Landscape Research

ISSN: 0142-6397 (Print) 1469-9710 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/clar20

How does spatial organisation of gardens at care

facilities for the elderly influence use patterns: a
case study in Hong Kong

Shu Lin Shi, Chau Ming Tong & Yi Qi Tao

To cite this article: Shu Lin Shi, Chau Ming Tong & Yi Qi Tao (2018) How does spatial
organisation of gardens at care facilities for the elderly influence use patterns: a case study in Hong
Kong, Landscape Research, 43:1, 124-138, DOI: 10.1080/01426397.2017.1305345

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2017.1305345

Published online: 18 Apr 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 329

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=clar20
Landscape Research, 2018
VOL. 43, NO. 1, 124–138
https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2017.1305345

How does spatial organisation of gardens at care facilities for the

elderly influence use patterns: a case study in Hong Kong
Shu Lin Shia, Chau Ming Tonga and Yi Qi Taob
a
Programme of Landscape Architecture, Technological and Higher Education Institute of Hong Kong (THEi), Kowloon
Tong, Hong Kong; bDepartment of Architecture, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Ageing has received broad attention worldwide. Gardens for the elderly have Care facility for the elderly;
also received increasing attention as they have been revealed to be beneficial garden; spatial organisation;
to the elderly’s well-being and quality of life. Based on existing design use pattern
guidelines for such gardens, the influence of different spatial organisation
on use patterns needs further study and discussion. In this article, one
garden at a care facility for the elderly was studied through total site factor
measurement, resident and staff interviews, along with observations. As
indicated by the results and discussions, topographic level changes are
found to be more influential than distance and shade. Enclosure of space is
also influential on the pattern of use, but needs to be applied carefully for
safety concerns. Management is also found to be a flexible and cost-effective
approach to modify spatial organisation and further alter use patterns in
the garden.

Introduction and literature review

Natural environment facilitates restoration from stress via passive contact or low-level physical activity
(Cooper Marcus, 2000). Exposure to it is important for everyone, especially for the elderly, and those
who live in care facilities. If there is a garden available inside the facility, people in the facility can obtain
significant benefits either through looking out through a window or from walking, sitting, talking and
gardening in it (Hunter & Elkington, 2005).
In recent years, increasing research outputs have revealed the benefits of garden usage for the
elderly. Pachana, McWha, and Arathoon (2003) find that older adults who are exposed to a garden
within the hospital experience reduced aggression, improved mood and decreased length of hospital
stay. Psychological symptoms in individuals with dementia also decrease after free access to a garden
(Detweiler, Murphy, Myers, & Kim, 2008; Murphy, Miyazaki, Detweiler, & Kim, 2010). Less sadness is
experienced when in a garden or room for sensory stimulation compared to being in a living room (Cox,
Burns, & Savage, 2004). A residential care home involving a garden for leisure or therapeutic use for
the elderly with different levels of physical and cognitive impairment encourages exercise and sensory
stimulation, eventually promotes quality of life, moderates stress and improves the health status of the
residents (Detweiler et al., 2012). The elderly can conduct various activities in the garden, especially
gardening. In a longitudinal cohort study of 2805 elderly people in New South Wales, the elderly who
did gardening daily enjoyed a 40% reduced risk of admission for dementia. Those who did gardening
weekly or less often had an 11% reduced risk of having dementia, compared to those who did not
engage in gardening activities (Simons, Simons, McCallum, & Friedlander, 2006). A quasi-experiment

CONTACT  Shu Lin Shi  shishulin@vtc.edu.hk, sprucysky@hotmail.com

© 2017 Landscape Research Group Ltd
 LANDSCAPE RESEARCH   125

research of 40 elderly adults in China also indicates that gardening activities have a positive impact
on the elderly’s physical and mental health. The research illustrates that the elderly experience an
amelioration in their cardiovascular system, better mood and an improvement in their sense of well-
being after gardening activities (Xiu & Li, 2006).
In order to optimise the well-being benefits of a garden for the elderly, many studies have been
conducted to explore various ways that landscape design might contribute to well-being outcomes.
Guidelines have been developed on garden design for the elderly (Carstens, 1993; Cooper Marcus &
Barnes, 1995; Cooper Marcus & Sachs, 2014; Regnier, 2002; Winterbottom & Wagenfeld, 2015). Besides
introducing design principles, many design guidelines pay greater attention to meeting and satisfying
the special constraints and needs of the elderly, which consequently leads to fairly detailed approaches.
For instance, there have been numerous principles and suggestions concerning vegetation selection
and arrangement, pathway design (including layout, material and colour selection), fences, handrails,
facilities for sitting, water features and even the introduction of acoustic and wildlife stimuli. These
are valuable for showing the ways in which many landscape elements can be helpful for the elderly in
gardens when they are applied properly.
In contrast, some issues at the macro-level, such as spatial organisation of a garden for the
elderly, remain vague. The existing discussions at the spatial organisation-level care more about
convenient accessibility to the garden, simple and clear garden layout (such as circulation routes) to
facilitate wayfinding, and appropriate destination points for programmed activities (Winterbottom
& Wagenfeld, 2015). For instance, according to a recently developed Dementia Therapeutic Garden
Audit Tool (Dementia Enabling Environments, 2015), only 4 out of 72 evaluated items are related to
spatial organisation: ‘the pathway is a simple looped continuous well-defined pathway’, ‘the pathway
guides people past points of interest, linking small and large garden areas’, ‘the pathway has destination
points such as: a gazebo, shaded seating areas, large shade tree (with seating underneath) providing
opportunities for social interaction’ and ‘when seated, the view is interesting and attractive’. In addition,
these guidelines usually only focus on one element at a time, while tending to assume that the rest
of the settings are all fine for the element under consideration. Whereas in reality, situations are often
complex, and varying combinations of different elements would result in diverse spatial organisations,
along with subsequent various use patterns.
In addition, these guidelines are mainly for new developments or projects with a clear user group
and good control over modifying unfavourable site conditions. In these situations, these guidelines
would be very helpful. However, not every garden in such a care facility was designed with the same
support; some of them may have served other functions/user groups before. Furthermore, not every
care facility has complete authority or capacity over the scope of their garden projects. Such cases also
deserve to be studied, as they may also reveal valuable findings concerning designing gardens for the
elderly under restricted conditions.
These concerns are especially critical to cities in the progress of regeneration and with high density.
As such, cities face even more serious difficulties with the globally ageing population. There will be
great difficulty in developing enough new facilities for the elderly, and facilities transformed from other
functions may not meet the elderly’s needs well. Specific gardens for the elderly are actually precious
and even more critical in such cities.
Hong Kong is one such city. According to the Government Census and Statistics Department
(2015), the elderly aged 65 and above constitute 14% of the total population mid-2014. The projected
proportion of elderly mid-2041 would be 30% of the total population (Census & Statistics Department,
HKSAR, 2012). More and more elderly need to live in care facilities, thus resulting in a great shortage
of such facilities in society (there were 34,749 applicants on the waiting list for subsidised residential
care services for the elderly by the end of July 2016 [Social Welfare Department, HKSAR, 2016]). On the
other hand, due to the lack of concern or guidelines on garden design in care facilities for the elderly
(Social Welfare Department, HKSAR, 2005) and the high-density development tradition in Hong Kong,
less than 10% of existing care facilities for the elderly in Hong Kong have gardens, either on the ground
or at rooftop levels. Even the existing gardens are usually not properly designed to meet the elderly’s
126    S. L. SHI ET AL.

special needs, which further results in under-use or poor maintenance problems. To help improve the
quality of life for the increasing ageing population who live in care facilities with gardens, the existing
gardens in such care facilities should be studied. Even before considering how to improve the gardens’
well-being benefits via detailed design approaches, relationships between spatial organisation in the
gardens and use patterns should be carefully studied first.

Methodology
Specifically, the Wong Chuk Hang Complex, Tung Wah Group of Hospitals (the facility) was selected
for this study. It is a residential care facility for the elderly, which is located at the southern foot of a
mountain on Hong Kong Island. The garden is located at the south-west of the facility’s main building
and is surrounded by highways on the other sides (Figures 1 and 2). It is at the same level as the lower
ground floor of the main building, and covers a total area of around 8,850 m2. As almost the only outdoor

Figure 1. Site map of the garden.

Figure 2. Bird’s-eye view of the garden from the main building.

 LANDSCAPE RESEARCH   127

Figure 3. Ten spots for total site factor (TSF) measurement.

open space with landscape design and accessibility in the nearby area for the residents, it was first
constructed and opened in 1995, but had long been dilapidated until 2012. As the topography rises
from south to north, the main entrance area of the main building (ground level) is more than 6 m higher
than the garden. Therefore, people need to take stairs (‘E2’ in Figure 1) or a lift (inside the main building
and close to ‘E1’ in Figure 1) to enter the garden from these two parts of the facility. There is another
entrance to the garden near the side entrance of the facility (‘E3’ in Figure 1), with much less difference
in level (about 0.8 m) between the garden and the outside. In addition, E1 and E4 are connected with
a covered corridor attached to the main building.
The study contained three parts: the first part was a measurement of solar radiation in the garden;
the second was group interviews with residents and staff at the facility; and the third was non-obtrusive
observation of use patterns in the garden.
The major reason for measuring solar radiation is as a sub-tropical city, the climate in Hong Kong
may lead to specific use patterns in a garden. According to the Hong Kong Observatory’s records from
1981 to 2010 (Observatory, HKSAR, 2016), the mean temperature is around 16 °C (60.8°F) during the
coldest months, while it is over 28 °C (82.4°F) from May to October. The maximum air temperature is over
30 °C (86°F) from June to September. Under such circumstances, people in Hong Kong tend to avoid
direct sunlight and seek shade on hot days. Assuming that users in the selected garden share similar
preferences, solar radiation was considered influential. In this study, solar radiation was represented
by total site factor (TSF), which could be evidence for the shading effects (Yang, Lau, & Qian, 2010).
This indicator was measured through canopy analysis with a fisheye camera. Ten spots (Figure 3) were
chosen either as destinations or major joint spots on pathways in the garden. Fisheye photographs
and site photos were taken at these spots on a cloudy day, and later imported to WinSCANOPY 2014a
to calculate TSF.
The group interviews were conducted during November and December 2013. The interview mainly
covered topics related to the respondents’ pattern of use in the garden, preferences concerning the
garden and its elements, constraints in using the garden, as well as demographic information like
gender, length of living/working in the facility. The interviewed elderly residents were those who had
visited the garden and could express themselves well; while the interviewed staff all had work tasks in
the garden, such as leading gardening groups, taking care of plants, assisting residents into the garden.
They were interviewed in groups of no more than five respondents per group. A total number of 17
residents and 16 staff were interviewed. The results of the interviews will be analysed together with the
results of the observation, in order to identify any use pattern led by spatial organisation.
128    S. L. SHI ET AL.

Since the institutionalised everyday life of the elderly is quite regular, organised activities in
the garden are also regular on weekdays as long as weather permits; any weekday and weekend is
considered suitable under acceptable weather conditions for garden usage. Specifically, continuous
non-obtrusive observations of use patterns were carried out between 0900–1300 and 1400–1800 on
one weekday and one weekend in April 2014. During observation, the investigators were required not
to interact with any garden user, and not to occupy any garden facility in order to reduce impact on use
patterns. For each of the four garden entrances, the number of users in and out was counted and their
demographic information, such as gender and estimated age group was also recorded. In addition,
the category (resident/staff/volunteer/domestic helper/visitor), motion independence, whether they
were accompanied or not, activities, duration and route of movement was recorded for each user.
With such data, the relationship between spatial characteristics such as spatial organisation and use
patterns can be revealed.
This facility also accommodates mental rehabilitation residents under the age of 65 (around 70
out of 260+ residents in total at the time of this study). These residents can use the garden if they are
considered to have sufficient self-control (58 in total when this study was conducted). Although there
would be differences in use pattern and concern for the garden from the elderly due to their age and
differences in mental status, these mental rehabilitation residents were not excluded from observation
as their use of the garden might affect the elderly’s use pattern.

Results and discussion

Total site factor (TSF)
TSF, site images and fisheye images of each of the 10 selected spots are shown in Table 1. Since the sun
track was to the south of the site during the study period, shades from the south reduced TSF greatly,
despite the proportion of visible sky, as shown at spot 1 and spot 6. Besides, there were some trees or
structures/shelters around each spot. These provide shade for the spots, as the sun moves. Under such

Table 1. Total site factor (TSF) at each of the 10 spots.

Spot 1 Spot 2 Spot 3 Spot 4 Spot 5

TSF: 71.67% TSF: 61.91% TSF: 25.60% TSF: 50.01% TSF: 84.53%

Spot 6 Spot 7 Spot 8 Spot 9 Spot 10

TSF: 12.18% TSF: 69.31% TSF: 22.44% TSF: 36.52% TSF: 73.32%
 LANDSCAPE RESEARCH   129

circumstance, the spots with higher TSF may not always reduce users’ comfort at the site. For instance,
spot 5 is surrounded by pavilions, where people can seek shade; spots 1, 3, 6, 7 and 10 are mainly
pathways in the garden, and if the sun is too strong, people may use alternative pathways to get through
the areas, or just need to tolerate the sunshine for a short period. Generally speaking, TSF in this garden
is comforting, although sometimes people need to adjust their uses (time and location) in the garden.

Interviews and observations

The weather for both observation days was fine, with soft breezes. The highest temperature was 26 °C
(78.8°F) for the weekday and 28 °C (82.4°F) for the weekend. The sun was not fierce. Since the TSF results
indicate the garden is generally comfortable for users, the garden’s design is anticipated to be more
influential on use patterns in this study.
Many of the interviewed residents and staff had been in the facility for a relatively long time. The
residents had lived in the facility for 5.9 years on average (SD = 4.9) by the time of the interview. Five
of them had stayed there for more than 10 years, while eight of them had stayed there for more than
5 years. The shortest stay was 0.5 years. The staff had worked in the facility for 4.6 years on average
(SD = 3.9) by the time of the interview. Four of them had worked for over 10 years, while six of them
had worked for more than 5 years. The shortest working experience in the facility was 0.5 years. All
the respondents clearly knew the garden. Residents visited the garden on a daily basis as long as the
weather and their health conditions permitted. Staff visited the garden regularly on a task basis mainly,
while some also visited the garden from time to time on their own, or used the garden as a shortcut
between the main building and bus station. Generally speaking, they appreciated the large area and
abundant plants in the garden. They also expressed a general preference for seeing flowers (especially
red ones), though they had little specific preference for species or planting design. Use pattern seemed
not to be affected by plants in the garden according to their responses. Their appreciation of the plants
or flowers seemed to be unconscious, although they did talk about plants with others, in a superficial
way. What was mentioned a lot was the possibility of walking around in the garden. This was considered
a kind of release from the indoor environment for most of them. If it was raining or windy, they would
not visit the garden, and organised activities would also be cancelled. Their comments on the spatial
organisation of the garden will be discussed together with findings from our observation.
According to observation records, a total of 169 people-times (see Table 2, note b) were observed
in the garden on the weekday, while a total of 188 were recorded on the weekend. Some users visited
the garden more than once a day. These users included elderly residents mainly, plus some mental
rehabilitation residents, staff and visitors. As interactions were observed among different kinds of
users, users were studied in general as a whole. The observed activity breakdown is summarised in
Table 2. Generally speaking, most observed activities were passive, even the ‘exercising’ was mainly
stretching. ‘Walking’ was generally slow in terms of speed; some ‘walking’ cases were those who needed
a wheelchair and tried to walk to maintain their muscle strength. Besides, the sum of people-time
for different activities is larger than the total people-times observed in the garden for each day. This
indicates that garden users tend to conduct multiple activities during their stays in the garden.
Activities such as sitting, chatting, smoking, gardening, viewing, eating, cleaning and exercising
involve little or less locomotion among observed activities. According to observation records, these
activities were mostly carried out in enlarged spaces beside paths, which usually had a clear boundary
and benches/chairs inside. The exceptions were the gardening area and fishpond. The gardening area
is just along a path and the fishpond does not support staying inside even though it is surrounded
by paths. However, they were often taken as destinations for certain activities. In the garden, nine
subspaces were identified as destinations (as shown in Figure 4). On the other hand, activities of walking
and passing through revealed locomotion in and between different zones in the garden. To study the
relationship between such locomotion and spatial organisation in the garden, the garden was divided
into five zones based on topographic differences (as shown in Figure 5).
130    S. L. SHI ET AL.

Table 2. Activity breakdown in the garden on both observed days.

Activity observeda Weekday (people-timeb) Weekend (people-timeb)

Sitting 83 97
Chatting 43 53
Smoking 43 67
Gardening 35 10
Viewing 34 42
Eating 32 20
Cleaningc 10 2
Exercisingd 8 14
Walkingd,e 53 55
Passing throughe 33 51
a
Some users were observed doing different activities at the same time, such as sitting while chatting. For such cases, the activities
were recorded separately, ie, one user sitting while chatting was counted as one under ‘sitting’ and one under ‘chatting’.
b
When any one person was observed doing any listed activity once, he/she was counted as one people-time. If another person
was observed doing the same activity, or the same person was observed doing the same activity again, he/she would add to the
number of people-time for that activity.
c
In the category of ‘cleaning’, capable residents were organised by the facility to clean the garden, mainly to clean rubbish and fallen
leaves from the ground around E1 (in Figure 1).
d
‘Walking’ is actually a subcategory of exercise. It involves more locomotion in the garden, while ‘exercising’ refers to those activities
involving little locomotion, such as stretching. These two were separated as they represent different use patterns.
e
Both ‘walking’ and ‘passing through’ refer to walking behaviour in the garden. The difference between them concerns the
destination: the garden is the destination for walking, not for passing through.

Figure 4. Subspaces as destinations in the garden.

To analyse destinations in the garden, the total number of visitors (those who came back again
were counted again) and average duration of usage at each destination were calculated for the nine
subspaces and both days (Figures 6 and 7). According to these two charts, some subspaces were quite
popular among users, such as the main entrance and smoking area, while the gardening area and
sitting area 1 seemed to be used more on the weekday. The interview revealed that these two areas
were mainly used for organised gardening activities. The elderly can only join such activities under the
guidance of staff. And the staff responsible for such activities worked Monday–Friday during our study.
Facilities, materials and support were more available during weekdays too. Apart from these popular
spaces, some other spaces, such as the plaza, fishpond, pavilion cluster, sitting area 2 and single pavilion,
attracted less people.
When further analysing the relationship between total number of visitors and location with one-
way ANOVA (in SPSS), there was a statistically significant difference among subspaces (F(8,9) = 5.315,
 LANDSCAPE RESEARCH   131

Figure 5. Zoning based on topographic differences in the garden.

Figure 6. Total number of visitors and average duration of usages at selected subspaces (weekday).

Figure 7. Total number of visitors and average duration of usages at selected subspaces (weekend).
132    S. L. SHI ET AL.

p = .011), specifically between the main entrance, smoking area, sitting area 2 and single pavilion. Both
main entrance and smoking area were frequently visited consistently, while sitting area 2 and the single
pavilion were consistently unpopular among users.
When discussing the relationship between average duration and location, according to one-way
ANOVA, there was also a statistically significant difference among subspaces (F(8,9) = 3.756, p = .033),
specifically between the fishpond area, smoking area and pavilion cluster. The average duration in the
pavilion cluster is exceptionally long, while the average duration in the fishpond and smoking areas is
consistently short. For the fishpond area, the lack of shelter and seating facilities, together with poor
water quality, could largely explain the short stays. The smoking area is mainly used by smokers, when
they smoke, which is not representative for the entire user population.
The record for entry and exit for each entrance to the garden (Figure 8) shows a striking difference
concerning pedestrian volume between E1 and the other three entrances. The major reason for this is
the topographic difference between the garden and other parts of the facility. Therefore, most users,
especially the elderly, take lifts to the level of the garden entrance, and enter or exit the garden through
E1. E3 had a few more users then E2 and E4, mainly because it is taken as a shortcut to the bus station
outside the facility (as shown in Figure 1).
Besides specific subspaces, different zones in the garden also show certain influence on use pattern,
as shown in Figures 9 and 10. Among all the five zones, zone 2 appears as the most popular among
users, in almost every observed activity. The major reason is that the main entrance to the garden (E1)
is there, as discussed above. Next to zone 2, zone 1 is frequently used for smoking, sitting and passing
by. Such a pattern of use mainly results from the smoking area set at the western end of this zone, and
the side entrance to the facility at the eastern end. For most people passing by this zone, they take the
pathway in this zone, together with zone 2, as a shortcut connecting the main building and outside,
especially the closest bus station as mentioned above. Apart from zone 1 and 2, the remaining three
zones shared similar usage on both days, except that zone 3 had more gardening activities because
the gardening area is within it, although such activity is heavily dependent on the staff’s organisation.
Such similarity among different zones also indicates that once one gets away from the main entrance
(zone 2), distance becomes less of a concern for users and has less influence on their use patterns.
The results for both subspaces and zones show certain consistent patterns, such as for the subspaces
of the main entrance and plaza in Figures 6 and 7 (major components of zone 2 and zone 4 in Figures
9 and 10). Although these two subspaces are adjacent to one another, and both have seating facilities
and plants, the main entrance has many more users and even longer stays than the plaza. What is the
reason that the plaza, which is even more spacious, has much fewer users and shorter stays? The major
reason is the 0.9 m level difference between these two adjacent spaces. Even though a ramp suitable
for wheelchair users is provided besides a group of steps, many people are stopped by the edge of the

Figure 8. Entry and exit record for each entrance to the garden.
 LANDSCAPE RESEARCH   133

Figure 9. Observed number of users in each zone (weekday).

Figure 10. Observed number of users in each zone (weekend).

main entrance space. The level differences in the garden seem to be a huge obstacle for the elderly.
Such an obstacle is more mental than physical, as revealed by the interviews, because the elderly are
commonly afraid of falling down on uneven ground. Another possible reason for such different use
patterns is the different shade conditions. There is a large banyan tree in the main entrance space which
provides dense shade to the space. Such shade is especially critical on hot days. However, it is arguable
that on cold days, people may want to sit in the sun, so that sitting in the plaza could be preferable in
such a situation.
134    S. L. SHI ET AL.

Another comparison can be made between the subspaces of the main entrance and single pavilion
in Figures 6 and 7. Both subspaces provide facilities for sitting under the dense shade of trees, but there
is a tremendous difference in the number of users. One may take the distance from the entrance as the
major reason for such different use patterns in the two subspaces. However, interviews revealed that
the geographical level difference is the major reason for such differences in usage. Elderly respondents
complained a lot about the slope towards the single pavilion. They considered the slope too steep,
too long, that it might be slippery, and therefore it was difficult and dangerous to climb up and down
the slope as they were afraid of falling down, without there being a rail along the pathway. Staff also
mentioned that due to the difference in levels, some steps were constructed at the starting point of
the slope (as shown in Figure 11). This makes the area beyond inaccessible for wheelchairs, therefore
further reducing usage of this subspace. Surprisingly, no respondent considered the single pavilion to
be too far from the entrances and beyond their capacity. When supposing that the slope was not that
steep and had rails along the side, many respondents expressed their intention to visit the area. From
the comparison among the main entrance, plaza and single pavilion, it is clear that geographic features,
especially level differences with steep and long slopes stopped people from reaching and using certain

Figure 11. Steps and topographic condition in zone 5 around the single pavilion.
 LANDSCAPE RESEARCH   135

Figure 12. Enclosure of sitting area 2 and pavilion cluster.

spaces effectively, and this was even more influential than shade conditions. The interview results also
support the observation that distance became less influential on pattern of use when users set out
from the main entrance.
Besides the single pavilion, zone 5 is also striking for its particularly low usage of sitting area 2 (as
shown in Figures 6 and 7). Sitting area 2 has a similar facility setting to the pavilion cluster, both subspaces
have three shelters/pavilions with facilities for sitting under them. Therefore, facilities would not lead to
much difference in use patterns for these two subspaces. Instead, different spatial organisations seem
to be the major reason. The chief difference lies in the enclosure of these two subspaces (as shown in
the panorama image in Figure 12). For the pavilion cluster, it is surrounded by bambusa multiplex with a
height of around 70 cm from the ground (as shown in Figure 12, image on the bottom right). Therefore,
the visual connection with surroundings from the pavilions is not affected. This is critical for the elderly,
as their health condition may be unstable, and they may not be able to call for help when it is needed.
Under such circumstances, if they cannot be seen by others either just passing by or from distance, they
might not receive help in time. The subspace of sitting area 2 is highly enclosed by a mound around 1 m
high, with dense plants on top in front of the shelters (as shown in Figure 12, image on the bottom left).
Planting is dense at the back of the shelters too. Thus, the two entrances to this subspace become the
major openings for both visual and locomotion connections. If the elderly come across some problem
when sitting on the bench, these two openings may not help as they do not face the benches directly.
People passing by from outside would hardly notice what is happening inside the subspace.
Safety concerns aside, enclosure of space also has a certain influence on people’s feelings and
preferences, and may further influence their behaviour (Shi, Gou, & Chen, 2014). As revealed by previous
research, privacy is vital for individuals (McBride, 1999; Proshansky, Ittelson, & Rivlin, 1970). People
may choose relatively remote and enclosed spaces intentionally if they prefer to stay alone, or have an
136    S. L. SHI ET AL.

Figure 13. Observed activities in the gardening area and sitting area 1.

intimate/in-depth conversation with others, especially their families, as they would not be interrupted
or heard by others (Bengtsson & Carlsson, 2013). Such spaces also offer a stronger feeling of control
compared to those popular spaces, as emphasised by supportive garden design (Maas et al., 2009; Ulrich,
1999). After integrating these ideas with the above discussions, it can be suggested that a high extent
of enclosure should be applied with special care in gardens for the elderly. When a sense of privacy
or control is needed, it would be better achieved through keeping such space small and distant from
more public spaces, rather than simply increasing the extent of spatial enclosure.
Besides influence from landscape elements related to spatial organisation, management of the
space would also change spatial organisation and subsequent use patterns. For instance, zone 1 is
close to the facility’s side entrance (E3) at its eastern end, while being quite close to the garden’s main
entrance (E1) towards its western end. However, it is not commonly used according to observation,
even though it is said to be a shortcut by some respondents. For the weekday, only 5 residents were
recorded in this zone other than 43 smoking cases, while for the weekend, only 3 residents and 11
visitors were recorded in this zone other than 67 smoking cases. The smoking area at the western end
of zone 1 seemed to stop people, especially non-smokers, from using this zone greatly. This probably
results in the underuse of the eastern part of zone 1, although it has some benches along the pathway
and is well shaded by big trees. From the spatial organisation aspect, the smoking area would better
be located at the further end of the space in relation to the garden, such as at the eastern end of zone
1, so that the rest of zone 1 could be well connected with other parts of the garden and be better used
and enjoyed. Such modification of spatial organisation is cheap in terms of investment, but could be
effective in creating different spatial experience and use patterns.
Such an approach could be further elaborated by the use pattern observed in the gardening area and
sitting area 1. These two spaces are adjacent to each other. The gardening area was not in the original
design, but was a result of later management. During the observation, when there were gardening
activities, some other users in the garden were attracted to watch and ask about the activities, and talk
about the plants (mainly vegetables) (as shown in Figure 13, image on the left). However, most of the
conversation or the stays did not last long, as participants in the gardening activities needed to complete
certain tasks. In contrast, on the weekend when there was no gardening activity in that area, the average
duration of stay in sitting area 1 increased tremendously. A visitor was observed there, sitting side by
side and chatting with an elderly person (as shown in Figure 13, image on the right). He also assisted the
elderly person in walking exercises within that area. They stayed in that subspace for 43 minutes. These
indicate that although public activities and intimate activities are basically incompatible with each other,
such incompatibility may not require specific spatial arrangement to address it. Since the gardening
activities are basically controlled by the management, when the element of time is mindfully engaged,
a single space could support multiple spatial needs, even incompatible ones. Such an approach would
be especially helpful for those gardens not originally designed for the elderly and/or with limited space.
 LANDSCAPE RESEARCH   137

Conclusion
In this study, where TSF was not a major determinant of use pattern in the garden at a care facility
for the elderly, spatial features are influential on patterns of use. Specifically, the influence of spatial
organisation on the use patterns in the garden has been focused upon and discussed, based on the
outcomes of interviews and observations. Besides responding to the importance of accessibility and the
extent of privacy/control in space as shown in previous studies (Cooper Marcus, 2007; Sarkar, Gallacher,
& Webster, 2013), this study further reveals some influential aspects of spatial organisation in gardens
for the elderly:

(1)  Different spatial elements and their features have different levels of influence on spatial
organisation and subsequent use patterns. Topographic level changes, especially long and
steep slopes, are more influential than distance and shade.
(2)  Enclosure, as the spatial structure of single space, is also influential on use patterns as it
indicates not only different extents of privacy and control, but also safety. Since safety is
virtually the most essential concern for the elderly and their care, enclosures should be applied
carefully in spatial organisation for the elderly. Aside from enclosure, location and the size
of a space may be more proper approaches when high-level privacy and control is intended
for a certain space.
(3)  Besides physical spatial organisations in a garden for the elderly, management of the space
would be able to create and modify spatial organisation during usage, as discussed in relation
to the smoking and gardening areas in this case. In addition, more possibilities could be
achieved if the element of time could be carefully integrated, even when dealing with
incompatible usages. Such approaches would be highly flexible and cost-effective for the
modification of existing garden facilities, especially for altering those gardens which were
not originally designed for the elderly and/or those with limited space.

The findings of this study suggest both hard and soft approaches in landscape to consider or alter
spatial organisation in gardens for the elderly. Such discussions and suggestions supplement existing
design guidelines for this category of gardens, and could be helpful for both new and renewal projects.
However, this study is still preliminary and has not covered every aspect. To achieve more comprehensive
design reflections, further studies are needed for various gardens at care facilities for the elderly.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank the Wong Chuk Hang Complex, Tung Wah Group of Hospitals (WCHC), especially Ms. Eppie Wan and
Ms. Alice Leung for their great support and participation. The authors also thank Prof. Lau S. Y. Stephen for his generous
support on this project, and thank Ms. Xue Fei, Ms. Sun Xiao Nuan and Ms. Misbah Bibi for their help on data collection.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by the Technological and Higher Education Institute of Hong Kong [1314103].

References
Bengtsson, A., & Carlsson, G. (2013). Outdoor environments at three nursing homes-qualitative interviews with residents
and next of kin. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12, 393–400.
Carstens, D. Y. (1993). Site planning and design for the elderly. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
Census and Statistics Department, HKSAR. (2012). Hong Kong Population Projections 2012–2041. Hong Kong. Retrieved from
http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hkstat/sub/sp190.jsp?productCode=B1120015
138    S. L. SHI ET AL.

Census and Statistics Department, HKSAR. (2015). Population and Household Statistics Analysed by District Council District.
Hong Kong. Retrieved from http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hkstat/sub/sp150_t.jsp?productCode=B1130301
Cooper Marcus, C. (2000). Gardens and health. International Academy for Design and Health, 61–71.
Cooper Marcus, C. (2007). Healing gardens in hospitals. IDRP Interdisciplinary Design and Research e-Journal, 1(1), 1–27.
Cooper Marcus, C., & Barnes, M. (1995). Gardens in health care facilities: Uses, therapeutic benefits, and design considerations.
Martinez, CA: The Center of Health Design.
Cooper Marcus, C., & Sachs, N. A. (2014). Therapeutic landscapes: An evidence-based design approach to designing of healing
gardens and restorative outdoor spaces. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Cox, H., Burns, I., & Savage, S. (2004). Multisensory environments for leisure: Promoting well-being in nursing home residents
with dementia. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 30, 37–45.
Dementia Enabling Environments. (2015). Dementia therapeutic garden audit tool. Retrieved from http://www.
enablingenvironments.com.au/audit-tools–services.html
Detweiler, M. B., Murphy, P. F., Myers, L. C., & Kim, K. Y. (2008). Does a wander garden influence inappropriate behaviors in
dementia residents? American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease & Other Dementias, 23, 31–45. doi:10.1177/1533317507309799
Detweiler, M. B., Sharma, T., Detweiler, J. G., Murphy, P. F., Lane, S., Carman, J., … Kim, K. Y. (2012). What is the evidence to
support the use of therapeutic gardens for the elderly? Psychiatry Investigation, 9, 100–110.
Hunter, K., & Elkington, J. (2005). Design guidelines for aged care facilities. Retrieved from http://www.fallssa.com.au/
documents/hp/Design_guidelines-aged_care_facilities.pdf
Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., de Vries, S., Spreeuwenberg, P., Schellevis, F. G., Groenewegen, P. P., & (2009). Morbidity is related to
a green living environment. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 63, 967–973. doi:10.1136/jech.2008.079038
McBride, D. L. (1999). Healing gardens: Therapeutic benefits and design recommendations. In C. C. Marcus & M. Barnes
(Eds.), Nursing home gardens (pp. 385–436). New York, NY: Wiley.
Murphy, P. F., Miyazaki, Y., Detweiler, M. B., & Kim, K. Y. (2010). Longitudinal analysis of differential effects on agitation
of a therapeutic wander garden for dementia patients based on ambulation ability. Dementia, 9, 355–373.
doi:10.1177/1471301210375336
Observatory, HKSAR. (2016). Monthly means of daily maximum, mean and minimum temperature recorded at the
observatory between 1981–2010 Retrieved from http://www.weather.gov.hk/cis/normal/1981_2010/normals_e.
htm#Table4
Pachana, N., McWha, J. L., & Arathoon, M. (2003). Passive therapeutic gardens: A study on an inpatient geriatric ward.
Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 29, 4–9.
Proshansky, H. M., Ittelson, W. H., & Rivlin, L. G. (1970). Freedom of choice and behavior in a physical setting. In H. M.
Proshansky, W. H. Ittelson, & L. G. Rivlin (Eds.), Environmental psychology-man and his physical setting (pp. 173–183).
New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc.
Regnier, V. (2002). Designing for assisted living: Guidelines for housing the physically and mentally frail New York, NY: Wiley.
Sarkar, C., Gallacher, J., & Webster, C. (2013). Urban built environment configuration and psychological distress in older
men: Results from the Caerphilly study. BMC Public Health, 13, 695.
Shi, S., Gou, Z., & Chen, L. (2014). How does enclosure influence environmental preferences? A cognitive study on urban
public open spaces in Hong Kong. Sustainable Cities and Society, 13, 148–156.
Simons, L. A., Simons, J., McCallum, J., & Friedlander, Y. (2006). Lifestyle factors and risk of dementia: Dubbo study of the
elderly. Medical Journal of Australia, 184, 68–70.
Social Welfare Department, HKSAR. (2005). The code of practice for residential care homes (elderly persons). Hong Kong.
Retrieved from http://www.swd.gov.hk/doc/LORCHE/CoP_Oct_05_e(PDF)(2)_p.pdf
Social Welfare Department, HKSAR. (2016). Statistics on ‘Waiting list for subsidised residential care services for the elderly’,
‘Waiting time for residential care services’ and ‘Turn for placement offer for cases applying for residential care services’.
Retrieved from http://www.swd.gov.hk/en/index/site_pubsvc/page_elderly/sub_residentia/id_overviewon/
Ulrich, R. S. (1999). Effects of gardens on health outcomes: Theory and research. In C. C. Marcus & M. Barnes (Eds.), Healing
gardens: Therapeutic benefits and design recommendations (pp. 27–86). New York, NY: Wiley.
Winterbottom, D., & Wagenfeld, A. (2015). Therapeutic gardens: Design for healing gardens. London: Timber Press.
Xiu, M., & Li, S. (2006). A preliminary study of the influence of horticultural operation activities on the physical and mental
health of the elderly. Chinese Landscape Architecture, 22, 46–49.
Yang, F., Lau, S. S., & Qian, F. (2010). Summertime heat island intensities in three high-rise housing quarters in inner-city
Shanghai China: Building layout, density and greenery. Building and Environment, 45, 115–134.