Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Lydia Oeljeklaus
 + 1777 word(s) 1777 2022-01-29 08:45:16 |
2 Expansion of the definition section
Hannah-Lea Schmid
+ 30 word(s) 1807 2022-02-01 14:44:39 | |
3 The format is correct
Lindsay Dong
 + 3 word(s) 1810 2022-02-07 02:56:48 | |
4 The format is correct
Lindsay Dong
 + 16 word(s) 1826 2022-02-10 10:23:59 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Oeljeklaus, L.; Schmid, H. Therapeutic Landscapes and Psychiatric Care Facilities. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/19069 (accessed on 18 May 2024).
Oeljeklaus L, Schmid H. Therapeutic Landscapes and Psychiatric Care Facilities. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/19069. Accessed May 18, 2024.
Oeljeklaus, Lydia, Hannah-Lea Schmid. "Therapeutic Landscapes and Psychiatric Care Facilities" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/19069 (accessed May 18, 2024).
Oeljeklaus, L., & Schmid, H. (2022, February 01). Therapeutic Landscapes and Psychiatric Care Facilities. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/19069
Oeljeklaus, Lydia and Hannah-Lea Schmid. "Therapeutic Landscapes and Psychiatric Care Facilities." Encyclopedia. Web. 01 February, 2022.
Therapeutic Landscapes and Psychiatric Care Facilities
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/ijerph19031490

Healing environments have been defined as therapeutic landscapes (TL), where the physical and built environments, social conditions and human perceptions combine to produce an atmosphere which is conducive to healing. The environment in mental-healthcare facilities can influence health and recovery of service users and furthermore contribute to healthy workplaces for staff. The physical (built and natural), social, and symbolic dimensions of the therapeutic landscape can have positive and negative impacts. Therefore, the needs and characteristics of the different stakeholders have to be considered.

physical built natural social and symbolic environment mental disorders mental health psychiatric hospital therapeutic landscape

1. Introduction

1.1. Environment, Health, and Well-Being

The environment has a significant impact on health [1][2]. Global research emphasises the positive relationship between direct experiences of natural environments and a wide range of health benefits [1][3][4][5], in addition to the key role nature plays in creating healthy environments [6][7], and in relation to an overall healthy society [8]. Direct and continuous contact with nature can be preventive and health promoting [3][4][9], e.g., by increasing physical and mental well-being or reducing stress [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17], and promoting social inclusion and social cohesion [5][18]. In addition, ecosystems provide elemental services to humans, such as providing resources, regulating clean air and water, supporting nutrient cycling, and providing opportunities for cultural and recreational experiences [19]. Ecosystems can therefore have an impact on mental health (MH) [20], e.g., by providing spaces for physical activity and social contact [21][22].

1.2. The Concept of Therapeutic Landscapes

In the context of a healthy environment, the concept of therapeutic landscapes (TL) was introduced and coined by Gesler from 1992 [9]. The aim is to explore why certain environments appear to contribute to a “healing sense of place” [9][23]. Healing environments have been defined as TL, “where the physical and built environments, social conditions and human perceptions combine to produce an atmosphere which is conducive to healing” [24] (p. 96). Within the concept, four overarching elements can be summarised that are characteristic of a TL [3], namely: (1) natural environments (e.g., green and blue spaces), (2) artificial/built environments (e.g., design features), (3) social environments (including sense of place, attitudes, and values) and (4) symbolic environments (including regional identity, religious places). Therefore, it is important to understand the physical and social health-promoting qualities of a given space, and also the more subjective ways in which people might interpret and use it differently [25][26][27].
TL have been examined at different environmental levels, from large-scale (e.g., countryside), to mesoscale (e.g., urban parks), and microscale environments (e.g., hospitals and clinics, gardens, buildings). Additionally, the scope has been further refined by focusing on diverse populations (e.g., different age groups, gender, cultures, physical abilities, and place-specific practices) [25][27]. Moreover, it is necessary to differentiate between TL in general and in specific settings [27][28]. In psychiatric care, in particular, two different levels of observation (psychiatric facility as a whole TL and specific elements within the psychiatric facility) must be considered [29].

1.3. Therapeutic Landscapes and Facility Design in Providing MH Care

The clinical setting, especially inpatient psychiatric care, contributes substantially to MH [28][30]. Facility design, infrastructure, and architecture can both positively and negatively influence the health and recovery of service users (SUs) [30][31][32][33][34] and contribute to healthy workplaces [28]. Nevertheless, perceptions and assessments of environmental factors can differ between medical staff and SUs [30]. The United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which provides a framework for human rights-oriented change to MH services [35], is closely linked to the improvement in the environmental quality in psychiatric care. The concept of TL can make an important contribution to this improvement.
Curtis et al. [28] identified six relevant TL dimensions, namely “Respect and empowerment for people with mental illness”, “Security an surveillance vs. freedom and openness”, “Territoriality, privacy, refuge, and social interactions”, “Homeliness and contact with nature”, “Places for expression and reaffirmation of identity, autonomy and SUs choice”, and “Integration into sustainable communities”, amongst different groups of people related to an inpatient MH facility (cf. 591). These dimensions include: (1) respect for and empowerment of people with mental illness and the extent to which the environment in a MH facility respects the personality, preferences, culture, and religion of SUs; (2) the conflict between the need to control and restrict SUs and the goal of promoting human needs and individuality; (3) the need within a MH facility for dedicated spaces (e.g., for social interactions) without coming into contact with medical staff; (4) a homely atmosphere and the use of natural elements to promote contact with nature; (5) the need to provide facilities that promote the MH of SUs while respecting individuality and diversity and enabling self-directed living and participation in treatment decisions; and (6) the promotion of (social) reintegration of people with mental illness through good networking of MH care facilities with the community environment [28].

2. Therapeutic Landscapes and Psychiatric Care Facilities

Within the physical dimension, design features and their perception are included. A unanimous opinion was the need for a caring, homelike, and pleasant environment. In this regard, a balance between a pleasant and useful environment, evenly offering privacy and safety for SUs and staff, is necessary. Moreover, a facility should enable possibilities for reflection without disturbance but also positive distraction by the TL. Hackett et al. [36] found similar results regarding the physical environment for youth SUs in different healthcare settings. Service providers and youth SUs mentioned a welcoming environment, i.e., being bright, decorated, and youth-friendly, to be important for high quality care. Moreover, youth SUs asked for privacy and autonomy in decorating their own rooms. An open view and access to nature were mentioned as important aspects of the physical environment by some of the referred studies. Visual and physical access to nature have been found to be important for healthcare facilities in general, as being not only beneficial for the physical and mental health of SUs, but also that of staff [37]. In the same way, the provision of daylight within the facility enhances SUs’ and staff’s physical and mental health [37]. In the study by Shepley et al. [38], there was an awareness for the need for daylight, but no idea of realisation. According to Sherif et al. [39], daylight and the view from a window can be influenced and regulated by the shape of the slats on blinds. In this regard, the possibility of personal control of the individual’s environment can benefit MH additionally [37][40]. Moreover, special designs/furniture for certain SUs, e.g., geriatric or forensic SUs, are needed. According to Karlin and Zeiss [41], an issue that must be considered is the design of the interior in such a way that goals of stimulation are addressing the right SU, while fostering an optimistic sense about hospitalisation at the same time. It is desirable to design psychiatric facilities that align with different SU demands, but this may be not completely feasible in every case [33][41].

The provision of rooms for social connection and activities with other SUs, carers, and staff, and to practice religion, is important and directly connected to a conducive social environment. This is in line with results from Jovanović et al. [42], who found that family rooms off ward were associated with psychiatric SUs’ treatment satisfaction. Most of the investigated wards in this study were part of general hospitals; hence, it may be easier to provide social places off-ward than at solely psychiatric facilities. Nonetheless, it is likely that the availability of specific places to meet family and friends, apart from communal rooms, enhances SU treatment satisfaction and thus well-being. In this regard, informal carers’ demands, such as accessibility to the facility and places to connect with their cared-for relatives, are essential and enhance social interactions [37]. Moreover, multiple-occupancy rooms can provide the opportunity for social interaction between SUs [43][44]. In addition, Ulrich et al. [45] mentions the stress-reducing effects of communal areas with movable seating and ample space, which allows the regulation of relationships. Providing unlocked outdoor gardens and rooms with a view of nature can foster stress reduction by offering pleasant places to seek privacy or socialise [45]. Karlin and Zeiss [41] recommend designing social places so that SUs can control their level of social contact, retreat, or form new relationships. The need for areas and (sportive) activities, where the mental illness is not present for SUs or visible for others, allowing them to adapt to roles apart from being a SU, was also outlined by McGrath and Reavey [46]. Regarding (meaningful) activities or areas, it is important to take SUs’ preferences into account. As shown by Parkinson et al. [47], activities, i.e., horticulture, are not meaningful per se. SUs perceived horticulture only as beneficial when related to the individual’s interest [47].

A relevant aspect of the social dimension is a balance between sense of safety, privacy, autonomy, and freedom, e.g., to allow everyday choices and prevent the feeling of being locked up. Similar to the results of this qualitative meta-analysis, SUs in several studies repeatedly expressed feeling locked-up and described the environment as prison-like [36][44][46]. Clear boundaries and options on how to use private and common places, e.g., no formal SU–staff interaction in private rooms, can be supportive for treatment, but need to fit SUs’ demands. Although in the present qualitative meta-analysis SUs expressed a desire for (great) leeway, Maloret and Scott [48] showed that specific SU-groups (SU with autism spectrum disorder and an acute panic disorder) need daily routines and structure. Single-SU rooms are associated with privacy [37] and autonomy through the sense of control of the SUs’ own environment [37][44]. A review of MH aspects of the built environment affirms the importance of indirect control of the built environment through social interactions, in a variety of settings [40]. In one included study, women felt less safe in communal spaces [49]. In contrast, Jovanović et al. [42] found that SU treatment satisfaction is associated with mixed-sex wards. Consequently, further research is needed as previous research stated both advantages and disadvantages of mixed-sex wards [50][51]. Regarding safe spaces, staff have to be considered [52][53], because about 24–80% of MH care staff experience violence at least once in their career [54].

From SUs’ perspectives, lifelike environments are preferred over restrictive ones, albeit staff’s demands to execute their working tasks need to be considered. This matches previous findings of a preference for lifelike units that are associated with beneficial MH outcomes [55]. Earlier-mentioned elements, such as daylight, music, and airflow [56], hospital gardens [57], and separate places for staff restoration and communication [37], can also enhance staff’s work satisfaction.
Concurrently, social relationships are of significant importance, as, e.g., SU–staff relationship can have a direct effect on SU well-being. The physical and social dimensions act as facilitators and barriers of the therapeutic value, i.e., symbolic dimension, of the psychiatric facility. An unsuitable physical environment can severely impair aspects of the social dimension, such as quality of care and the feeling of safety, and may damage the person-centred therapeutic process [44]. Additional barriers are the associated stigma through the facility design, in addition to SUs’ and carers’ subordinate position within the facility. This was also mentioned by McGrath and Reavey [46], where the entire environment and, in particular, locked doorways, reflected the commonly perceived stigmatisation and caused a feeling of devaluation.

References

  1. Bowler, D.E.; Buyung-Ali, L.M.; Knight, T.M.; Pullin, A.S. A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health 2010, 10, 456.
  2. Frumkin, H.; Bratman, G.N.; Breslow, S.J.; Cochran, B.; Kahn, P.H., Jr.; Lawler, J.J.; Levin, P.S.; Tandon, P.S.; Varanasi, U.; Wolf, K.L.; et al. Nature Contact and Human Health: A Research Agenda. Environ. Health Perspect. 2017, 125, 075001.
  3. Dushkova, D.; Ignatieva, M. New trends in urban environmental health research: From geography of diseases to therapeutic landscapes and healing gardens. Geogr. Environ. Sustain. 2020, 13, 159–171.
  4. Hartig, T.; Mitchell, R.; de Vries, S.; Frumkin, H. Nature and Health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2014, 35, 207–228.
  5. Soga, M.; Gaston, K.J. Extinction of experience: The loss of human-nature interactions. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2016, 14, 94–101.
  6. de Leeuw, E.; Webster, P. The healthy settings approach: Healthy Cities and environmental health indicators. In Oxford Textbook of Nature and Public Health; van den Bosch, M., Bird, W., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 264–270.
  7. WHO. Global Strategy for Health for All by the Year 2000, “Health for All” Series; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1981.
  8. ten Brink, P.; Mutafoglu, K.; Schweitzer, J.-P.; Kettunen, M.; Twigger-Ross, C.; Kuipers, Y.; Emonts, M.; Tyrväinen, L.; Hujala, T.; Ojala, A. The Health and Social Benefits of Nature and Biodiversity Protection—Executive Summary. A Report for the European Commission (ENV.B.3/ETU/2014/0039); Institute for European Environmental Policy: London, UK; Brussels, Belgium, 2016.
  9. Gesler, W.M. Therapeutic landscapes: Medical issues in light of the new cultural geography. Soc. Sci. Med. 1992, 34, 735–746.
  10. Haluza, D.; Schönbauer, R.; Cervinka, R. Green Perspectives for Public Health: A Narrative Review on the Physiological Effects of Experiencing Outdoor Nature. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2014, 11, 5445–5461.
  11. Hansmann, R.; Hug, S.-M.; Seeland, K. Restoration and stress relief through physical activities in forests and parks. Urban For. Urban Green. 2007, 6, 213–225.
  12. Home, R.; Hunziker, M.; Bauer, N. Psychosocial Outcomes as Motivations for Visiting Nearby Urban Green Spaces. Leis. Sci. 2012, 34, 350–365.
  13. Honold, J.; Lakes, T.; Beyer, R.; van der Meer, E. Restoration in Urban Spaces: Nature Views from Home, Greenways, and Public Parks. Environ. Behav. 2016, 48, 796–825.
  14. Mantler, A.; Logan, A.C. Natural environments and mental health. Adv. Integr. Med. 2015, 2, 5–12.
  15. Mayer, F.S.; Frantz, C.M.; Bruehlman-Senecal, E.; Dolliver, K. Why Is Nature Beneficial? The Role of Connectedness to Nature. Environ. Behav. 2009, 41, 607–643.
  16. Pretty, J.; Peacock, J.; Sellens, M.; Griffin, M. The mental and physical health outcomes of green exercise. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 2005, 15, 319–337.
  17. Ulrich, R.S.; Simons, R.F.; Losito, B.D.; Fiorito, E.; Miles, M.A.; Zelson, M. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. J. Environ. Psychol. 1991, 11, 201–230.
  18. Wood, C.J.; Pretty, J.; Griffin, M. A case–control study of the health and well-being benefits of allotment gardening. J. Public Health 2016, 38, e336–e344.
  19. Haines-Young, R.; Potschin, M. Proposal for a Common International Classification of Ecosystem Goods and Services (CICES) for Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting (V1); Centre for Environmental Management, University of Nottingham: Nottingham, UK, 2010.
  20. Bratman, G.N.; Hamilton, J.P.; Daily, G.C. The impacts of nature experience on human cognitive function and mental health: Nature experience, cognitive function, and mental health. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2012, 1249, 118–136.
  21. Dzhambov, A.M.; Browning, M.H.E.M.; Markevych, I.; Hartig, T.; Lercher, P. Analytical approaches to testing pathways linking greenspace to health: A scoping review of the empirical literature. Environ. Res. 2020, 186, 109613.
  22. Markevych, I.; Schoierer, J.; Hartig, T.; Chudnovsky, A.; Hystad, P.; Dzhambov, A.M.; de Vries, S.; Triguero-Mas, M.; Brauer, M.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J.; et al. Exploring pathways linking greenspace to health: Theoretical and methodological guidance. Environ. Res. 2017, 158, 301–317.
  23. Gesler, W.M. Healing Places; Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham, MD, USA, 2003.
  24. Gesler, W.M. Lourdes: Healing in a place of pilgrimage. Health Place 1996, 2, 95–105.
  25. Bell, S.L.; Foley, R.; Houghton, F.; Maddrell, A.; Williams, A.M. From therapeutic landscapes to healthy spaces, places and practices: A scoping review. Soc. Sci. Med. 2018, 196, 123–130.
  26. Cattell, V.; Dines, N.; Gesler, W.; Curtis, S. Mingling, observing, and lingering: Everyday public spaces and their implications for well-being and social relations. Health Place 2008, 14, 544–561.
  27. Taheri, S.; Ghasemi Sichani, M.; Shabani, A. Evaluating the literature of therapeutic landscapes with an emphasis on the search for the dimensions of health: A systematic review. Soc. Sci. Med. 2021, 275, 113820.
  28. Curtis, S.; Gesler, W.; Fabian, K.; Francis, S.; Priebe, S. Therapeutic Landscapes in Hospital Design: A Qualitative Assessment by Staff and Service Users of the Design of a New Mental Health Inpatient Unit. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 2007, 25, 591–610.
  29. Claßen, T. Naturschutz und Vorsorgender Gesundheitsschutz: Synergie oder Konkurrenz? Identifikation Gemeinsamer Handlungsfelder im Kontext Gegenwärtiger Paradigmenwechsel. Ph.D. Dissertation, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, Bonn, Germany, May 2008.
  30. Daykin, N.; Byrne, E.; Soteriou, T.; O’Connor, S. Review: The impact of art, design and environment in mental healthcare: A systematic review of the literature. J. R. Soc. Promot. Health 2008, 128, 85–94.
  31. Barlas, D.; Sama, A.E.; Ward, M.F.; Lesser, M.L. Comparison of the auditory and visual privacy of emergency department treatment areas with curtains versus those with solid walls. Ann. Emerg. Med. 2001, 38, 135–139.
  32. Dijkstra, K.; Pieterse, M.; Pruyn, A. Physical environmental stimuli that turn healthcare facilities into healing environments through psychologically mediated effects: Systematic review. J. Adv. Nurs. 2006, 56, 166–181.
  33. Ulrich, R.S.; Zimring, C.; Zhu, X.; DuBose, J.; Seo, H.-B.; Choi, Y.-S.; Quan, X.; Joseph, A. A Review of the Research Literature on Evidence-Based Healthcare Design. HERD Health Environ. Res. Des. J. 2008, 1, 61–125.
  34. Yoder, J.C.; Staisiunas, P.G.; Meltzer, D.O.; Knutson, K.L.; Arora, V.M. Noise and Sleep among Adult Medical Inpatients: Far From a Quiet Night. Arch. Intern. Med. 2012, 172, 68.
  35. United Nations. Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities Report No A/RES/61/106; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2006; Available online: http://www.un-documents.net/a61r106.htm (accessed on 18 January 2022).
  36. Hackett, C.L.; Mulvale, G.; Miatello, A. Co-designing for quality: Creating a user-driven tool to improve quality in youth mental health services. Health Expect. 2018, 21, 1013–1023.
  37. Salonen, H.; Lahtinen, M.; Lappalainen, S.; Nevala, N.; Knibbs, L.D.; Morawska, L.; Reijula, K. Physical characteristics of the indoor environment that affect health and wellbeing in healthcare facilities: A review. Intell. Build. Int. 2013, 5, 3–25.
  38. Shepley, M.M.; Watson, A.; Pitts, F.; Garrity, A.; Spelman, E.; Kelkar, J.; Fronsman, A. Mental and behavioral health environments: Critical considerations for facility design. Gen. Hosp. Psychiatry 2016, 42, 15–21.
  39. Sherif, A.; Sabry, H.; Wagdy, A.; Mashaly, I.; Arafa, R. Shaping the slats of hospital patient room window blinds for daylighting and external view under desert clear skies. Sol. Energy 2016, 133, 1–13.
  40. Beemer, C.J.; Stearns-Yoder, K.A.; Schuldt, S.J.; Kinney, K.A.; Lowry, C.A.; Postolache, T.T.; Brenner, L.A.; Hoisington, A.J. A brief review on the mental health for select elements of the built environment. Indoor Built Environ. 2019, 14, 152–165.
  41. Karlin, B.E.; Zeiss, R.A. Best Practices: Environmental and Therapeutic Issues in Psychiatric Hospital Design: Toward Best Practices. Psychiatr. Serv. 2006, 57, 1376–1378.
  42. Jovanović, N.; Miglietta, E.; Podlesek, A.; Malekzadeh, A.; Lasalvia, A.; Campbell, J.; Priebe, S. Impact of the hospital built environment on treatment satisfaction of psychiatric in-patients. Psychol. Med. 2020, 1–12, online ahead of print.
  43. Dvoskin, J.A.; Bennett, C. Architectural design of a secure forensic state psychiatric hospital. Behav. Sci. Law 2002, 15, 481–493.
  44. Seppänen, A.; Törmänen, I.; Shaw, C.; Kennedy, H. Modern forensic psychiatric hospital design: Clinical, legal and structural aspects. Int. J. Ment. Health Syst. 2018, 12, 58.
  45. Ulrich, R.S.; Bogren, L.; Gardiner, S.K.; Lundin, S. Psychiatric ward design can reduce aggressive behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 2018, 57, 53–66.
  46. McGrath, L.; Reavey, P. Heterotopias of control: Placing the material in experiences of mental health service use and community living. Health Place 2013, 22, 123–131.
  47. Parkinson, S.; Lowe, C.; Vecsey, T. The Therapeutic Benefits of Horticulture in a Mental Health Service. Br. J. Occup. Ther. 2011, 74, 525–534.
  48. Maloret, P.; Scott, T. Don’t ask me what’s the matter, ask me what matters: Acute mental health facility experiences of people living with autism spectrum conditions. J. Psychiatr. Ment. Health Nurs. 2018, 25, 49–59.
  49. Muir-Cochrane, E.; Oster, C.; Grotto, J.; Gerace, A.; Jones, J. The inpatient psychiatric unit as both a safe and unsafe place: Implications for absconding: Absconding from Inpatient Psychiatric Unit. Int. J. Ment. Health Nurs. 2013, 22, 304–312.
  50. Hawley, C.J.; Palmer, M.; Jefferies, K.; Gale, T.M.; Vincent, J. The effect of single-sex wards in mental health. Nurs. Times 2013, 109, 20–22.
  51. Leavey, G.; Papageorgiou, A.; Papadopoulos, C. Patient and Staff Perspectives on Single-Sex Accommodation. J. Health Manag. 2006, 8, 79–90.
  52. Brophy, J.T.; Keith, M.M.; Hurley, M. Assaulted and Unheard: Violence Against Healthcare Staff. NEW Solut. J. Environ. Occup. Health Policy 2018, 27, 581–606.
  53. Child, R.J.H.; Mentes, J.C. Violence Against Women: The Phenomenon of Workplace Violence Against Nurses. Issues Ment. Health Nurs. 2010, 31, 89–95.
  54. d’Ettorre, G.; Pellicani, V. Workplace Violence Toward Mental Healthcare Workers Employed in Psychiatric Wards. Saf. Health Work 2017, 8, 337–342.
  55. Cardoso, G.; Papoila, A.; Tomé, G.; Killaspy, H.; King, M.; Caldas-de-Almeida, J.M. Living conditions and quality of care in residential units for people with long-term mental illness in Portugal—A cross-sectional study. BMC Psychiatry 2016, 16, 34.
  56. Mroczek, J.; Mikitarian, G.; Vieira, E.K.; Rotarius, T. Hospital Design and Staff Perceptions: An Exploratory Analysis. Health Care Manag. 2005, 24, 233–244.
  57. Cervinka, R.; Röderer, K.; Hämmerle, I. Evaluation of Hospital Gardens and Implications for Design: Benefits from Environmental Psychology for Architecture and Landscape Planning. J. Archit. Plan. Res. 2014, 31, 43–56.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Environmental Studies
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Lydia Oeljeklaus
,
Hannah-Lea Schmid
View Times: 540
Revisions: 4 times (View History)
Update Date: 10 Feb 2022
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback