Content uploaded by Patrik Grahn
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Patrik Grahn
Content may be subject to copyright.
60 American Horticultural Therapy Association
Gardens and Healing Gardens
All over the world there is an increasing interest in
research results showing the impact of the physical
environment on people’s health and well-being. The
realization that good design, both indoors and
outdoors, not only generates functional efficiency but
also strengthens and improves health processes has
given rise to a new branch of architecture, called
Design and Health (Dilani, 2001). Knowledge and
awareness of how good design as well as bad design
may influence people’s well-being is increasing among
architects as well as among interior decorators and
landscape architects. An expression of design and
health in landscape architecture is to be found in the
movement around healing gardens, i.e. gardens that in
different ways may influence the visitor in a positive
way (Cooper Marcus & Barnes, 1999).
In Sweden today, the concept of healing has several
connotations, some quite concrete, others more
spiritual and mental. Generally speaking, however,
healing may be said to be a process that promotes
overall well-being (Cooper Marcus & Barnes, 1999).
In medical anthropology the individual’s personal,
subjective experience of recovery is also emphasized
(Janzen, 2002). It is in other words equally important
that the illness is cured in a purely medical respect and
that the individual experiences a personal feeling of
recovery. Is it, then, possible for a garden to be
anything else than healing? Is not the aspect of healing
woven into the very concept of garden? Myths all over
the world depict the garden as an enclosed and safe
place where one takes refuge to find shelter, comfort,
and relief from sorrow and pain (Prest, 1988;
What Makes a Garden a
Healing Garden?
Ulrika A. Stigsdotter and Patrick Grahn
The interest in healing gardens has increased around the world. Several research disciplines and
professions deal today in different ways with healing gardens. However, do we define the healing garden
and its effects on the visitor’s well-being in the same way, or are we talking about different things? This
article consists of two parts. The first part discusses healing influences of healing gardens based on theories
and findings from the different research disciplines of environmental psychology, landscape architecture,
medicine, and horticultural therapy. The second part of the article focuses on the people the healing garden
is intended for. When dealing with healing gardens, it is fundamental to try to find answers to how and why
the human being benefits from being in a healing garden.
(Photo:Ulrika Stigsdotter)
The monastery at Evora in Portugal.
Journal of Therapeutic Horticulture 61
Gunnarsson, 1992; Gerlach-Spriggs, Kaufman &
Warner, 1998; Lundquist, 2000). This, however, does
not apply to all types of gardens. There are instances of
modern gardens that have had a negative influence on
the visitor’s well-being (Cooper Marcus & Barnes,
1999). How is it possible for a garden to influence the
visitor negatively? To begin with, we should try to
define the concept of gardens.
The Garden as a Room
An important feature of the garden is that it should
be possible to experience it as a whole, marked off
from the surroundings. Through the ages the garden
has been defined as a piece of enclosed ground
(Gerlach-Spriggs et al., 1998; Lundquist, 2000). It is
therefore important how the border is shaped, since the
border may be regarded as the outer wall of the garden.
The wall, which may be a hedge, a wall, or a fence,
helps to delimit the garden from the surroundings and
may, if it is well designed, give the visitor a feeling of
being outside public life and of being safe. Inside the
walls are the rooms of the garden, several or just one.
These rooms have walls, floor, and ceiling; the floor,
for instance, may consist of grass or gravel, the ceiling
of heads of trees.
The Garden as a Manifestation of Life
Another important feature in a Western garden is
that it is built largely of living material. The living,
organic, growing, and constantly changing quality is
the foundation stone of the garden, designed to give the
visitor fundamental feelings of security, hope, and life.
Unfortunately, many created outdoor places have been
called gardens in spite of the fact that they have hardly
contained any living plant material at all. Trees, grass,
and flowers may be there but without dominating,
without being part of a composition, without being the
very core, or without being in focus. Instead, perhaps,
one finds a sculpture or that the rooms for the most part
consist of hard, angular elements in walls, floor, or
ceiling.
The Garden as Applied Art
A garden, particularly an institutional garden, may
be regarded as a very special form of applied art, able
to offer the visitor a rich variety of experiences since in
a garden all the senses of man are activated. To have a
complete idea of a garden one has to be in it – to feel
the irregularities of the ground under one’s feet, see
and rejoice at the tender blossoms of the witch hazel in
the middle of winter, smell the sweet odor of the rose,
hear the singing of the wind in the poplars, and feel the
wind in one’s hair. A garden that does not bring the
visitor a message of life, lust, and cyclic change, that
does not convey feelings of calm, safety, strength,
beauty or sensual stimulation – is it really a garden, or
does it fall outside the definition? We maintain that it
is in any case not a healing garden.
This article aims to summarize different research
disciplines’ theories on the healing influences of
healing gardens. Secondly, it discusses design
hypothesis based on the visitor’s needs and relation
with the garden.
PART I: Theories of the
Healing Influence of the Garden
Research about the impact of the physical
environment – indoors and outdoors – on people’s
health and well-being was formerly carried on in
isolation by different research disciplines, such as
medicine, environmental psychology, and in recent
years landscape architecture. Today a change can be
noticed. Collaboration transcending professions and
research boundaries takes place not just in Sweden but
also in several other parts of the world. An example of
this is the foundation of The International Academy for
Health and Design. This academy is multidisciplinary
and research-based. Its goal is to stimulate and develop
research on the interaction between culture, design,
and health (Dilani, 2001). As a result of the academy’s
2nd International Conference on Design and Health in
Stockholm in the summer of 2000 the book Design &
Health – The Therapeutic Benefits of Design was
published (Dilani, 2001). Several professional
categories are represented together in this book, active
in research as well as in practice, e.g. artists, designers,
architects, clinicians, psychologists, biologists,
landscape architects, administrators, doctors, and
nurses.
From a theoretical design and landscape
architectural point of view it is important to show that
one benefits from being in a garden environment while
also trying to find an answer to the questions of how
and why one benefits. Are there better and worse
garden environments, and in that case, what is it that
constitutes the differences? For thousands of years
there have been ideas to the effect that man’s health
and well-being will be influenced in a positive way
by his spending time in natural surroundings, wild
nature as well as enclosed gardens (Knopf, 1987;
Gerlach-Spriggs et al., 1998; Cooper Marcus &
62 American Horticultural Therapy Association
Barnes, 1999). Beneficial properties are attributed to
daylight, fresh air, and greenery. But it was not until
1984 that the first report about the measurable effects
of nature’s influence on health was published (Ulrich,
1984). This study was soon followed by others, now
forming the basis of the theories of landscape
architects (Verderber & Reuman, 1987; Kaplan &
Kaplan, 1989; Cimprich 1990, 1992; Ulrich et al.,
1991; Grahn, 1993; Küller & Küller, 1994). In this
article we have summarized and sorted the theories on
healing effects in gardens from different research areas
into three different schools: The Healing Garden
School, The Horticultural Therapy School, and The
Cognitive School.
The Healing Garden School
According to this school the visitor’s health effects
are, above all, derived from the experiences of the
garden room as such, its design, and its contents. The
following three theories have been developed in the
disciplines of environmental psychology and
landscape architecture:
First theory. The first theory claims that the health
effects are due to a restorative influence on emotional
centers in the limbic system of the brain, caused by the
environment – above all by nature-like surroundings
and wild nature. The theory regards man as a
biological individual, suited for a life close to nature.
In natural surroundings it is possible for man to react
and to trust his unconscious reflexes. Examples of
stimuli that generate reflexes that warn us or make us
extra cautious are darkness, precipices, snakes, and
blood. Other stimuli prompt reflexes that make us
relax, like a view over a lake framed by light or open
meadows. These quick reactions are based on innate,
memory-like functions that have had decisive
importance for man’s continued existence on earth.
(Coss, 1991). The city, on the other hand, is an
unnatural environment for man. In the city, man cannot
trust his reflexes but must make use of logical
thinking. Open, light, savannah-like natural areas have
been found to give the quickest restorative reactions
after stress, since they resemble man’s original home.
When you come to such surroundings, the body
unconsciously relaxes. If you are severely stressed, this
is more noticeable than when you otherwise feel well.
This theory has been tested successfully in laboratories
(Ulrich et al., 1991; Ulrich & Parsons, 1992; Ulrich,
Lundén & Eltinge, 1993; Parsons, Daniel & Tassinary,
1994).
Second theory.According to the second theory, the
health effects are due to the restorative influence of
verdure on cognitive functions. The higher cognitive
functions require much energy and the brain may
easily be overstrained. This theory is based on the fact
that man has two different types of attention,
spontaneous attention and directed concentration.
Knowledge of these two different types of attention
goes back to the end of the 19th century (James, 1983).
One of these types is usually spoken of as directed
attention. It is governed by and at the same time part of
the mind – the higher cognitive parts – and its capacity
is limited. Directed attention is tired out in a relatively
short time and is very precious. We make use of it in
our daily work, when doing paperwork, when driving
through an unknown town, etc. With directed attention
we can focus on what has to be done at the same time
as we sort out all that is irrelevant.
The other type of attention is quite spontaneous
and unconscious; it is located in the older parts of the
brain and is called soft fascination (It was earlier called
involuntary attention, see Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989, but
is now known as soft fascination, see Kaplan, Kaplan
& Ryan, 1998). With this kind of attention we register
a sudden rustle in a bush or the glimmer of a stone. The
capacity of this kind of attention is practically
unlimited, as long as we do not have to sort out or sift
out our impressions. Nature contains fascinating things
that attract this spontaneous attention, where new
discoveries fascinate without tiring out, since
impressions in nature are contained in a larger whole
and therefore not in need of being sorted out and sifted
out by the directed attention of higher consciousness
centers. This theory has been tested several times with
positive results (Canin, 1991; Hartig, Mang & Evans,
1991; Cimprich, 1992; Gilker, 1992; Hartig, 1993;
Tennessen & Cimprich, 1995; Herzog & Gale, 1996;).
Third theory. Finally, the third theory asserts the
health effects are due to the fact that the garden and
nature make demands that can softly balance the
person’s own ability and control. Perceptual and
cognitive functional obstacles cause accessibility
problems and handicap experiences in combination
with obstacles in the physical environmental
(Iwarsson, 1997). However, there is reason to talk
about the accessibility of the surroundings in relation
to mental functional obstacles or psychological states
of ill-health as well. A person stricken with a trauma
like grief or personal illness needs an environment as
well as relations that make less heavy demands.
Journal of Therapeutic Horticulture 63
Family and relatives demand more than unknown
people. Animals demand less than human beings and
are also more straightforward – they cannot lie or
burden anyone with guilt. Plants demand less than
animals; they can’t run away either or show
ingratitude. Rocks and water demand even less – they
are there all the time (Searles, 1960; Ottosson, 2001).
Generally speaking, nature makes fewer demands than
gardens, where you can build in more or less demands
in the design.
The Horticultural Therapy School
According to the theory belonging to this school
the health effects are primarily derived from the
activities in the garden room. A theory often put forth
among medical and horticultural therapeutic scientists
is that the health effects are due to the fact that work
in a garden is particularly obvious, meaningful,
and enjoyable (Relf, 1992; Simson & Straus, 1998).
Man is at heart an active creature, and activity is
healthful in itself. If he has a chance to use his
body and his mind in the pursuit of pleasurable
and meaningful occupations, he feels rewarded
(Kielhofner, 1997). This experience of being rewarded
is particularly apparent in connection with activities
and environments that generate so-called “flow
experiences.” In flow situations a harmonization
between the individual’s capacity and the challenge
is felt, and the demands and possibilities in
the environment give a feeling of well-being, total
commitment, and forgetfulness of time and self
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Gardening can, in a simple
way, stimulate a great number of cognitive processes
and physical exercises, and, hypothetically,
self-rewarding flow-experiences as well.
The Cognitive School
The health effects are derived from the experiences
of the garden room as such as well as from the
activities in the garden room and the visitor’s
background and character. Researchers in
environmental psychology and landscape architecture
as well as in medicine and horticultural therapy often
mutually put forth the following theory: The health
effects are due to the fact that the garden or the wild
nature with its shapes, colors, odors, etc., plus the
activities that can be carried out there, can restore a
person to a more positive view of himself and his
capacities. Experiences and memories of meaningful
occupations or places during a person’s active years,
above all from his childhood and youth, give him a
conception of his identity. Such environments as
belong with his self are the ones he gives the
preference to. An environment that correspond with his
preferences and himself tells him that he is what he
feels he is – part of the world of meaning (Tornstam,
1986; Grahn, 1991; Perris, 1992; Havnesköld &
Risholm Motander, 1995). In this room it is also
possible for him to grow; it is a so-called instorative
environment.
PART II: Designing for the Visitor
When designing a healing garden it is fundamental
to focus on the people the garden is indented for, but
one ought not to forget the basic theories. Some
hypotheses that might help, as a guide to the
construction of the healing garden’s design, will be
briefly presented below.
A Balance Between Just Being in the Garden
Experiencing It and Working with Gardening
The two schools of healing gardens and
horticultural therapy may be regarded as two poles on
a scale, where healing gardens deals with the passive
experience of the architecture of the garden room and
horticultural therapy with cultivation as an activity.
During the last five to ten years a closer association has
occurred between the schools, at least on an academic
level, but there is still a lot that separates them. Most
therapeutic gardens, of course, are about slight
differences on these themes, but too many gardens are
extreme variations. Many so-called gardens focusing
on horticultural therapy have rational cultivation beds
(Photo: Ulrika Stigsdotter)
Intense form of horticultural therapy.
64 American Horticultural Therapy Association
adjacent to care institutions. These cultivation beds,
often raised, are not planned or designed to be part of
the construction and composition of a garden room. On
the other hand, the cultivation beds may be planned so
that the cultivation functions well, the accessibility for
the patients is excellent, water is within easy reach,
convenient storehouses are nearby, etc. But there is
hardly a garden room as such.
On the other hand, landscape architects working
with healing gardens have sometimes also made things
far too simple and focused too much on the visual
aspects. Agarden is not just to look at. One may enter
a garden and turn from being an observer into a visitor,
experiencing the four dimensions of the garden (three-
dimensional space and time) with all one’s senses. The
garden is unique in that it can activate all the senses:
sight, hearing, smell, and taste, but also the
temperature sense, the muscular sense, and the sense of
touch are activated when, for instance, one puts one’s
hand on a stone warmed by the sun or the sense of
balance is exercised when one walks along an uneven
path. Many healing gardens suffer from functioning as
a point of observation without functioning as a place to
experience with one’s senses. The design may have a
vitality that can be experienced as interesting and
challenging, in particular to healthy observers, but
these challenges may be felt as heavy demands for a
person who is ill. Furthermore, experiences for other
senses than sight are lacking. Odors, sounds, and other
non-visual impressions are easily forgotten. The
gardens may also function badly for activities other
than passive observation.
The Visitor’s Mental Power
Earlier studies of how people function in parks and
gardens at the Department of Landscape Planning at
Alnarp (Grahn, 1989, 1991; Ottosson & Grahn, 1998)
have found that experiences of nature affect people
differently, largely depending on their life situation. A
person’s experience of nature will depend on how
much he is able to absorb from the environment and
how strong his mental power is. This may be illustrated
with the aid of a pyramid, where the need for
environments with few demands is big at the bottom of
the pyramid and smaller at the top as seen in Figure 1
(Grahn, 1991; Ottosson & Grahn, 1998).
At the bottom of the pyramid is the directed
inwards involvement level where mental power is very
weak. What physical activity can be undertaken tends
to be private, like walking, picking berries, or
collecting wood a short distance into the forest, and
disturbances are disliked (Ottosson, 2001). An
Figure 1: Type of involvement depending on the individual’s
mental power. Modification of Grahn’s model (1991).
outgoing
involvement
active participation
emotional participation
directed inwards involvement
Journal of Therapeutic Horticulture 65
individual at this level is mentally active, sorting
impressions he carries with him, and not very willing
to be fed with new impressions that he has to sort out.
This individual wishes to think things over without
being disturbed. He is not alone but instead together
with himself.
On the next level in the pyramid are those who
have somewhat greater mental power. They begin to
take an interest in their social surroundings and like to
observe people around them, but they do not have the
strength to take active part in what they are doing.
They are content with emotional participation. They
manage to be a little friendlier and can talk a little with
neighbors; they are not as sullen and antisocial as the
individuals at the bottom of the pyramid.
Yet another step up in the pyramid active
participation is found. An example of this level is an
individual who is part of a group doing something
together. This individual possesses the mental power
of giving and sharing. Together with other people an
individual at this level can create things, such as
organizing a dinner or helping to plan and lay out a
flowerbed.
At the top of the pyramid is the outgoing
involvement level, where the mental power is very
strong and one is able to lead a group of people. Men
and women at this level can take initiative in starting
things and carrying them out. They are in charge of the
creative processes and make sure things get done. Only
individuals on this level are mentally strong enough to
completely follow through on their ideas and plans
without strong support from the surrounding group.
Visitors in a healing garden possess a varying
amount of mental power representing all the levels of
the pyramid. Therefore, a healing garden must be
designed to suit visitors of all levels of mental power.
The healing garden must be designed to create
different degrees of demand on the visitor. Specific
demands might include being together with other
people on one level and cultivation of a bed that
requires much care to survive on another level. There
should be areas or rooms where one can retire privately
but also rooms where one can be together with many
people at the same time.
Communication: Garden Rooms with Different
Characters
We communicate all the time with the world
around us, and not only with words. The environment
confronting us tells us how to behave, by instinct and
by conditioning. A healing garden must be able to
communicate with the visitor on many levels, through
sight, smell, hearing, etc. Professionals in the field of
architecture speak of the semiotics of buildings,
maintaining that people quickly learn to read what the
constructed environment has to say, for example, about
power, sanctity, and value (Morris, 1971; Rasmussen,
1986). Here, it is primarily a question of conditioned
behavior. C. G. Jung (1964), on the other hand,
maintains that we react by reflex to inherited symbols
– archetypes – that we can find when in a more or less
unconscious state, as in dreams. These archetypes
The Eight Garden Room
Characters Character of the Garden Room
1. Serene
Peace, silence and care. Sounds of wind, water, birds and insects.
No rubbish, no weed, no disturbing people.
2. Wild
Fascination with wild nature. Plants seem self-sown. Lichen- and
moss-grown rocks, old paths.
3. Rich in
Species
A room offering a variety of species of animals and plants.
4. Space A room offering a restful feeling of "entering another world”
a coherent whole, like a beech forest.
5. The Common A green, open place admitting of vistas and stay.
6. The Pleasure
Garden An enclosed, safe and secluded place, where you can relax and
be yourself and also experiment and play.
7. Festive A meeting place for festivity and pleasure.
8. Culture A historical place offering fascination with the course of time.
Table 1: Characteristics of the eight garden rooms.
66 American Horticultural Therapy Association
show us how to relate to the world around us. Recent
research by Ulrich (1984), Coss (1991), Öhman
(2001), and others shows that there are inborn reflexes
warning us of things like spiders, snakes, and great
heights. There may also be inborn attitudes towards
odors and sounds.
In a healing garden we should be able to build in a
lot of communication and attitudes. One type of
communication is about how we relate to demanding
surroundings; Harold Searles (1960) and Johan
Ottosson (2001) have earlier been referred to in this
context. At the bottom of the ladder of demands we
find stones and water, as on a shore. Higher up on the
ladder is wild nature, then a garden to cultivate. Still
higher on the ladder are domestic animals and at the to
are human beings. This theory suggests that some
visitors in a healing garden may find it difficult to start
by cultivating, particularly in a group. Table 1 gives
a brief presentation of the room characters
(Berggren-Bärring & Grahn, 1995a).
Earlier research at the Department of Landscape
Planning at Alnarp studied why certain parks are
frequently visited, whereas other parks hardly attract
anyone. The researchers came to the conclusion that
there are different park or garden rooms with different
characters (Grahn, 1991; Berggren-Bärring & Grahn,
1995a, 1995b; Grahn & Berggren-Bärring, 1995;
Hedfors & Grahn, 1998). Certain room characters are
more popular than others. A park where many of the
room characters are represented attracts more visitors
than a park with just one of these room characters. The
studies showed that there are eight main characters that
make up parks and gardens. These characters consist of
symbols manifesting themselves through many
different sensations via sight, hearing, locomotion, etc.
The characters communicate directly with the
visitor. The room characters Serene, Space, Rich in
Species and to some extent Culture appeal to many
people. It is of particular interest that they also appeal
to the most ill and vulnerable persons; those who strive
to find balance with themselves. The room characters
The Common and The Pleasure Garden usually appeal
to those who are somewhat less stressed and
vulnerable, either those who wish to observe other
people carrying out activities or those who wish to
carry out the activities themselves. The Festive finally
appeals to some stressed persons but frightens others
(Grahn, 1991; Berggren-Bärring & Grahn, 1995a;
Grahn & Berggren-Bärring, 1995). Most of the room
characters require more natural areas with large masses
of growth such as tall trees and many kinds of plants.
The Accessibility to the Visitor
A healing garden, like all public parks and gardens,
should strive to be accessible to everybody, to be a
design for all (Welch, 1995; Månsson, 1999). Design
for all is design of products, environments, and
services in such a way that they can be used by as
many people as possible, no matter what qualifications
or needs they may have. The idea is to make the garden
so flexible that it can be used exactly as it is without
any ugly post-construction additions or accessories. A
healing garden ought to be accessible irrespective of
people’s age or functional disorder. This is a high
objective and one that may be difficult to achieve
directly. A garden, however, is not finished when it is
laid out; it is a constantly ongoing and changeable
process. All the time one can change and improve the
design of the garden so that it better satisfies the needs
and wishes of the visitors.
Discussion
There are many gardens called healing gardens
both in Sweden and in other parts of the world.
Alarmingly many of them do not answer to the
traditional definition of a Western garden. A lot of
these gardens are entirely focused either on the
activity, which in most cases is horticultural therapy, or
on a more isolated design concept that has very little to
do with the visitor and his or her needs. The impact of
the garden room on the visitor and how he or she
experiences the room with its seclusion, security,
sunlight, odors, beauty, and history, has not been
considered. This may be the beginning of a dangerous
trend. Agarden is a piece of nature, marked off from its
surroundings, with floor, walls, and ceiling. Unlike
architecture, a garden room can offer not only three-
dimensional experiences of space but also the fourth
dimension of time. A garden is about perception as
well as activity and they are both needed. Our own
earlier research results and those of other researchers
have convinced us that people are unconsciously
influenced by the environment they spend time in,
since the physical surroundings are their reality
(Grahn, 1989, 1991; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Coss,
1991; Ottosson & Grahn, 1998; Ulrich, 1999;
Ottosson, 2001). Our relationship to our physical
surroundings depends on how we perceive it with our
senses and how we emotionally and intellectually
consider those perceptions. If we only focus on the
Journal of Therapeutic Horticulture 67
activity or on a trendy design concept, we will miss the
impact of nature and architecture on people’s well-
being.
To work with the creation of gardens, it may be
necessary to think about a garden as a phenomenon.
There is a relation, today unspoken, between the visitor
and the garden; they are interdependent. The visitor
and the garden become a fusion of nature and culture.
The needs of the individual visitor vary, which leads to
notions of different phenomena and values in the
garden, depending on what one is looking for. If the
visitor enters a garden with many room characters, he
or she will have a better chance to find what he or she
is looking for. Thus, it gives the individual the
opportunity to lose himself in thoughts and activities
that he finds both amusing, interesting, and healing.
The garden is a phenomenon that is several thousands
years old, and it may have been regarded as a healthful
place to be in from the very beginning (Prest, 1988;
Gunnarsson, 1992; Gerlach-Spriggs et al., 1998). This
has led to the use of gardens in medical care and
treatment for a very long period of time. Ideas of
connections between health and garden can be traced
back to the Middle Ages, the Roman Empire, and as far
back as the Persian Empire (Prest, 1988; Gerlach-
Spriggs et al., 1998; Stigsdotter, 1999). We know for
certain that the medieval monks thought that their
hospitals ought to be built in areas of great natural
beauty in order that the rehabilitation should function
well (Gerlach-Spriggs et al., 1998). Modern scientists
can explain this with semiotics, inborn reflexes, and
restorative experiences.
But why not listen to the old myths that tell us that
man and garden originally belong together? Here we
find the Garden of Eden, the Paradiszia of the Persians,
and the Arcadia of ancient Greece. In the myths, man
and garden belong together in the future as well, in the
heavenly paradise and in Elysium. What is it in this
perspective that takes man to the garden? Why do we
find through the millennia similar descriptions of
beautiful enclosed gardens in myths all over the world?
What is it in the myths that draw people to the
gardens? Perhaps it can be described as a yearning for
devotion and beauty, or for a place without sin. If you
are at the bottom of the pyramid of mental power, the
unconscious urge that takes you to the garden perhaps
can be described precisely as a yearning. This yearning
for a place where you can forget yourself and melt into
the surroundings so that you become a rather
insignificant part of something bigger perhaps can be
described as devout. This urge appears to be stronger
the more difficult your own situation.
Conclusion
Today many different professions and research
disciplines have several theories concerning the
healing garden’s healing effects on the visitors. We
have divided the theories into three different schools:
1. The Healing Garden School, where the health
effects are, above all, derived from the
experiences of the garden room as such, and its
design and contents
2. The Horticultural Therapy School, where the
health effects are primarily derived from the
activities in the garden room
3. The Cognitive School, where the health effects
are derived from the experiences of the garden
(Photo: Ulrika Stigsdotter)
The Santissimi Quattro Coronati monastery in Rome, Italy.
68 American Horticultural Therapy Association
room as such, as well as from the activities in
the garden room
We believe that the healing garden is about
perception as well as activity. However, it is crucial to
find the balance between just being in the garden
experiencing it and working with gardening. To do that
the designer needs to have knowledge about the group
of people the garden is intended for, and be aware of
their levels of mental power. A healing garden must be
able to communicate with the visitor in a supportive
and positive way. Depending on the visitor’s stress
level, the garden should consist of different rooms with
different characters; Serene, Wild, Rich in Species,
Space, The Common, The Pleasure Garden, Festive,
and Culture. Finally, a healing garden, like all public
parks and gardens, should strive to be accessible to
everybody.
References
Berggren-Bärring, A-M. & Grahn, P. (1995a). Grönstrukturens betydelse
för användningen: En jämförande studie av hur människor i
barnstugor, skolor, föreningar, vårdinstitutioner m fl organisationer
utnyttjar tre städers parkutbud. Landskapsplanering Rapport 95:3,
Alnarp.
Berggren-Bärring A-M. & Grahn, P. (1995b). Importance of the single
park area on experienced characteristics. Ecological Aspects of
Green Areas in Urban Environments. IFPRA World Congress
Proceedings, 110. Antwerp, Flanders, Belgium: September.
Canin, L.H. (1991). Psychological restoration among AIDS caregivers:
Maintaining self-care. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Cimprich, B. (1990). Attentional fatigue and restoration in individuals
with cancer. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Cimprich, B. (1992). Attentional fatigue following breast cancer surgery.
Research in Nursing and Health, 15, 199-207.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow - the psychology of optimal
experience. New York: Harper & Row.
Cooper Marcus, C. & Barnes, M. (Eds.). (1999). Healing gardens:
Therapeutic benefits and design recommendations. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Coss, R.G. (1991). Evolutionary persistence of memory-like processes.
Concepts in Neuroscience 2, 129-168.
Dilani, A. (Ed.). (2001). Design & health – The therapeutic benefits of
design. Stockholm: AB Svensk Byggtjänst.
Gerlach-Spriggs, N., Kaufman, R.E., & Warner, S.B. (1998). Restorative
gardens: The healing landscape. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Gilker, C.M. (1992). Views to nature: Effects on attentional capacity.
Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.
Grahn, P. (1989). Att uppleva parken. Äldre, sjuka och handikappades
behov och användning av parker. Stencil, 89:6. Sveriges
lantbruksuniversitet, Institutionen för landskapsplanering. Alnarp.
Grahn, P. (1991). Om parkers betydelse. Stad & Land 93.
Movium/institutionen för landskapsplanering, Sveriges
Lantbruksuniversitet, Alnarp.
Grahn, P. (1993). Planera för bättre hälsa! In (no Editor) Planera för en
bärkraftig utveckling (pp.109-121). Byggforskningsrådet,
Stockholm.
Grahn, P. & Berggren-Bärring, A-M. (1995). Experiencing parks. Man’s
basic underlying concepts of qualities and activities and their impact
on park design. Ecological Aspects of Green Areas in Urban
Environments. IFPRA World Congress Proceedings, 97-101.
Antwerp, Flanders, Belgium: September.
Gunnarsson, A. (1992). Fruktträden och paradiset. Stad & Land 105.
Movium/instittutionen för landskapsplanering, Sveriges
Lantbruksuniversitet, Alnarp.
Hartig, T., Mang, M. & Evans, G. (1991). Restorative effects of natural
environmental experiences. Environment and Behavior 23, 3-26.
Hartig, T.A. (1993). Testing restorative environments theory.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California-Irvine.
Havnesköld, L. & Risholm Mothander, P. (1995). Utvecklingspsykologi.
Psykodynamisk teori i nya perspektiv. Stockholm: Liber AB.
Hedfors, P. & Grahn, P. (1998). Soundscapes in urban and rural planning
and design. Yearbook of Soundscape Studies 1, 67-82.
Herzog, T.R. & Gale, T.A. (1996). Preference for urban buildings as a
function of age and nature context. Environment and Behavior 28,
44-72.
Iwarsson, S. (1997). Functional capacity and physical environmental
demand. Exploration of factors influencing everyday activity
and health in the elderly population. Institutionen för
Samhällsmedicinska vetenskaper Dalby/Lund, Lunds Universitet.
Lund, Sverige.
Journal of Therapeutic Horticulture 69
James, W. (1983). The principles of psychology. (Original published in
1890). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Janzen, J.M. (2002). The social fabric of health: An introduction to
medical anthropology. Boston: McGraw Hill.
Jung, C.G. (1964). Människan och hennes symboler. I samarbete med
von Franz, Henderson, Jacobi & Jaffé. Stockholm: Forum.
Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature. Cambridge,
MA: Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. & Ryan, R.L. (1998). With people in mind: Design
and management of everyday nature. Washington D.C.: Island
Press.
Kielhofner, G. (1997). Conceptual foundations of occupational therapy
(2nd ed.). Philadelphia: F. A. Davis.
Knopf, R.C. (1987). Human behavior, cognition, and affect in the natural
environment. In D. Stoklas & I. Altman, (Eds.), Handbook of
environmental psychology (pp.783-825). New York: John Wiley.
Küller, R. & Küller, M. (1994). Stadens grönska, äldres utevistelse och
hälsa. Stockholm: Byggforskningsrådet, R24:1994.
Lundquist, K. (2000). Bidrag till kännedom om begreppet trädgård och
om trädgårdsväxternas historia i Sverige. Rapport, 2000(1).
Institutionen för landskapsplanering, Alnarp.
Morris, C. (1971). Writings on the general theory of signs. Approaches to
Semiotics 16, 1-486. The Hague, Mouton.
Månsson, K. (1999). Bygg för alla. Stockholm: AB Svensk Byggtjänst.
Öhman, A. (2001). Förnuft och rädsla : Neutrala mekanismer för
omedveten aktivering av emotioner. In H. Lagercratnz (Ed.),
Hjärnan och medvetandet (pp. 124-143). Nora: Nya Doxa.
Ottosson, J. & Grahn, P. (1998). Utemiljöns betydelse för äldre med stort
vårdbehov. Stad & Land 155. Movium/instittutionen för
landskapsplanering, Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet, Alnarp.
Ottosson, J. (2001). The importance of nature in coping with a crisis: A
photographic essay. Landscape Research 26(2) 165-172.
Parsons, R., Daniel, T.C. & Tassinary, L.G. (Eds.). (1994). Landscape
aesthetics, ecology, and human health. In W. Covington & L.
DeBanco, (eds.), Sustainable ecological systems (pp.266-280). Fort
Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service General Technical Report
RM-247.
Perris, C. (1992). Kognitiv terapi i teori och praktik. Stockholm: Natur
och Kultur.
Prest, J. (1988). The Garden of Eden: The botanic garden and the re-
creation of paradise. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Rasmussen, S.E. (1986/1959). Experiencing architecture. Cambridge,
MA: The M.I.T. Press.
Relf, D. (1992). Human issues in horticulture. Hort Technology 2, 159-
171.
Searles, H.F. (1960). The nonhuman environment in normal development
in schizophrenia. New York: International University Press.
Simson, S. & Straus, M.C. (1998) Horticulture as therapy: Principles
and practice. New York: Food Products Press.
Stigsdotter, A.U. (1999). Klosterträdgården - ett paradis på jorden.
Svensk Rehabilitering, (3), 1999.
Tennessen, C.M. & Cimprich, B. (1995). Views to nature: Effects on
attention. Journal of Environmental Pschycology 15, 77-85.
Tornstam, L. (1986). Åldrandets socialpsykologi. Stockholm: Rabén
Prisma.
Ulrich, R.S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery
from surgery. Science 224, 420-421.
Ulrich, S.R., Simons, R.F., Losito, B.D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M.A., &
Zelson, M. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and
urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 11, 201-
230.
Ulrich, R.S. & Parsons, R. (1992). Influences of passive experiences with
plants on individual well-being and health. In D. Relf, D. (Ed.), The
role of horticulture in human well-being and social development
(pp.93-105). Portland: Timber Press.
Ulrich, R.S., Lundén, O. & Eltinge, J.L. (1993). Effects of exposure to
nature and abstract pictures on patients recovering from open heart
surgery. Psychophysiology 30, 7.
Verderber, S. & Reuman, D. (1987). Windows, views, and health status
in hospital therapeutic environments. The Journal of Architectural
and Planning Research 4, 120-133.
Welch, P. (Ed.). (1995). Strategies for teaching universal design.
Berkeley, CA: Adaptive Environments and Boston, MA: MIG
Communications.
This article was made possible by the financial support of
Formas, the Swedish Research Council for Environment,
Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning, grant no 2001-0252,
and of the board decision of the Swedish University of
Agricultural Sciences on Public Health- animals and nature in
urban environment for recreation and health (SLU styrelsebeslut
om Folkhälsa- djur och natur i urban miljö för rekreation och
hälsa).
Ulrika A. Stigsdotter is a Ph.D. student and a lecturer in
landscape architecture at the Institution of Landscape Planning,
Health & Recreation, P O Box 58, S-230 53 Alnarp, Sweden.
Ulrika.Stigsdotter@lpal.slu.se
Patrik Grahn is an associate professor in landscape
architecture, Institution of Landscape Planning, Health &
Recreation, P O Box 58, S-230 53 Alnarp, Sweden.
Patrik.Grahn@lpal.slu.se
