at 43 per cent. Of the respondents, 25.2% were in undergraduate education, and 33.8% had worked for 3–10 years.

In this study, a questionnaire was used to distribute the scale. Respondents who met the requirements for the research completed the questionnaire. A total of 405 valid questionnaires were collected from the questionnaire network.

Table 3. Description of demographic variables.

Demographic Variable	Category	Frequency	Percent
Sex	Male	207	51.1
	Female	198	48.9
Age	Less than 25	13	3.2
	26–35	174	43
	36–45	101	24.9
	46–55	65	16
	56 and above	52	12.8
Level of education	Primary school and below	3	0.7
	Junior high school	77	19
	High school	83	20.5
	Junior college (technical school)	73	18
	Undergraduate course	102	25.2
	Postgraduate or above	67	16.5
Professional	Students	113	27.9
	Teachers	30	7.4
	Researchers	25	6.2
	Self-employed people	67	16.5
	Design manager	99	24.4
	Business manager	42	10.4
	Purchasing manager	29	7.2
Years of service	Less than 3 years	96	23.7
	3–10 years	137	33.8
	11–15 years	90	22.2
	16–20 years	52	12.8
	More than 20 years	30	7.4

exhibits the specific demographic variables.

The above table shows that the distribution of demographic variables of the survey subjects is basically reasonable, indicating that the sample has a certain representativeness.

4. Results

4.1. Data Analysis

4.1.1. Reliability and Validity Test

Reliability is the degree of reliability and consistency of the data. Validity is the ability of measuring tools to accurately measure the real situation of things, which can reflect the accuracy of data [70]. In this study, the factor loading, component reliability, and average variance extracted (AVE) of each item were analyzed by confirmatory factor analysis. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calculated with reliability analysis. In summary, the reliability and validity of this study were supported. Specific results are shown in

Table 4. Reliability and validity analysis.

Variable	Item	Factor Loading	AVE	CR	Alpha
Esthetic Value	AV1	0.781	0.609	0.886	0.886
	AV2	0.811
	AV3	0.740
	AV4	0.785
	AV5	0.784
Educational and Spiritual Value	ESV1	0.842	0.664	0.888	0.887
	ESV2	0.827
	ESV3	0.778
	ESV4	0.812
Social and Economic Value	SEV1	0.636	0.599	0.815	0.804
	SEV2	0.897
	SEV3	0.768
Environmental Value	EV1	0.824	0.632	0.837	0.837
	EV2	0.795
	EV3	0.764
Risk Attitude	RA1	0.703	0.554	0.712	0.71
	RA2	0.783
SILD Decision Intention	SLLD1	0.744	0.559	0.835	0.834
	SLLD2	0.760
	SLLD3	0.724
	SLLD4	0.761

.

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used to evaluate the reliability of this study, and the values for the six variables exceeded the recommended standard of 0.7, indicating that the reliability of the questionnaire in this study fully met the recommended requirements [71]. The item factor load of each variable was greater than 0.6, the combination reliability was greater than 0.7, and the average variance extraction amount AVE was greater than 0.5. This indicates that the convergent validity of the questionnaire data in this paper met the requirements [72].

Given that the combined reliability (CR) of variables is greater than 0.7 and the AVE is greater than 0.5, both values meet the criteria, meaning that this study needs to further judge the discriminant validity of the six variables. In the discriminant validity method proposed by Fornell and Larcker [73], the square root value of the AVE of each variable is greater than the correlation coefficient between each variable, suggesting that the scale has discriminant validity.

Table 5. Discriminant validity.

Variable	EV	SEV	ESV	AV	RA	SILD
EV	0.795
SEV	0.333	0.774
ESV	0.471	0.295	0.815
AV	0.479	0.341	0.555	0.781
RA	0.409	0.344	0.452	0.442	0.744
SILD	0.475	0.478	0.524	0.529	0.523	0.748

The bold value is the root mean square of the AVE value of the variable.

presents the discriminant validity of each research variable. In summary, the scale in this study passes the reliability and validity test and can be applied to construct a structural equation model to verify the hypothesis.

4.1.2. Validation of the Structural Model

In this paper, AMOS 26.0 was used to construct the SEM, and the maximum likelihood estimation method was adopted to calculate the path coefficient. According to the hypothesis of this study, the SEM was constructed. If the p value was less than 0.05, the path was considered valid. AMOS 26.0 was used to construct the model, as shown in Figure 7.

Before verifying whether the path coefficient is acceptable, it is necessary to verify whether the fit degree of the model is qualified. If it is qualified, it indicates that the structural equation model is reasonable, and the hypothesis test can be continued. If it is unqualified, it must be revised. The suitability of the SEM is shown in

Table 6. Model fit statistics.

Fit Indices	χ2	χ2/df	NFI	RFI	IFI	TLI	CFI	RMSEA
Model value	198.452	1.141	0.954	0.944	0.994	0.993	0.994	0.019
Overall model fit	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES

[74].

RMSEA is less than 0.08 and less than 3, and the equivalent values of NFI, RFI, IFI, TLI, and CFI are all greater than 0.9. The model has good structural validity as a whole and can be tested by the hypothesis. The path coefficients between variables are shown in

Table 7. Test table of the path coefficients.

Path Relation	Beta	S.E.	t	p	Conclusion
AV→RA	0.194	0.08	2.434	0.015	Supported
ESV→RA	0.201	0.066	3.031	0.002	Supported
SEV→RA	0.190	0.076	2.496	0.013	Supported
EV→RA	0.136	0.066	2.065	0.039	Supported
AV→SILD	0.198	0.07	2.837	0.005	Supported
ESV→SILD	0.179	0.059	3.005	0.003	Supported
SEV→SILD	0.299	0.069	4.329	0.000	Supported
EV→SILD	0.111	0.054	2.055	0.040	Supported
RA→SILD	0.231	0.07	3.302	0.000	Supported

Esthetic Value—AV; Educational and Spiritual Value—ESV; Social and Economic Value—SEV; Environmental Value—EV; Risk Attitude—RA; SILD Decision Intention—SILD.

below.

Esthetic value had a significant positive effect on risk attitude (β = 0.194, t = 2.434, p < 0.05). Educational and spiritual values had a significant positive effect on risk attitude (β = 0.201, t = 3.031, p < 0.01). Social and economic values had a significant positive effect on risk attitude (β = 0.190, t = 2.496, p < 0.05). Environmental value had a significant positive effect on risk attitude (β = 0.136, t = 2.065, p < 0.05). Esthetic value had a significant positive effect on SILD decision intention (β = 0.198, t = 2.837, p < 0.01). Educational and spiritual values had a significant positive effect on SILD decision intention (β = 0.179, t = 3.005, p < 0.001). Social and economic values had a significant positive effect on SILD decision intention (β = 0.299, t = 4.329, p < 0.001). Environmental value had a significant positive effect on SILD decision intention (β = 0.111, t = 2.055, p < 0.05). Risk attitude had a significant positive effect on SILD decision intention (β = 0.231, t = 3.302, p < 0.001).

4.2. Inspection by Intermediary

The bootstrap confidence interval method is more rigorous and less error prone. Therefore, the bootstrap confidence interval method was adopted in this paper to test whether the mediating effect of risk attitude was valid [75].

The sample size of the bootstrap was set to 2000, and the confidence level was 95%. If the confidence interval of the direct effect does not include 0, then the direct effect test is valid. If the indirect test of this mediation path tests the confidence interval and does not include 0, the partial mediation of this variable is valid. If the direct effect confidence interval includes 0, the direct effect test is not valid. However, the indirect test of this mediation path tested the bootstrap confidence interval without 0, and this variable was considered a complete intermediary. For the specific test, see

Table 8. Test table for mediated effects.

Effect of Type	Path Relation	Effect Size	p	Confidence Interval
				Lower	Upper
Direct	AV→SILD	0.198	0.005	0.058	0.367
	ESV→SILD	0.179	0.007	0.047	0.308
	SEV→SILD	0.299	0.001	0.15	0.453
	EV→SILD	0.111	0.035	0.008	0.228
Indirect	AV→RA→SILD	0.045	0.005	0.01	0.103
	ESV→RA→SILD	0.047	0.005	0.014	0.114
	SEV→RA→SILD	0.044	0.004	0.011	0.109
	EV→RA→SILD	0.031	0.033	0.002	0.078

Esthetic Value—AV; Educational and Spiritual Value—ESV; Social and Economic Value—SEV; Environmental Value—EV; Risk Attitude—RA; SILD Decision Intention—SILD.

below.

The test results are shown in the table above. The direct effect test shows that the confidence interval of the direct effect of esthetic value on SILD decision intention did not include 0, and the direct effect was valid. The confidence interval of the mediating effect of esthetic value on SILD decision intention did not contain 0 and was statistically significant, indicating that risk attitude had a partially mediating effect on SILD decision intention for esthetic value. It was statistically significant and supported the mediation hypothesis. Similarly, educational and spiritual value, social and economic value, and environmental value all played a mediating role.

5. Discussion

This study seeks to understand how stakeholder value perception affects SILD decision making through risk attitudes. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to exert an influence on SILD decision making by applying the mediating mechanism of risk attitude. In this study, a conceptual model was developed on the basis of the previous literature, and the model was validated using Shanghai data. Moreover, the study also aimed to investigate the impacts of value perception on stakeholders’ SILD decision willingness. Accordingly, a conceptual model consisting of esthetic value, educational and spiritual value, social and economic value, environmental value, and a mediating variable (risk attitude) was proposed, and hypotheses about the relationships among these structures were developed and tested. The results demonstrated that esthetic value, educational and spiritual value, social and economic value, and environmental value cognition exert a strong positive influence on risk attitude. In addition, the results showed that the impacts of perceived value SILD decisions were mediated by risk attitudes. Within these results, this study was able to make quite a few significant contributions to the literature on SILD.

A key finding of this study was that social and economic values emerged as the greatest stakeholder influence on SILD decision making. If SILD is used by a stakeholder, the decision will be related to social and economic value. Three main sources of value perception are used to measure social and economic value perception: the degree to which the personal value of the product reflects local benefits, the degree to which product or brand value is enhanced, and the degree to which the product is used to operate the business landscape experience. These results suggested that perceptions of social and economic values can significantly influence SILD decision making. Thus, stakeholders will be reluctant to use SILD decisions if they do not have a high level of social and economic value perception (for example, too low product or brand acceptance).

The results showed that the perception of esthetic value will have a significant impact on stakeholders’ decision to use SILD. On the one hand, esthetic value reflects the personal feeling of esthetic products, that is, interior landscape designers may place better design esthetics on products to achieve better marketing. Esthetic value also refers to the possibility that products with environmental esthetics and ecological esthetics may benefit stakeholders to improve their perception of the esthetic value of sustainable ILD, thus enhancing the willingness of SILD’s decision making. The results of this study are somewhat consistent with those of previous studies. For example, Yang, Zhang, and Wei [3] found the impact of perception of esthetic value on sustainable consumption intention. On the other hand, esthetic value capture is associated with the process of art communication [76]. Several types of esthetic value are used to measure stakeholders’ perception of esthetic value, which cover artistic appeal, artistic characteristics and styles, esthetic characteristics, and fully ecological innovation characteristics.

Furthermore, the results of this study significantly support the influence of educational and spiritual values on SILD. In the marketing of SILD products, educational and spiritual values have always been considered to be the core of the product. For multiple stakeholders, education and spiritual values are key to developing understanding and shaping sustainable knowledge. Therefore, educational and spiritual values are extremely important to stakeholders. For example, when promoting SILD, shopping malls in urban communities are served as exhibition Spaces to promote and educate the public about SILD by displaying ecological environment and plant space installations. Thus, promotion of SILD conveys profound information about sustainable materials and green products to stakeholders, enhancing product connotation and SILD decision making. In addition, several types of educational and spiritual values were used to measure stakeholders’ perceptions of educational and spiritual values: evoking environmental resonance, fostering an environmental spirit, encouraging stakeholders to reflect critically and approach issues rationally, and enjoying social, environmental, and economic symbolic significance.

The results of the survey indicate that the perception of environmental values can have a significant impact on stakeholders’ decision to use SILD as well. Concern for urban environmental quality issues is a significant driver for stakeholders to use SILD, which was developed as an important tool to evaluate quality of life and urban environmental quality [77]. Although this development could improve SILD’s condition, excessive commercialization could compromise its authenticity and detract from its rightful environmental value. Stakeholders with a perception of environmental values may be conducive to improving the use of SILD decisions in urban landscape projects, which are critical to the sustainability of interior landscapes. Perceived social and economic values are measured in terms of energy conservation, material conservation, and ecological value. These results show that environmental values can significantly influence SILD decision making. This also suggests that the perception of personal environmental value drives the strong willingness of stakeholders to use SILD for decision making.

Regarding the mediating role of risk attitudes, current findings support previous experience in mediating the relationship between risk attitudes (concern and trust) on value perception and the decisions of stakeholder to adopt SILD. As a result, stakeholders who have knowledge or have relevant sustainability knowledge about SILDs tend to be less concerned about the various forms of risk associated with SILD attributes. The results of this study are partially consistent with those of previous studies; for example, the findings of Marcon et al. [50] showed that respondents with knowledge or knowledge of green products believe that green products are safe and reliable. The results of this study show that risk attitude, as an intermediary variable, can affect the positive impacts of value perception on stakeholders.

Research Implications

This study has theoretical significance on the relevant literature. Different from previous studies that investigated the impact of value perception on decision intention and risk attitude, this paper explains how value perception positively affects SILD decision intention through the mediating mechanism of risk attitude. This progress is critical. Stakeholders in developing countries are often constrained by limited resources and knowledge with regard to improving risk attitudes. Therefore, this paper is helpful for studying how to predict the SILD decision intention of stakeholders. Furthermore, this study contributes to the literature on ILD and sustainability by explaining the role of four dimensions of value perception in risk attitudes and discussing the impacts of risk attitudes in SILD decision intentions.

This article provides some practical contributions. The results showed that high levels of value perception are especially conducive to positive risk attitudes. This finding is important for managers because it is likely to improve sustainable practice improvement. For example, value perception can improve more accurate SILD decision intentions. Second, managers can have an important impact from our findings. It highlights the conditions under which value perceptions generate corrective attitudes to risk. This showed that it is influenced by multi-dimensional value. Therefore, this study encourages managers to focus on stakeholder management, as stakeholders can serve as a source of opportunities to improve value perception. Furthermore, based on our results, risk attitude is effective in improving SILD decision intention. Therefore, managers should adopt a positive attitude towards risk.

6. Conclusions

Taking the SILD of Taiyanggong Shopping Mall in Ruihong New Town, Hongkou District, Shanghai, as a case study, this paper investigates the value cognition and risk attitude of urban community residents and construction contractors and analyses the formation of SILD decision intention. The main contribution of this study is the establishment of a value cognition framework that is integrated with the concept of risk perception. This study verified the predictions of the “value cognition-risk attitude–decision intention” framework for the motivations and intentions of residents and construction contractors. Based on our findings, value perception and risk attitudes are potential abilities to predict the motivation and intentions of residents and building contractors. The results of this study expand the sustainable interior landscape literature in several ways. Mainly, the paper more clearly focuses on the specific value cognition factors that affect risk attitude and the stakeholder level cognition, which, like value cognition, positively influences SILD decision making in the developing urban environment.

Despite the findings, the study has certain limitations that may encourage future research. First, the results of this study are based on a Shanghai sample that does not address value perceptions, risk attitudes, and the role of SILD decision making in other urban Settings. Shanghai, as an Asian megacity, shares a strong sense of values about the urban environment, which provides confidence to stakeholders. Therefore, caution should be exercised to generalize the results to other urban contexts. Future research may also involve multi-urban environments to capture unique and diverse environmental characteristics. Second, the four dimensions of value cognition discussed in this paper—esthetic value, educational and spiritual value, social and economic value, and environmental value—have different importance levels in various urban environmental backgrounds. It may mean that some dimensions found in our research have different importance levels for SILD decision making in different specific places accordingly. Therefore, future studies may also use comprehensive perspective correlation to map such differences. Third, risk attitude is part of the mediating role of value perception on SILD decision willingness in exploring mediating variables. Risk uncertainty plays a central role in influencing customer intent rather than the actual use of landscape products. Therefore, future research may also involve specific consumption intentions to test whether the same uncertainty arises. Furthermore, although the study objectives have been achieved, it is still recommended that cross-urban settings be evaluated in a larger sample size. Future research may also expand the results of this study to demonstrate that the “value–cognitive–risk–attitudes–decision intention” framework is more feasible in the context of the SILD sustainable indoor building study.