Upload a photo to visualise your wall with Vistafolia

Upload Photo

Table of Contents

Introduction

September 2025 Author: Vistafolia Ltd.
Green walls, also known as vertical gardens, have become a popular solution for introducing greenery into both indoor and outdoor spaces. They can transform bare walls into vibrant, living or life-like installations that improve aesthetics and potentially offer environmental benefits. Broadly, there are two types of green walls: living green walls, which use real plants and soil (or another growth medium), and artificial green walls, which use faux foliage to mimic the appearance of a plant wall. Before diving into the comparisons, it is important to understand what each type of green wall entails:
  • Living Walls: These are green wall installations with real plants rooted in a structure attached to the wall. Living walls typically incorporate an irrigation system to deliver water and nutrients to the plants. They sometimes use soil, but many modern systems are hydroponic, using felt or foam growing media and circulating water. The wall structure must support not only the plants but also soil or substrate and water retention materials, making living walls relatively heavy. Because they contain living organisms, these walls grow and change over time, potentially flowering or going dormant with seasons. They offer natural environmental benefits like oxygen production, air filtration, and a habitat for small insects or birds. However, they also require conditions suitable for plant growth (light, water, proper temperature) and regular care.
  • Artificial Green Walls: These are panels of synthetic plants (usually made of plastics or fabrics) arranged to look like a dense wall of foliage. The quality of artificial green walls varies, with different grades of walls having different offerings. High-quality artificial green wall systems are designed to be ultra-realistic, mimicking multiple leaf shapes and incorporating faux flowers for colour. In addition, they often feature UV and flame-retardant qualities. Lower-quality artificial walls may not have these features and may appear less realistic. Artificial walls are much lighter in weight and typically mount to surfaces via brackets or clips. They do not require watering, soil, or sunlight. Once installed, an artificial green wall provides a consistent, unchanging verdant look year-round. While they do not have the natural growth, ecological functions or biodiversity benefits of real plants, they can be placed in locations where living plants could not survive (due to lack of light, extreme temperatures, etc.) and still create a green ambiance.
Both types can dramatically improve the visual appeal of spaces and provide a sense of connection to nature. While different walls, living and artificial, greatly determine a wall’s individual impact, it is important to understand the overall circumstances that determine the difference between both types of green walls. Deciding between living and artificial comes down to evaluating several key factors, which we will explore next.

Part I. Sustainability Considerations

Disclaimer: This white paper presents an indicative comparison based on publicly available data and simplified life cycle assessment (LCA) thinking. While grounded in referenced sources, it is not a full ISO-compliant LCA. Figures are estimates based on typical scenarios and may vary by region, product, or installation. The intent is to provide directional insights to support design and procurement conversations.

1.1. Environmental Impact Drivers

Living walls are often perceived as being more sustainable than their artificial counterparts. One of their key benefits is the ability to absorb carbon dioxide (CO₂), contributing to improved air quality and reduced atmospheric carbon levels. We take a scientific approach to evaluate the environmental footprints of both types of walls, examining living and artificial green walls’ material production, green wall installation, maintenance, carbon sequestration, end-of-life water consumption, and end-of-life carbon footprint. In the following sections, we dissect these differences and analyse each system’s performance and footprint in a structured manner. The goal is to help architects, facility managers, and sustainability consultants make informed decisions about which green wall solution best fits their project requirements. No two living walls are the same, therefore all data shown presented is designed to represent a ’typical’ living wall installation. Similarly, artificial green walls can range from budget-friendly, lower-quality plastics to high-end systems with recycled materials, UV stability, and realistic textures. Much of the research relates to the higher end of the market, where product performance is likely to differ.

1.1.1. Scope & Method

When comparing the sustainability of living versus artificial green walls, many factors influence long-term environmental impact. Below, we focus on a 10-square-meter (10 m², equivalent to approx. 107 sqf) installation area whether living or artificial and how that affects carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions and water usage. The data points presented are approximate, drawn from a range of life cycle assessment (LCA) studies in urban horticulture and plastics manufacturing. While exact numbers will vary by region, climate, and materials used, this overview helps illustrate general trends. Variables within these regions include water availability, CO₂ intensities (depending on how electricity is generated in a region) and disposal pathways and the availability of recycling facilities. The purpose of this analysis is to highlight general trends rather than deliver absolute conclusions. Results may vary significantly depending on project-specific inputs. 1. Wall Area: A 10 m² vertical surface. 2. Timeframe: 10 years of operation and maintenance. 3. System Boundaries:
  • Material Production (raw material extraction to product manufacturing).
  • Installation (transport and labour-related emissions for mounting).
  • Green wall maintenance (water pumping, fertiliser production, pest control, and replacements in the case of living walls; simple cleaning for artificial).
  • End-of-Life (disposal or recycling of system components).
Certain considerations have not been included in the scope of the analysis. For example, both living and artificial green walls can reduce energy consumption in a building through insulation and shading. The actual impact depends on factors such as exterior vs. interior installation, plant density (for living walls), percentage of wall coverage relative to the building, and indoor surface area. Given these variables, it is hard to define the actual impact on energy consumption without site-specific modelling. 4. Water Usage: Estimated based on typical irrigation needs for living walls in temperate to warm climates. This comparison is not intended to follow ISO 14040/14044 LCA standards but draws on the principles of simplified LCA thinking for indicative comparison.

1.1.2. Approximate Carbon Footprint and Water Consumption

Living Green Wall Artificial Green Wall
Material Production ~365 kg CO₂ ~205 kg CO₂
Installation ~80 kg CO₂ ~10 kg CO₂
Maintenance ~500 kg CO₂ ~10 kg CO₂
End-of-Life Impact ~20 kg CO₂ ~115 kg CO₂
Carbon Sequestration (10 years) ~600 kg CO₂ 0 kg CO₂
Total CO₂ (approx.) ~365 kg CO₂ ~340 kg CO₂
Water Consumption ~110,000 litres (not incl. rain) 0 litres
Note: These totals provide a simplified directional snapshot for 10 m2 walls intended for comparison rather than an exhaustive cradle-to-grave LCA. They assume a standardised use of materials (e.g., LDPE for artificial foliage) and average resource demands for a basic living wall system with irrigation, fertilization, and occasional replanting unless stated otherwise.

1.1.3. Material Production

~365 kg CO₂ for Living vs. ~205 kg CO₂ for Artificial Living (Plant Modules, Substrate, and Plastics): Living wall systems involve a mix of materials with differing emissions profiles. The structural modules typically incorporate PVC, with CO₂ emissions estimated at 3.528 kg CO₂/m², or approximately 35 kg CO₂ for a 10 m² installation (Salah & Romanova, 2021). The growing medium often includes peat, which produces around 183 kg CO₂ per m³. With peat typically constituting about 5% of the substrate by volume and using a growing medium thickness of 3.6 cm (i.e., 0.036 m³/m²), this contributes approximately 3.5 kg CO₂ per 10 m² (Oquendo-Di Cosola et al., 2020; Stichnothe, 2022). Additionally, support structures often include steel framing, with a footprint of approximately 2 kg CO₂/kg. A typical 160 kg steel support for a 10 m² wall thus emits around 320 kg CO₂ (Oquendo-Di Cosola et al., 2020; “Weight Formula for”, n.d.; WorldSteel Association, 2022, p. 4). Together, these components contribute to a total estimated emission of ~365 kg CO₂ for a standard 10 m² living wall system. This figure reflects common construction practices using PVC, peat-based substrates, and steel supports, and assumes average sourcing and partial end-of-life recycling.
Component Estimated Quantity CO₂ Factor CO₂ Emissions
Steel support 160 kg 2.0 kg CO₂/kg 320–335 kg
PVC modules 10 m² 3.528 kg CO₂/m² 35 kg
Peat in substrate 0.018 m³ 183 kg CO₂/m³ 3 kg
Total 358–373 kg CO₂
Artificial (LDPE Panels with a stainless-steel backing): Studies indicate ~1.8–2.7 kg CO₂ are emitted for each kg of LDPE produced (I Boustead, 2005, p. 15), though this will vary depending on the specific system being used. A typical 10m² artificial system comprising LDPE plants attached to a stainless-steel grid might weigh around 100–120 kg total (including lightweight framing). Multiplying the LDPE weight (~5kg/m2) by average CO₂-per-kg yields roughly 90–135 kg CO₂ across 10m2. In addition, premium artificial walls use metal frames averaging about 4.5 kg/m2. Steel produces approximately 2 kg CO₂ per kg of steel, translating to about 90 kg CO2 (“Weight Formula for”, n.d.; WorldSteel Association, 2022, p. 4). We use 205 kg as a midpoint.
Component Weight CO₂ Factor CO₂ Emissions
LDPE 50 kg 1.8–2.7 kg CO₂/kg 90–135 kg
Steel frame 45 kg 2.0 kg CO₂/kg 90 kg
Total 180–225 kg CO₂
Another consideration for both living and artificial is the transportation of the materials from their place of manufacture to the end user. A full container load of material being transported from China to Europe produces approximately 2kg of CO₂ (Container Xchange). Given that a container can hold several hundreds of square metres of material, the net impact per m2 is negligible and thus, does not affect calculations.

1.1.4. Installation

~80 kg CO₂ for Living vs. ~10 kg CO₂ for Artificial Living: These systems are heavier due to plants, growing media (soil or substrate), and retained water, as well as the required irrigation system. Living wall assembly includes frames, planting panels or fabric, irrigation lines, and sometimes a backing board with an air gap to protect the building from moisture. Improper support can lead to structural damage, so fully watered weight of plants and substrate plus wind loads must be used. ~80 kg CO₂ is a representative figure (Altan & Yoshimi, 2015, p. 3). Artificial: Artificial green walls are lightweight and simpler to install. For example, Vistafolia’s panels weigh around 6 kilograms each (Kimber, 2020), and often those panels cover a significant area. Artificial foliage panels typically mount onto a wall via a grid or bracket system that is much lighter than a living wall’s framework. Most surfaces (drywall, concrete, wood fence, etc.) can support an artificial wall with standard fixings. Moreover, there is no irrigation system required and because artificial walls do not depend on sunlight or water, they can be installed virtually anywhere without concern for plant survival. Artificial walls are often installed by hand, with negligible emissions. This installation is often faster per m2 of installation because of the ‘directly onto the wall’ approach taken which lessens time spent on site installing, and thus the number of days on site and trips to site to complete by the installation team. Assuming a total weight of 90-100 kg and a 70 km trip, a single small delivery van trip would emit about 10 kg CO₂ for transportation (“Conversion factors 2021”, 2021).

1.1.5. Maintenance

~500 kg CO₂ for Living vs. ~10 kg CO₂ for Artificial Living: Real living walls are “round the clock care,” a considerably arduous task of continual watering, treating, and pruning to avoid decline. Living green wall maintenance emissions are estimated to be anywhere from 5.00 kg CO2/m2, translating to ~500kg CO₂ (Perini et al., 2017), to 7.95 kg CO2/m2, ~795 kg CO₂ (Salah & Romanova, 2021) for a 10 m2 wall across a decade. These figures account for the embodied emissions in all horticultural upkeep (fertiliser production, distribution, and especially the electrical cost of water pumps or internal lighting if needed), though the amount of maintenance depends on the type of system used with a more basic system requiring more frequent checks in an automated, low-energy system. In any eventuality though, living walls must have a regular maintenance program. For the purposes of this study, we will use the more optimistic figure of ~500kg CO₂. Artificial: Require negligible watering or fertilization. Occasionally, cleaning solutions or dusting equipment usage leads to minimal emissions. Because artificial walls don’t need specialised care, existing maintenance staff can handle the cleaning. Overall, ~1 kg CO₂ per year overall is a conservative estimate (“Earth Friendly Artificial”, n.d.). Thus, 10 kg across 10 years.

1.1.6. End-of-Life

~20 kg CO₂ for Living vs. ~115 kg CO₂ for Artificial Living: End-of-life emissions for living walls primarily arise from the disposal of structural components such as PVC modules, waterproof membranes, piping, and metal framing. Most plant material is compostable and does not contribute significantly to CO₂ emissions. However, plastics like PVC release approximately 2.0 kg CO₂ per kg when incinerated (PlasticsEurope, 2015; WRAP, 2010). A typical 10 m² wall may contain around 10 kg of PVC, leading to an estimated ~20 kg CO₂ under partial incineration. Artificial: Incinerating or landfilling plastics can emit ~2.9 kg CO₂/kg of material (“Plastic is Carbon”, 2021, 2). Proper recycling lowers this figure conservatively to 0.5 kg CO2/kg. Taking a conservative estimate of partial (25%) recycling and partial (75%) incineration into account, this results in ~115 kg CO2 for 50 kg of LDPE. To fully recycle a premium green wall product, a labour element is also involved because of the need to separate the plastic from the steel wire inside the plants. For both artificial green walls and living walls, the end-of-life impact of steel is limited. At end of life, steel can be recycled with relatively low direct emissions (since it doesn’t release CO₂ like incinerated plastics).

1.1.7. Carbon Sequestration

~600 kg CO₂ for Living vs. None for Artificial Living: Living walls potentially sequester carbon. Real-world outcomes can differ substantially depending on plant species, local climate, maintenance practices, and overall wall health, but generally living walls are expected to absorb anywhere between 2 kg CO2 per m2 annually (Ing, 2021; “CO2 Removal By”, 2021) and 4-6kg (Torpy et.al 2014), depending on the make-up and density of plants included in the installation. Translated to a 10 m2 wall over 10 years, this means that ~200 kg is sequestered across 10 years, though this figure could be as high as ~600kg based on more optimistic estimations. For the purposes of this study, we will use the higher figure. Artificial: As artificial walls are inert, they do not sequester carbon.

1.1.8. Water Consumption

~110k Litres for Living vs. None for Artificial Living: Ranges widely with climate, plant type, and usage patterns. Even with recirculating or drip irrigation, indoor living walls can consume anywhere from 2 L to 8 L/m2 daily (Oquendo-Di Cosola et al., 2020) For 10 m², that becomes ~200,000 litres total water. However, it should be noted that some living wall systems utilise rainwater as a source and so the proportion of freshwater being used from within this figure may vary. This figure depends on the specific location of the wall, be that indoor or outdoor, and the prevailing climate of the area, with an outdoor living wall in a temperate climate much more likely to benefit from recycled rainwater than one in an area prone to droughts. For the purposes of this study, we have assumed a figure of around 50% of the water being recycling of rainwater or greywater, giving an overall total of ~110,000 litres of water per year. For context, this is slightly higher than the projected annual usage of a two person household in the United Kingdom (Gov.uk 2024) Artificial: Artificial products do not require any ongoing water usage.

1.2. Longevity & Durability

Living: How long living walls will last can vary widely and is heavily dependent on maintenance quality and environmental conditions. Individual plants have natural life cycles and may need replacement over time. Even with excellent care, plants can outgrow their space, necessitating major replanting after 5–10 years (“Ultimate Guide to”, n.d.). Irrigation hardware may also need repairs or component replacement. No one can guarantee living plants will remain pristine forever. Artificial: Artificial green walls are engineered products with a lifespan that can range from just a few years for low quality solutions, to 10 years and beyond when looking at higher-end, premium products. Good quality products remain visually consistent year after year, with only minimal cleaning needed. High-quality artificial foliage is also manufactured to be colourfast (often UV-resistant and sometimes fire-rated as well); for instance, Vistafolia’s panels do not have issues with colour fade even in harsh climates. Good quality panels often come with warranties of five years or more last 10+ years since there are no moving parts or consumable elements. Additionally, because artificial systems are modular, if a section somehow gets damaged (for example, vandalism or an accidental impact), it can be swapped out or repaired easily, and such events are rare. Summary : This section compares the sustainability of living and artificial green walls across several environmental impact factors, using a 10 m² wall over a 10-year period. Living walls, while capable of sequestering ~600 kg of CO₂ and offering ecological benefits like air purification and biodiversity support, are estimated to have significantly higher lifetime emissions (~965 kg CO₂) and water usage (~110,000 liters). This is due to ongoing maintenance such as irrigation, fertilization, and structural upkeep. In contrast, artificial green walls emit less CO₂ overall (~340 kg CO₂), require no water, and involve minimal maintenance. While their production is plastic-intensive, the environmental burden is front-loaded and offset by operational efficiencies. Installation and end-of-life impacts are also lower for artificial walls. However, local climate, recycling access, and plant choices can affect outcomes. Artificial systems also offer greater durability and consistent aesthetics over time. Ultimately, the best choice depends on context, project goals, and the sustainability credentials of specific suppliers.

Part II. Cost & Economic Considerations

2.1. Initial Costs

Living: Living walls often come with a relatively high initial cost. Average living walls can cost about $110 to $175 per ft2, translating to about $1,200 to $1,900 per m2 (“The Cost of”, n.d.). This results in a cost of $12,000 to $19,000 for a 10m2 wall. The price per square meter for a living wall includes not just the plants but also the supporting structure, irrigation system, and professional installation labour. Depending on the system and plant selection, living wall installations can range widely in cost, and it is not uncommon for fully installed living walls to be among the more expensive architectural features per unit area. Moreover, the expense does not stop at installation. One must also account for the ongoing investments discussed later. Artificial: Artificial green walls, while not inexpensive (high-quality artificial foliage panels have their own manufacturing cost), generally have a more predictable one-time cost. Even in cases where a high-end product has been used, the up-front cost of an artificial wall can be lower than a comparable living wall, especially when the living wall requires complex plumbing and professional planting. Assuming installation for a 10m² wall is about $1,000, 16 panels (each 800 x 800mm / 0.64sqm) to cover 10m², and a cost per panel between $150–$400, the cost per 10m² wall comes out to approximately $3,300 to $7,200. Importantly, artificial walls come with a variety of price ranges and associated qualities. Cheaper artificial walls will often have a plastic frame, little to no UV protection, making them unsuitable for long-term exposure to sunlight and certain commercial projects. Meanwhile, the higher initial cost of high-quality artificial walls will generally be offset by their greater longevity. Essentially, with artificial walls, “once the wall is installed, there is nothing left to do. Well, except for a bit of dusting every now and then” (Woods, 2024).

2.2. Ongoing Costs

Living: The long-term economic picture accentuates the differences. Living walls incur continuous costs for maintenance (hiring gardeners or plant care specialists for pruning, feeding, and system checks) and operation (water usage, electricity for pumps and possibly grow lights, fertiliser, and pest control chemicals). For example, a living wall will consume water daily; over a year this could be hundreds to thousands of litres per square meter (depending on climate and plant types). It also may require periodic replacement of plants that fail to thrive (and the labour to do so). These expenses add up: the total cost of ownership of a living wall includes monthly or quarterly horticultural service visits and utilities. All in all, maintenance can be estimated to be 10-12% of the original cost, per year (Architects: Your Top, n.d.). Artificial: By contrast, artificial walls are largely maintenance-free (as detailed in the maintenance section) and thus have negligible ongoing costs. They do not need water or fertilisers, and while there may be a minor expense for occasional cleaning, this can usually be handled by existing maintenance staff. Additionally, artificial panels are durable, so the replacement cycle is very long (if ever within a building’s lifecycle). Therefore, when conducting a lifecycle cost analysis, artificial walls often have a clear advantage: after the initial investment, they do not require sustained funding to maintain their appearance.
Wall Type (10 sqm) Materials & Installation Maintenance (10 Years) Failure / Repair Total Cost (10 Years)
Living Wall $12,000 – $19,000 $12,000 – $23,000 $0 – $1,000 $24,000 – $43,000
Artificial Wall $3,300 – $7,200 $1,000 (contingency) N/A $4,300 – $8,200
Summary : Living green walls are significantly more expensive upfront, costing $12,000–$19,000 for a 10 m² installation, due to the need for irrigation systems, structural support, and professional setup. They also carry ongoing maintenance costs—around 10–12% of the initial cost annually—for water, electricity, fertilizer, and plant care. In contrast, artificial green walls typically cost $3,300–$7,200 for the same area, with minimal to no maintenance expenses beyond occasional cleaning. High-quality artificial walls will cost more initially than low-end versions, but their durability and lack of recurring costs often make them more economical over a 10-year period, with total costs of $4,300–$8,200.

Part III. Risk & Reliability

Living: Another aspect to consider is the risk of failure or issues. Living walls carry the risk of plant diseases, pest infestations, or irrigation leaks that can damage property (water leakage into interiors, for example). If a living wall’s irrigation system malfunctions, sections of the wall can brown out within days. There is also a risk of mould growth on constantly damp substrates if improperly ventilated (Arends n.d.), which requires careful design (air gaps and possibly fans for indoor walls) and monitoring. Artificial: These risks are virtually non-existent in artificial walls. There is nothing to leak, nothing to rot, and no organic matter to harbour mould. Artificial walls remove the uncertainties of keeping plants alive. Once it is up, the walls stay green without intervention, and there are no “surprise” problems to troubleshoot (whereas a living wall might, say, suffer a pump failure over a long weekend and lose plants before anyone notices). In terms of reliability, an artificial installation is extremely low risk: insect or mould problems are practically non-existent.

3.1 Fire Performance

For any commercial project, a green wall system shall be required to meet a fire rating standard. The specific minimum standard will be determined by a building control officer or fire safety officer, but should be considered at the point of specification. For most of the world, the requirement might be a B class under the international standard ISO13501. The US typically has its own requirements, with NFPA701 or ASTM E84 regularly cited. There is though an important distinction between the fire performance of living and artificial green walls. A living wall is only fire rated so long as it is in good working order. A failure of the irrigation system, or a prolonged period of hot weather, can cause the wall to dry out, at which point it becomes much more flammable, placing even more emphasis on the need for regular maintenance. Any defects must be rectified straight away to avoid the wall becoming a fire hazard (Aviva 2024). There should also be considerations as to the choice of plants within the wall, as certain species, such as grasses andmoss, have a lower moisture content and are prone to drying out (Department for Communities and Local Government 2013) By contrast, an artificial wall’s fire performance is inherent in the plastic. The exception to this is certain systems that have their rating enhanced by the spraying of an extra fire-retardant coating. These are not recommended for commercial projects as the coating may wash away over time, lessening the rating of the system. But for those that achieve the required standard, the fire retardancy should remain constant and not degrade over time. Summary : Living walls can be considered a continual investment (with operational budgets for upkeep), whereas artificial walls are more of a one-and-done purchase with minimal follow-up costs. It is important to acknowledge that the higher costs of living walls do purchase certain benefits (real plants with ecological contributions), which some stakeholders may value for branding or sustainability goals. However, for clients principally concerned with budget or those who lack resources for ongoing care, the economic case for artificial walls is strong. Many choose artificial green walls specifically to avoid the unpredictable costs associated with living installations. Overall, artificial walls offer greater cost certainty and typically lower expense over time. Meanwhile, living walls require a financial commitment not just to build, but to sustain for both aesthetic and safety reasons.

Part IV. Biophilic & Aesthetic

Studies consistently show that exposure to plants and green environments leads to significant improvements in mental well-being. Living greenery reduces stress, anxiety, and depressive symptoms, while boosting mood, cognitive function, and productivity — both in homes and workplaces (Khuong & Yen, 2016). In workplace studies, the introduction of real plants led to a 37% reduction in reported tension and anxiety (Dravigne et al., 2008). Similarly, research from the University of Exeter (2014) found that employees working in offices enriched with plants showed a 15% improvement in productivity and concentration compared to lean office environments (Knight & Haslam, 2010). Living greenery is especially powerful in reducing physiological stress. Interaction with real plants lowers sympathetic nervous system activity, reduces blood pressure, and evokes positive emotional responses (Lee et al., 2015). Even passive exposure to plants can deliver cognitive benefits such as improved memory retention, attention restoration, and reduced mental fatigue (Berto, 2005).

4.1. Multi-Sensory Interaction and Perception

The distinct cognitive and psychological advantages of real plants arise from their multi-sensory engagement. Unlike artificial greenery, living plants emit subtle scents, regulate humidity through transpiration, and visually change over time — growing, shifting with light, or responding to the seasons. These micro-variations engage humans on a subconscious level, sending signals that a space is biologically alive. This aligns with the biophilia hypothesis, which proposes that humans have an innate, evolutionary need to affiliate with living systems (Kellert & Wilson, 1995). Artificial green walls, while visually compelling — especially premium models — do not emit natural scents or change over time. Their leaves are often made from polyethylene (PE) or silk, and while these materials may feel pleasant to the touch, they do not replicate the subtle tactile and olfactory cues of real plants. However, because green walls are primarily appreciated visually, the absence of tactile and scent-based interaction is typically a minor limitation, especially in high-traffic or commercial environments.

4.2. Acoustic Effects

Both living and artificial green walls provide acoustic benefits by absorbing and diffusing sound. Living walls, with their substrate, soil, and varying foliage density, can absorb a wider range of frequencies, with a weighted sound reduction index of (Rw) of around 15dB and an absorption coefficient of 0.40, considered a good reduction, especially at mid-frequencies (NBS, 2015) Artificial green walls with dense, layered foliage can still offer high-frequency scattering or reflection. This particularly helpful in echo-prone settings such as offices, lobbies, or co-working spaces. They do not typically provide much in the way of sound absorption. The benefit can be heightened with the additional of acoustic products installed behind the panels. If acoustic benefits are a key deciding factor, especially with regards to sound absorption, living walls tend to offer more, although artificial solutions can be supplemented with additional materials.

4.3. Emotional and Psychological Response

Some people perceive a deeper sense of calm, care, and connection from living plants because they are alive and responsive. This may be linked to the subtle cues we receive from growing organisms — changes in colour, new shoots, the occasional wilt—that unconsciously affirm vitality. Real plants also invite care and interaction, which enhances emotional connection and can foster social interaction(Bringslimark et al., 2009). That said, not all benefits are exclusive to real plants. Simulated nature, including artificial greenery and nature imagery, has been shown to provide meaningful psychological benefits as well. A 2023 study by Li et al. found that realistic artificial plants, when placed in a biophilic context, still improved well-being, particularly in high-stress indoor settings. Likewise, Guidolin et al. (2024) documented reduced anxiety levels in hospital patients exposed to high-quality nature simulations, including artificial green walls and photographic murals. The visual appearance plays a critical role in whether these simulated elements succeed. Poor-quality artificial greenery can trigger negative associations (e.g., plastic, decay), but premium artificial walls — designed with natural variation in colour, texture, and leaf shape — can offer aesthetic and perceptual benefits comparable to real greenery in certain settings. Summary : Both living and artificial green walls contribute positively to the ambiance and emotional experience of built environments. Living walls provide a deeper connection to nature through multi-sensory engagement and the presence of actual life. They actively participate in the environment by cleaning the air, regulating humidity, and subtly changing over time. Artificial walls, meanwhile, offer a controlled, consistent, and maintenance-free vision of nature — ideal for environments where living plants are impractical. While they lack the full biophilic power of real ecosystems, research supports that high-quality artificial greenery can still produce psychological benefits, reduce stress, and enhance visual comfort when well-executed. In biophilic design, both approaches have a valid and valuable role to play.

4.4. Use Cases and Client Preferences

In some spaces, the end user may insist on living plants for their therapeutic value, whereas in specific settings such as a restaurant or hotel, management might prioritise always-perfect appearance and low maintenance, making artificial more appealing. It ultimately can come down to the impression one wants to give. If a client’s brand is all about sustainability and natural solutions, they might lean towards a living wall to demonstrate those values in a tangible way. Conversely, if the priority is a luxurious look that is hassle-free, the artificial wall sells itself on reliability.

Part V. Chemicals & Health

Living Walls: Living walls may require chemical inputs, such as fertilisers to nourish plants and pesticides or fungicides to control pests and diseases. If used improperly, these chemicals can have environmental downsides like runoff into drainage, which contributes to pollution. Living walls can also pose indoor air quality concerns if chemicals are sprayed on an indoor green wall, though these are generally minimal. On the health front, living walls can produce pollen and allergens or harbour insects. A living wall might introduce allergens into a space (depending on plant species) or dampness that could irritate allergen/allergen-sensitive individuals. There is also a possibility of mould growing in a living wall if a living wall is not properly ventilated. Artificial Walls: By contrast, artificial walls require no such inputs. Artificial walls are inert; they do not produce allergens (unless dust accumulates, which is manageable by cleaning), and they do not host insects or mould if kept clean and dry. However, it is important to note that artificial green walls are not completely devoid of chemical considerations. To achieve desired qualities such as UV resistance and flame retardancy, manufacturers incorporate specific chemical treatments into the materials. These chemical additives, while serving important protective functions, should be evaluated for their long-term environmental and health implications. Good quality products will hold RoHS or REACH accreditation to confirm that none of the chemicals used in manufacture are harmful, but this information may not be available for lower quality green walls. Summary : Living green walls may require fertilizers, pesticides, or fungicides, which can cause runoff pollution or affect indoor air quality. They may also produce pollen, attract insects, or develop mold if not properly maintained. Artificial walls avoid these issues as they are inert and free from biological activity, though they may contain chemical treatments (e.g. for UV or fire resistance). High-quality artificial products are usually certified safe (e.g. RoHS, REACH), but lower-grade options may lack transparency. Overall, artificial walls pose fewer ongoing health and environmental risks if sourced responsibly, while living walls require careful management to minimize potential downsides.

Part VI. Ecological Benefits

6.1. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

Living walls offer ecological functions that artificial systems cannot replicate. When designed with native or flowering species, living walls can attract pollinators like bees and butterflies and provide shelter or foraging for birds and beneficial insects (Chiquet et al., 2012). Their foliage interacts dynamically with the environment—absorbing carbon dioxide, producing oxygen, and trapping airborne particulates on leaf surfaces (Perini et al., 2011, p. 2293). In urban contexts where biodiversity and air quality are degraded, these small green pockets contribute to local ecosystem resilience. Living walls can also marginally humidify dry indoor environments, providing comfort benefits. In contrast, artificial green walls, while visually green, do not support biodiversity or perform ecosystem services. They may offer advantages in pest resistance and reduced maintenance but function more like aesthetic facades than ecological assets. They do not photosynthesise, filter air, or support natural habitat cycles. From an ecological perspective, artificial walls are passive structures, whereas living walls are biologically active systems.

6.2. Energy and Climate Moderation

Living walls provide measurable thermal benefits for building envelopes. Studies show they reduce heat loss in winter by insulating the wall and reduce heat gain in summer by shading and cooling through evapotranspiration. This dual effect can significantly improve the energy efficiency of a building. For example, Fox et al. (2021) found that living walls reduced heat loss through the wall by up to 30%, while other studies have demonstrated reductions in external surface temperature of up to 12°C on hot days. This leads to tangible reductions in HVAC energy demand, particularly in climates with significant seasonal variation. Artificial green walls do offer some shading and minor insulation, as any cladding layer does. However, they lack evapotranspiration, which limits their cooling performance. While they may reduce surface solar gain, they do not lower air temperatures around the wall or contribute to internal thermal comfort in a dynamic way. As a result, living walls have a clear advantage in moderating microclimates and reducing operational carbon through energy savings. Summary : Living green walls provide real ecological benefits, supporting biodiversity by attracting pollinators and offering habitat for beneficial species. They improve air quality, sequester carbon, and add humidity to indoor spaces. Additionally, they enhance building energy efficiency by reducing heat loss in winter and heat gain in summer through insulation and evapotranspiration. In contrast, artificial green walls do not support ecosystem functions, biodiversity, or climate regulation. While they may offer some insulation and shading, they are passive structures and lack the dynamic environmental benefits of living walls. Overall, living walls significantly outperform artificial ones in ecological and climate-related performance.

Part VII. Side-by-Side Comparison Summary

To consolidate the detailed discussion above, the following table provides a high-level summary comparing key aspects of living vs. artificial green walls:
Factor Living Green Walls Artificial Green Walls
Material Production
  • Utilise PVC, peat, and steel.
  • Must be able to support fully saturated weight of the wall, meaning a heavier frame
  • Translates to ~365 kg CO2
  • Utilise plastic and sometimes steel
  • Artificial walls tend to be lighter than living walls
  • Translates to ~205 kg CO2
Installation
  • Complex: requires structural support for heavy system and irrigation
  • Must integrate water supply, drainage (and lighting for indoors)
  • Site conditions (load-bearing, sunlight, etc.) limit feasibility
  • Translates to ~80 kg CO2
  • Simple: lightweight panels attach to most walls with minimal hardware
  • No plumbing or special utilities needed
  • Flexible placement virtually anywhere (indoors or outdoors, any climate)
  • Translates to ~10 kg CO2
Ongoing Maintenance
  • Frequent maintenance required: irrigation monitoring, pruning, feeding, replacing plants.
  • Risk of plant failure if maintenance lapses
  • Translates to between ~500 kg and ~795 kg CO2
  • Minimal maintenance: occasional cleaning (dusting or hosing off) only
  • No watering, no pruning, no plant healthcare needed
  • Can be managed by general maintenance staff during routine cleaning
  • Translates to ~10 kg CO2
Carbon Sequestration
  • Organic material can sequester outside carbon
  • Approximately ~200 kg to ~600 kg CO2
  • No carbon sequestration
End-of-Life
  • Partial reclaim or end-of-life recycling translates to ~20 kg CO2
  • Partial incineration, partial recycling translates to ~115 kg CO2
Water Use
  • Requires continuous water supply, which translates to significant water consumption annually (hundreds to thousands of litres per m²)
  • Translates to ~1100,000 L water if utilising rainwater source.
  • Zero irrigation needed – only water used is for infrequent cleaning
Longevity & Durability
  • Plants are not permanent – wall will need replanting or significant refresh in ~5-10 years (sooner without good care)
  • How long do living walls last also depends on irrigation components which may need repairs/replacement over time
  • Panels are very durable – often 5+ year warranty on product integrity/colour
  • Expected to last 10+ years with little change in appearance
  • Highly durable in all weather; no inherent lifecycle like plants have
Initial Cost
  • High initial cost (plants, structure, irrigation, professional install)
    • Custom design and build often needed for each project
  • Costs can vary widely based on system and size
  • Moderate initial cost (prefabricated panels + install)
  • Generally lower than living wall for same area, especially when irrigation infrastructure is considered
  • Cost is mostly one-time, upfront
Ongoing Costs
  • Incur continuous costs
    • Gardeners/pruning
    • Feeding
    • System checks
    • Operations (water usage, electricity)
    • Plant replacement
  • Largely maintenance free
Risk & Reliability
  • Risk of failure or issues
    • Plant diseases
    • Pest infestations
    • Irrigation leaks
    • Mould growth
  • Virtually non-existent risks
Biophilic & Aesthetic
  • Lush, dynamic natural beauty – plants can bloom, grow, and even carry pleasant fragrances
  • Authentic nature experience (satisfies those craving real greenery)
  • Seasonal changes can add visual interest (or require design adjustment)
  • Provides multi-sensory stimulation (sight, smell, even sound of rustling leaves)
  • Impeccably green and consistent appearance year-round (foliage “frozen” at peak look)
  • Always full and never wilts or looks unkempt
  • High realism in premium products – most observers see a convincing green wall, enhancing mood similarly to real plants
  • Lacks natural variation and scent; a static representation of nature’s beauty (which many still find very appealing)
Chemicals & Health
  • May require chemical inputs
    • Fertilisers
    • Pesticides
    • Fungicides
  • May produce pollen and allergens
  • Risk of mould without proper ventilation
  • Inert; mostly do not require chemical inputs
  • May use chemical treatment for UV resistant, flame retardancy inputs
Ecological Benefits
  • Contributes to biodiversity
  • Can potentially improve air quality and humidity
  • Ability to insulate building temperatures
  • Do not perform ecosystem services
  • Mild insulative property
(Table: Comparison of living vs. artificial green walls across installation, cost, maintenance, longevity, sustainability, and aesthetic factors.)

Conclusion

Green walls — whether living or artificial — hold undeniable appeal for architects, facility managers, and occupants seeking to infuse more greenery into built spaces. Making the right choice, however, depends on discerning key priorities. True living walls provide vibrant expressions of nature’s dynamism, captivating the senses with subtle shifts in fragrance, new growth, and even seasonal changes. They support biodiversity, enhance air quality, moderate indoor climates, and can become a powerful symbol of sustainability. Yet these genuine benefits come with commitments: living walls rely on conscientious design, robust structural support, sufficient irrigation, and consistent horticultural expertise. By contrast, artificial green walls excel where simplicity, reliability, and near-zero ongoing operational needs are paramount. They flourish in challenging locations — light-deprived interiors, extreme climates, or spaces lacking staff resources — and they maintain a flawless verdant aesthetic year-round without the water demand or risk of plant failure. High-quality artificial options today can be so lifelike that many observers will be hard-pressed to spot the difference. Sustainability, in this sense, is not strictly about carbon but also about resource efficiency. With no watering or fertilizing required, artificial walls conserve energy and water long-term, making them a viable eco-friendly compromise for certain conditions. Ultimately, the choice hinges on one’s goals and constraints. Projects dictated by strong ecological missions, ample budgets, and expert maintenance teams may find living walls the perfect showcase of commitment to natural solutions. Projects that prioritize a consistent look, minimal maintenance, or that lack a suitable environment for plants will benefit substantially from using artificial systems. Both approaches offer important biophilic and aesthetic value, illustrating there is no single “right answer” for every scenario. Indeed, designers can harness the best of both worlds by using living walls where conditions favor real horticulture and artificial panels where living flora would falter or be resource-intensive. Regardless of which direction is chosen, planning is key. Proper product selection, thoughtful design, and clear maintenance strategies ensure that any green wall — living or artificial — becomes a long-lasting, visually striking, and uplifting feature. In the end, the most important outcome is that occupants feel a sense of connection to nature and experience the spatial transformation that vertical greening offers. By aligning the wall type with a project’s unique sustainability goals, functional needs, and aesthetic preferences, architects and facility managers can create inspiring vertical landscapes that flourish, year after year, both environmentally and experientially.

Acknowledgment of References

Discuss Your Project

en_GB
en_US fr_FR en_GB