Cited by 63Urban Green Space and HealthHealthcare Facilities Design and SustainabilityFacilities and Workplace Management

Rooftop Hospital Gardens for Physical Therapy: A Post-Occupancy Evaluation

Davis, Brad E.·2011·HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal

Abstract

Objective: The goal of this study was to understand successes and weaknesses of a rooftop hospital garden used primarily for physical therapy. Background: Literature on the healing benefits of nature and designed outdoor spaces in healthcare contexts continues to become more focused on specific patient populations. This study contributes to the knowledge of rooftop hospital gardens and gardens for physical rehabilitation. Methods: A post-occupancy evaluation was conducted using interviews with a lead therapist and landscape architect, behavior mapping, a staff survey, and a patient questionnaire. Results: The designer and administrative staff perceived high accessibility while patients and staff reported low accessibility. Patients reported high satisfaction with the garden while staff reported little time for garden use. Poor maintenance decisions resulted in decreased functional and aesthetic value. Conclusions: Garden elements take on added layers of meaning and value to users seeking to escape the indoor environment, placing increased importance on evidence-based site design. Multiple perspectives must be considered in facility and garden master planning. Finally, designers and horticultural therapists must be retained in garden management to preserve and enhance garden functionality.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/193758671100400303

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Authors
Davis, B. E.
Affiliations
University of Georgia (US)
Corresponding author
Davis, Brad E.
Venue
HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal
Published
2011-04
Volume
4
Issue
3
Pages
14-43
ISSN
  • 1937-5867 (ISSN-L)
  • 2167-5112
OpenAlex
W2074670091
Cited by
63
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • HERD Health Environments Research & Design Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Urban Green Space and Health
  • Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Healthcare Facilities Design and Sustainability
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Facilities and Workplace Management
Keywords
physiotherapy, post-occupancy evaluation, healing environment, nature therapy, horticultural therapy, garden maintenance, patient satisfaction, outdoor space design, garden management
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Health Facility Environment, Hospital Design and Construction, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Surveys and Questionnaires, Rehabilitation Centers, Tennessee, Patient Satisfaction, Observation, Gardening, Horticultural Therapy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review