As the demand increases for senior living facilities, it will be important for designers and healthcare providers to remember that incorporating access to specially designed outdoor spaces can have a positive influence on the psychosocial and physical health of patients. There are numerous previous studies that show how spending time outdoors can garner significant health benefits for older adults. A set of guidelines known as the Senior Outdoor Survey (or SOS) was developed in 2014 to provide designers with an evidence-based tool for evaluating and implementing outdoor features that potentially could benefit patient health.
To compare previous literature concerning guidelines for garden designs with the design guidelines outlined in the Senior Outdoor Survey (SOS) so that a new set of simplified guidelines for garden designs can be presented.
A literary review was conducted using resources gathered from Medline, Scopus, and Science Direct, along with additional articles and reference manuals. These resources dealt with design considerations for therapeutic gardens and other outdoor environments, particularly with respect to healthcare benefits for the elderly. A total of 15 resources was compared to the design recommendations of the SOS tool, which itself contains 60 unique elements.
Research found that the most discussed design and garden management recommendations among the selected literature were: seating, pavement material, activities, garden location, and access to nature. Common themes among these recommendations were: incorporating a variety of plants into the garden, providing optimal seating and accessibility for elderly patients with different physical needs, providing outdoor awnings so that patients can remain in the shade while outside, and promoting activities for social interaction among patients while also providing the possibility of privacy while outdoors.
This study is a literary review that compares a relatively small number of resources to a single set of guidelines. No original field research was conducted, and thus no original quantitative or qualitative data is involved in supporting the paper’s conclusion.