GARDENS
lost to high technology, expensive drugs and increasing medical specialization.” In the words of Briones (2010), “ … air conditioning has replaced natural ventilation, balconies and terraces have disappeared, and nature has succumbed to parking lots.” Severtsen synthesises it in the concept
of ‘cure over care’, as the idea that the development and advancement of medical treatments was occupying the entire design of the hospital space displacing other architectural resources associated with a more holistic conception of patient care. However, new theories have demonstrated the importance of natural light and outdoor visuals in patient recovery. At the same time, the relationship with the outdoors also becomes very important for staff who work many hours in the building and often under conditions of significant pressure and stress. Several authors place this paradigm
shift from the 1990s onwards, when people started talking about patient-centred design.
Effects All the literature reviewed mentions the positive effects of therapeutic gardens on patients, caregivers and staff. For example, Cooper Marcus and Barnes (1995) conducted case studies where their main conclusions were: l 75 per cent used them at least once a day.
l More than half used them to relax, eat, talk, and walk around.
l 95 per cent ‘felt different’ after having been in the garden.
l 78 per cent felt more relaxed, less stressed, calmer, and more content.
l Most of them valued trees and plants (69 per cent); auditory, olfactory, and tactile sensations (58 per cent); and psychological and social aspects (50 per cent).
l 60 to 90 per cent experienced a pleasant decrease in energy.
l Between 4 and 11 per cent experienced a change in their spiritual or religious state.
Cooper Marcus and Barnes therefore conclude that the external therapeutic gardens: l Are used for therapeutic and emotional healing.
l Generate positive expectations and attitudes.
l Improve recovery from illness. l Help staff return to work more relaxed and refreshed.
l Improve staff confidence, thus increasing productivity and community satisfaction with the hospital.
l Encourage patients, visitors, and staff to go to the garden to feel better.
44
They also mention other studies (Ulrich, R. 1979, 1984, 1986; Honeyman, M. 1987; Hartig, T. et al. 1990) showing that greenery has a high correlation with stress reduction, and demonstrating that: l Recovery is more rapid when the views are of nature and not of a building;
l Participants in gardening tasks report improved mood, tranquillity, and sensory enjoyment.
l There are psychological benefits, both in functioning and behaviour, in both long and short stays, as a result of being in a natural setting.
l Patients prefer to go to an outdoor environment when they are troubled or upset.
In a subsequent paper in 2007, Cooper Marcus explains that the responses suggested that the gardens were important because they represented an absolute contrast to the experience of being inside a hospital, given the: l Domestic versus institutional scale. l Artisanal versus the manufactured. l Rich versus limited sensory experience. l Organic forms versus straight lines. l Places to be alone versus places with no privacy.
l Fresh air versus air conditioning. l Evocation of the larger life and the cycle of life versus thoughts of anxiety, illness, and death.
In her analysis, she makes a very important distinction in arguing that ‘healing’ is not the same as ‘cure’. While the Spanish translation of both terms may be ‘cure’, we can interpret that ‘therapy or treatment’ (healing) is not the same as ‘cure’. That is why it is appropriate, in Spanish, to speak of therapeutic gardens and not healing gardens. Severtsen, quoting Ulrich (1981), says that the sight of nature has been shown to produce faster postoperative recovery times, less negative comments about staff, less medication, and fewer postoperative complications. In his writing, every garden is therapeutic, but to be so-called, a therapeutic garden has to give an idea of
stress restoration, and have a positive effect on patients, visitors, and staff. Campari explains that in the hospitals of the early 20th century in Buenos Aires, conceived under hygienist criteria, “… the beneficial action of natural light, ventilated environments and the height of the buildings was evidenced, which were favoured by the isolated distribution of the wards and the appropriate use of greenery as a surrounding mantle of external sanitation.” For Briones (2010) the therapeutic
process is composed of four phases: l Daytime: invites physical and visual exploration. Transitions highlighted with hidden views, changing the orientation, and shelters of different climates, light and shadow, varying degrees of enclosure to create movement, and distancing vision, thus trying to change the painful perspectives of patients.
l Sensory awakening: variety of non- invasive sensory stimuli, and opportunities to stop and enjoy the sensations. Attention to fragrances and wind, which are not normally noticed. This brings awareness to the moment and reduces the need for other conflicting mental activity.
l Self-awareness: apply the concept of shelters and other protective measures to create physical and psychological areas that stimulate reflection or healing.
l Spiritual attunement: incorporate a sense of preciousness, through the ephemeral, unusual, and intriguing, or the connection with other species (exotic or domestic) and to stay away from present problem by extending one’s presence into the future.
Types
Although there are different classification criteria, a first conceptual classification can probably be made between contemplative gardens and gardens for use. In the second classification, gardens for
use, Briones (2010) divides them into two broad categories: restorative and rehabilitative.
IFHE DIGEST 2024
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98
