sensory garden in special schools: the issues, design and use

Sensory Garden in Special Schools: The issues, design and use

77

Journal of Design and Built EnvironmentVol. 5, December 2009, pp. 77–95

Sensory Garden in Special Schools: The issues, design anduse

Hazreena HusseinPostgraduate Student at the Edinburgh College of ArtSenior Lecturer, Dept. of Architecture, Faculty of Built Environment, University of [email protected]

Abstract

This study investigates the design and use of sensory gardens in two special schools by evaluatingtheir zones and how they are utilised, especially by children with special needs, and the staff who carefor them. Preliminary site studies were undertaken in fourteen sensory gardens around the UK, followedby more detailed data collection at two case-study sites. The aim was to find out the features andissues that are common in sensory gardens. The data collection included interviews, behaviouralobservation, which was used in conjunction with affordance theory. Drawing on Moore and Cosco’sapproach (2007), the findings from the data analysis discuss the researcher’s main findings: Thelayout of the circulation network enables user behaviour and use of area, have the highest number ofusers; and users spent a longer time in zones where sensory, rather than aesthetic values wereemphasised. A subset of design recommendations had been produced that will be applicable to acrossall (or most) sensory gardens.

Keywords: Aesthetics, affordance, design, pathway, sensory, sensory garden, use.

Introduction

The term ‘sensory garden’1 in atherapeutic context usually refers to asmall garden that has been speciallydesigned to fulfil the needs of a group ofpeople who want to be involved in activegardening and who also enjoy the passivepleasures of being outdoors amongstplants (Gaskell, 1994). Shoemaker(2002:195) stated that ‘sensory gardenscannot be designed without consideringthe human element. Unlike traditionaldisplay gardens that are meant to beobserved from a distance, sensory

gardens draw the visitor into touch, smelland actively experience the garden withall senses’. Lambe (1995:114) alsodifferentiated sensory gardens from anyother garden by her statement, ‘The onlydifference in a sensory garden is that allthese components, (hand landscaping,soft landscaping, colours, textures andwildlife) must be carefully chosen anddesigned to appeal to the senses in sucha way that they provide maximum sensorystimulation’.

The attitude of having sensory gardenfor people with mobility or impairmentissues was reflected in the early design

FORMAT 1

EditorsEzrin ArbiS.P. Rao

Journal of

Design and BuiltEnvironment

Volume 5December 2009

78

Hazreena Hussein

and construction, which were focused ontoo few sensory experiences. In aninterview that the researcher conductedwith Jane Stoneham (August 9th, 2006),who is the director of the Sensory Trust2

and the author of the book, ‘LandscapeDesign for the Elderly and DisabledPeople’, Stoneham stated that the initialidea of sensory gardens derived from thehorticultural therapy movement, whichdeveloped in the United Kingdom in the1970s. Horticultural therapy was focusedon special environments, i.e. hospitalsand rehabilitation units and as a result,developed more rapidly than sensorygardens. One positive aspect of sensorygardens was the genuine response to meetthe needs of visually-impaired people.However, there was not really muchthought given to the design of thesegardens. The first sensory gardens wereoften located in public parks because thelocal authority would have decided thatit was a way of showing that they wereimplementing inclusion strategies.However, the reality was that they weresmall areas, often signposted as ‘Gardenfor the Blind’, and they consisted of acombination of scented plants, Braillelabels and raised planters.

Over time, society’s attitude todisability changed, as did the function andusers of the sensory garden. Any designfor disabled people3 should aim to helpovercome the stigma that is attached tobeing labelled ‘disabled’. Since the mid-1970s, a rapidly growing body of opinionhas suggested that this can be achievedmore easily by integrating, rather thansegregating facilities. Rowson (1985:21)cited that in 1978, the then UnitedKingdom Minister for the Disabled,Alfred Morris said, ‘The simplest way of

causing a riot in any locality in Britainwould be to clamp on the able-bodied thesame restrictions that now apply to thedisabled. They feel that their personalhandicaps are bad enough without thegratuitous social handicap of beingtreated differently from everyone else’.

Stoneham (2006) added that in the1980s, visually impaired peoplechallenged the initial ideas about ‘gardensfor the blind’ because the issue of beingsegregated from able–bodied people wasitself beginning to be challenged. It isnow widely understood that disabledpeople do not want to be segregated fromable-bodied people in their enjoyment ofgreen space (Thoday and Stoneham,1996; O’Connell and Spurgeon, 1996).

The initial study

The topic ‘sensory garden’ raised anumber of preliminary questions for theresearcher: Are not all gardens sensory?What is a sensory garden composed of?How do people use or benefit fromsensory gardens? During the early stageof the study, the researcher undertook anessential review of the literature to findout how best to approach the topic of‘sensory gardens’. This initial study wasundertaken to ascertain what body ofknowledge there was on the subject andto help to identify keywords for varioussearches. However, the review showedthat there had been a lack of rigorousresearch on the subject, it identified aresearch gap and research questions couldnot be identified. It was decided that thebest approach would be to conductpreliminary site studies, mainly byvisiting places that claimed to have


79

sensory gardens and by carrying outpersonal observations of the use of thesegardens and by conducting individualinterviews with teachers, therapists andkey expert, in order to refine the researchdirection.

There were three main issues thatarose from the preliminary site studies.

1. It seems very clear that sensorygardens which are designed as such, tendnot to be entirely satisfactory from theusers’ perspective, as designers,apparently, may not interview the usersbefore designing the sensory gardens. Atpresent, designers think they aredesigning sensory gardens well but theirbiggest mistake is in presuming that theyknow what the needs of users are. Forexample:

i) Water is an important feature in thatit provides users with the opportunityto respond to it in terms of hearingand touch it but in some sensorygardens, this feature is not fullyaccessible, therefore, the feature isnot of true benefit to the users (seeImage 1).

Image 1: An inaccessible water featurein a sensory garden.

While water was mentioned as animportant feature in a sensory garden,owing to its benefits in learning andtherapy, some sensory gardens seemto lack this element (see Image 2).

Image 2: A sensory garden that lacks awater feature.

ii) Loose materials on the surface ofpaths, such as gravel separated bywood edging, are inaccessible towheelchair users, therefore, suchusers are unable to appreciatesignificant features that can only beassessed in this way4 (see Image 3).

Image 3: An inaccessible path tosignificant features in a sensory garden.

80

Hazreena Hussein

iii) Ramps, even with an accessiblegradient, were not appreciated by the staffof the schools, as they were concernedabout the slippery surface. Steps werealso not favoured; especially bywheelchair users and their carers (seeImage 4)

Image 4: Steps like this are common in asensory garden. As a result, wheelchairusers are not able to access some parts ofthe garden.

2. Regardless of who designs a sensorygarden, a designer or via community orschool effort, challenges in terms of long-term maintenance should also beaddressed in the design plan. If they arenot, a poorly maintained sensory gardenwill not benefit its users and it will lackaesthetic value (see Image 5).

3. In the interview that the researcherconducted with Stoneham (2006), shestated that to date, there had been norigorous research done on the topic ofsensory gardens. She added that aconsiderable amount of research neededto be conducted in the area of sensoryimpairment, mainly with regard todiscovering what people with specialneeds really need. She warned that a great

number of assumptions have been madeabout how disabled people navigate andbenefit from an outdoor environment butthat this had not yet been fully tested. Sheclaimed that this is evident in the fact thatan ambiguous direction has been takenin relation to sensory gardens in the fieldof landscape architecture and that thereare no design guidelines for sensorygardens (although there are somepublications on anthropometrics for avariety of users, including disabledpeople). Hence, the design of sensorygardens currently relies on the experienceand attitude of designers. This idea issupported by designers, Petrow (2006),Mathias (2006), Robinson (2007) andBoothroyd (2007), who note that there isa lack of detailed guidelines availablewhen designing for sensory gardens.

The aim and objectives

During an interview with Kath Jefferies(February, 16th 2007), who is a retireddeputy head teacher of the LyndaleSchool, she mentioned that: ‘Every

Image 5: An example of what a sensorygarden can look like if it is not wellmaintained.


81

special school has slightly different needs.The sensory garden will reflect thoseneeds so no sensory garden will be thesame. They might have similar elementsbut there will always be an emphasisupon the needs of their individualchildren’. Following on from Jefferies’statement, the aim was to find out thecommon features and issues that arelikely to be common to all sensorygardens. Specifically, the research would:

i. Observe and record how usersresponded to and engaged with thefeatures in the sensory garden;

ii. Investigate the design process andintentions of the designer;

iii. Investigate the teachers andtherapists’ thoughts and experienceswith reference to the benefits andproblems in having the sensorygarden;

iv. Assess opportunities for users’activity in the sensory garden.

The methodology

Due to the limitations of time for researchand the difficulties surroundingcommunication between the researcherand the children with special needs,particularly those with a speech, languageand communication difficulties, thefollowing methods were thought to themost appropriate:

• Individual interviews using walk-through. ‘Individual interviews usingwalk-through is when the designerwalks through the completed designand comments on the experience he

or she has had and intended usersare likely to have in various areas ofthe project’ (Bechtel and Srivastava,1978:442).

• Observation and behaviour mapping.‘Behavioural observation is acommonly used time-samplingtechnique. At pre-arranged times, anobserver codes the activities andlocations of all the people in a space’(Friedman, et al., 1978:203).

A theory studied in conjunction withthese methods was affordance.‘Affordance is the perceived functionalsignificance of an object, event or placefor an individual’ (Heft, 2001:123). Manymethods in conducting qualitativeresearch with children with special needshave been used in the context of casestudy.

Based on the interviews with the keyexpert, designers, teachers and therapistsduring the preliminary site studies, theresearcher noted nine design aspects thatmight enable the use of area in the sensorygarden, namely, accessibility, aesthetic5

value, maintenance, planting, quality ofsensory equipment, quantity of sensoryequipment, quality of surfacing (hard andsoft), safety and spatial location of thegarden in relation to buildings andcontext. These design aspects will be usedin the interviews at the later datacollection stage. After conducting theinterviews, personal observation noteswere recorded while undertaking thebehavioural observation. This was tosupport the study with a few notedincidents that the researcher translated asanecdotal evidence. A selection ofphotographs6 was chosen to illustratethese noteworthy incidents.

82

Hazreena Hussein

CASE STUDY 1: Royal School forthe Deaf and CommunicationDisorders, Cheshire (RSDCD)

It was a sunny day and there was a lightwind. A group of students with multipledisabilities were ready for the literacysession with their teacher and a fewteaching assistants. This weekly sessionwith the students was used to reinforcewhat they were feeling, smelling, hearingor seeing, in terms of the different soundsand textures offered in the sensorygarden. As they were leaving theirclassroom, they chanted and repeatedtogether, ‘We are going out to the garden’.‘Eileen’, who wore leg braces, lookedpretty with her pink hair band. Sheshowed excitement on her face bynodding, while ‘Hamzah’, who was in hiswheelchair, clapped his hands whilelooking up at his teacher. The rest of theliteracy session continued in some of thezones in the sensory garden (see Images6, 8, 10, 11)

The RSDCD is a residential, co-educational, non-maintained specialschool and college. The school hours arefrom 9am until 3pm, Mondays to Fridays.The students’ disabilities range fromsevere and complex learning difficulties,autism, emotional and behaviouraldifficulties, multi-sensory impairment, tomedical, physical and language disorders.The age range is from two to twentyyears. The sensory garden, called theMulti Sensory Millennium Maze (seePlan 1), was designed in 2000 by SueRobinson, a landscape architect fromStockport Metropolitan BoroughCouncil. It is situated in the middle of theschool, between two buildings. It is asquare form: a courtyard with flat

topography. The school has an in-housegardener who provides continuousmaintenance.

Plan 1: Plan of the Sensory Garden at theRSDCD.

Zone A: Parents’ Waiting Area (seeImage 6)

Image 6: Parents’ Waiting Area (zone A).Sited at the entrance to the sensory mazeand it utilises an underused fringe areawith seating and a textured wall. It iseasily accessible from the car park andmain building entrance. The zone covers660sq. metres.

As a group of teachers, and studentswith multiple disabilities turned left outof the patio doors, they reached out to


83

touch the textured wall. The teacherssupported the students in doing this,chanting the appropriate words as theyexplored the wall, ‘Fence panel, fencepanel… bamboo, bamboo…trellis,trellis… little sticks, little sticks… brush,brush… thick bamboo, thick bamboo…’The students began to anticipate thesequence of the texture of these features.

Zone B: Exploraway (see Image 7)

Image 7: Exploraway (zone B). This zoneoffers more difficult challenges in termsof the change in levels, together with thelarger surface textures of loose stone. Thezone covers 511 sq. metres.

The group of students and teachersundertaking the literacy session did notuse this zone because its surface wasunsuitable for wheelchair users.However, in a preliminary interview theresearcher conducted with Anne Gough(July 21st, 2006), who is a teacher ofchildren with multi-sensory impairmentsup to age 16, she used the trail with ‘Jo’,who has poor sight. ‘Jo’ found her wayaround the sensory garden very well,using the scent of lavender and, when shesmelt it, it reminded her of her mother athome, who had also had it planted in hergarden. According to Kaplan (1976),

when users encounter familiar features,this may encourage easy way finding.

Zone C: Green Space One (see Image8)

Image 8: Green Space One (zone C).Includes a willow tunnel with a bark chipsurface, a lawn, seating, scented plants,lighting bollards and a vaporised trail7.This zone covers 316 sq. metres.

The students moved over to thewillow tunnel. ‘Where are we, Hamzah?’the teacher asked. They went through thetunnel slowly to give the students time torespond to the experience of slightcoolness from the shadows. ‘Willow,willow all around…willow, willow allaround...,’ chanted the teachers, whilewheeling their students through thewillow tunnel. Then they stopped in themiddle of the tunnel and played with theartwork display. They touched and feltthe artwork. Some hit and heard thesound of rattling decorative cans.

Zone D: Green Space Two (see Image9)

One of the standard multi-sensorycurriculum item, which is used byteachers in all special schools, is PECS8

84

Hazreena Hussein

(Picture Exchange CommunicationSystem), which involves showingphotographs and finding objects in thesensory garden using touch, hearing,smell and sight. This exercise isbeneficial for way finding and identifyingsignificant features in the sensory garden.

Zone E: Asteroid Arts Garden (seeImage 10)

The teachers stamped their feet over theboardwalk together and chanted, ‘Bump,

bump, bump over the decking… bump,bump, bump over the decking…’ ‘Eileen’,who was wearing leg braces, copied whather teacher did. The vibration on theboardwalk stimulated Steve, who isvisually impaired. Then they movedround to the sand and gravel area toexplore these textures while singing,‘Sand between my fingers…sand betweenmy fingers…gritty gravel, grittygravel…big rocks, big rocks…’ Theteachers laughed as ‘Hamzah’, who wasin his wheelchair, put his face on thesurface of the boulders.

Zone F: Water Central Area (see Image11)

‘Underneath the pergola, underneath thepergola…,’ the teachers sang. Everyonegrouped around the fountain to hear thewater. They chanted in a whisper, ‘Canyou hear the water trickling? Can youhear the water trickling?’ Some studentsjumped in their wheelchair while makingloud, shrill noises, showing theirexcitement! The teachers helped thestudents to feel the water from the

Image 9: Green Space Two (zone D).Includes a lawn patches, trees, hedges,lighting bollards, pathways and a rubberwalk. This zone covers 370 sq. metres.

Image 10: Asteroid Arts Garden (zone E). Open space with gravel and wood edge,boardwalk, musical instruments, balancing beam, rock sculpture, lighting bollards,shrubs and pathways. This zone covers 231 sq. metres.


85

fountain by stepping over the shrubswhich were planted around the waterfeature and scooped the water with theirhands and whispered again, ‘Feel thecool, cool water… feel the cool, coolwater…’ and they sprinkled some wateronto the students’ faces and hands. Thestudents’ positive behaviours includedlicking the water with their hands andthen reaching out for more.

All of them then moved as a group tothe picnic table where there was somefood to taste. ‘Snacks at the picnic table,

snacks at the picnic table…’ After havingtheir snacks, the teachers said, ‘We havefinished’ and they signed to their students.‘Do you know our way back to theclassroom?’ the teacher asked ‘Eileen’.Amazingly, she began to take the leadand, through the use of plants, followedthe path back to her classroom’s patio.Using sign language, the teacher smiledand patted Eileen’s shoulder, ‘Well done,Eileen’.

CASE STUDY 2: Lyndale School,Wirral (LS)

A large group of teachers wheeled theirstudents with multiple disabilities outfrom their classroom to the Rainbow Walk(see Image 11). A teacher wanted toconduct their speech therapy sessionthere. The morning weather was fine withsunny spells and the wind was blowingin between the leaves. ‘Do you knowwhere we are going, David?’ asked ateacher. ‘David’ jumped in his wheelchairwhile his hands grasped the armrest. Hewas making a loud sound, showinganticipation. As the large group reachedthe area, they formed a circle around theconifer tree. The rest of the literacysession continued at the Rainbow Walk(see Image 12).

LS is a non-residential special school.The school hours are from 9am until 3pm,Mondays to Fridays and it caters forchildren with complex needs, andprofound and multiple disabilities fromthe ages of two to eleven years. Theinspiration for having a sensory garden(see Plan 2) came from the school’sDeputy Head, Dave Jones, who died insummer 2002. In January 2003, the

Image 11: Water Central Area (zone F).This zone has a focal area with waterfeature that offers a contrasting texturebetween the soft water and the rough‘pineapple’ surface. There is a pergolawith climbers linked to the central spacegarden as well as raised planters withseating and easy access to herbs andscented plants. This zone covers 230 sq.metres.

86

Hazreena Hussein

planning and design work started and wascompleted in September 2005. Alandscape architect from GroundworkWirral, Mark Boothroyd, designed thesensory garden. It is situated between theschool’s building and the residentialbackyard. It has a linear form with acombination of flat and undulatingtopography. The school relies onvolunteer efforts for the garden’smaintenance. The project relied onextensive local community fundraisingand was phased to overcome difficultiesin programming works and budgets.

Zone A: Rainbow Walk (see Image 12)

As the teachers and students gatheredin pairs around the conifer tree, with aplank as the floor surface, the teacherssang, ‘Here we go ‘round the mulberrybush’. As they chanted, the researcherthought it was a perfect song to sing as itinvited many physical movements thatgenerated sound and vibration for thestudents, such as stamping, jumping,skipping, clapping and cheering. The

students responded positively byswinging their hands while turning theirheads from one side to another. Somestudents opened their mouths and triedto mimic their teachers.

Zone B: Water Garden (see Image 13)

Zone C: Green Space (see Image 14)

Zone D: Woodland Garden (see Image15)

Results of the interviews

The respective designers of the RSDCDand LS sensory gardens agreed thatvarious design aspects: accessibility,maintenance, planting, the quality of thesurfacing (hard and soft), safety, thespatial location of the garden in relationto site context and aesthetic values, allenable the use of area in a sensory garden.However, the teachers and therapists inboth special schools had no strong viewson aesthetic values in relation to the use

Plan 2: Plan of the sensory garden at the LS.


87

Image 12: Rainbow Walk (zone A). TheRainbow Walk surface offers differentcolours and textures, which provide abroad learning experience. It includes akickabout area with lawn and trees thatprovide shade. The zone covers 767 sq.metres.

Image 13: Water Garden (zone B). It includes a pond with marginal plants, an interactivefountain with talking tubes and slate stone channels. It acts as a visual and focal area inthe sensory garden. Low wooden handrails were used and kept to a minimum so thatusers can have close contact with the water feature using boardwalks and bridges. Italso comprises rough, loose stones that can be moved around to divert the direction ofthe water channels. This allows close engagement with the environment. The zonecovers 223 sq. metres.

of area in the sensory garden because theyhave to work with some students who arepartially sighted or visually impaired.This finding is also consistent with theliterature on user preference, particularlyof children’s for outdoor spaces, which

suggests that the value of a place is notdetermined by its appearance or aestheticqualities but by its physical properties andthe different activities that they offered(Gibson, 1979; Whitehouse et al., 2001).

88

Hazreena Hussein

Image 14: Green Space (zone C). It consists of a covered tunnel, seating, a slopinglawn, musical pipes, a textured wall as well as raised beds with herbs and scentedplants. Environmental art and willow weaving add richness of the area. The zone covers337 sq. metres.

Image 15: Woodland Garden (zone D).Also known as the sound garden or thesound trail. It integrates an artworkdisplay, a boardwalk with rope railing anda variety of sound stimuli. Lush and richwoodland planting provide texture, soundand scent as well as inviting wildlife. Astrong contrasting area of dark and shadeoffers experiences that are different fromother areas. This zone covers 556 sq.metres.

Results of the behaviouralobservation

This analysis correlated the total area ofthe sensory garden with the frequenciesof users, the main activities9 and theseated10 activity. The results signified thatthere are factors that influenced thepattern of use as follows:

i. The users’ activities in the sensorygarden were dependent neither on thesize of the zone nor the number offeatures but rather the functionalityof the features that were available.

ii. The results also suggest that thenumber of features and the total areadid not correlate with the medianlength of time spent there per user.

iii. The time spent is not significantlydifferent by gender in the sensorygarden in both schools.

iv. Correlations with the number of usersand the time they spent sitting in thezones better related to thefunctionality of the features than tothe total area or the availability ofseating. In other words, users usedareas where they sit in, rather than

seats to sit on. Therefore, the focuson seated activity is an equal concernwith moving because students withspecial needs sit in different featuresthan the staff.


89

Results of the actualisedaffordances11

This part of analysis investigated thefeatures with which users’ engaged themost or least, and the properties of thesensory garden that afforded users thegreatest opportunity to undertake avariety of activities. Staff and students’activities in both special schools allowedthese users to identify that the sensorygardens afforded them more benefits thandisadvantages. The results also showedthat both sensory gardens offered morepositive12 affordances than negative13

ones. The attributes of the sensorygardens that enabled user engagementwith the features and a variety of activitiesin the sensory garden were:

i. A good circulation network from theschool building to the sensory garden.

ii. A variety of features placed adjacentto the pathway, which afforded easyway finding in the sensory gardenback to the school building.

iii. An appropriate gradient and hardsurface material for a range of users,including wheelchair users andstudents on specially-adaptedbicycles.

iv. Lush, rich flora and fauna, creatingnatural environments for ecologicaland sensory learning.

Results of the actualised affordancesin relation to the landscape designcategories

The final stage of analysis categorised theactualised affordances in relation to the

landscape design categories14: senses(touch, taste, smell, sound, sight);physical (mobility) and social skills(speech). The analysis examined ‘sensoryfunction’ based on observations of howusers engage their senses to receive,interpret and, consequently, to behave inrelation to the features in the case-studysensory gardens.

The results showed that usersresponded to both sensory gardens’affordances as the following values:

i. The sense of touch had the highestfrequencies compared to the othersenses. This reflects Olds’ view(2001:231) that ‘touch is the mostimportant sense for young children’.She added that, feeling throughtextures enhanced tactile stimulationamong children with special needs,thus developing their form and spaceperception of being in the outdoorenvironment.

ii. Soft landscape, hard landscape andlandscape furniture were importantfeatures, which helped to stimulatetheir senses and encourage physicalactivities as well as social skills.

iii. Users appeared to feel an attractionto and affection for the sensorygarden as their educational outdoorarea. This was reflected in theirbehaviour changes, such as feelingfascinated while engaging withfamiliar features or feeling a sense offear (Ulrich, 1993) and trying toescape from being in contact withanimals or plants, which they thinkhave negative threats in the garden.

90

Hazreena Hussein

Discussion

Findings related to the research questionsare discussed as follows:

1 Based on the behaviouralobservation, how do the users respondto the features of the sensory garden andhow is that reflected in their behaviour?The study focused on observing thepattern of use and how an environmentenables the uses that can occur within it.In the use of area in both case-studysensory gardens, it is clear that whereverthere is access, the students willundertake a variety of activities andengage more with the features comparedto the staff. This contributed to the findingthat the number of features, the numberof activities undertaken and the time spentengaged in that activity by the users wasnot dependent on the total area of the zonenor did it relate to the median time spentthere per user but rather what did enablethe usage was the functioning of thefeatures and access to them.

2. Are sensory gardens being used in theway that is being claimed by thedesigners? The study explored thepotential for users’ engagement with thefeatures by recording three affordances:

Actualised and potential affordances.Actualised affordances let designersknow the opportunities with which usersengage, while potential affordances arethose which seem to be offered in asensory garden. For example, in theRSDCD, students in wheelchairs wantedto play with the musical instruments butdid not manage to because the surfacematerial made that impossible. Designers

need to think of the design of a sensorygarden as requiring further refinementonce it is in use to ensure that users arefully able to realise all actual and potentialaffordances.

Unique and multiple affordances. Asensory garden feature that affords morethan one experience is potentially ofgreater value than a feature that offersonly one affordance because it providesa range of affordances and a richerexperience for the users. Designers willwant to consider the full range ofaffordances so that they know the valueand use of the gardens, such that are likelyto enhance users’ sensory, physical andsocial capabilities.

Positive and negative affordances.Designers should not assume that everyexperience is positive and this study hasdifferentiated pleasant from unpleasantby observing and recording users’experiences in each garden. Teachers andtherapists, however, thought that somenegatives experiences were important interms of users’ sensory, environmentaland social learning.

3. Which zone do users’ prefer in theirsensory garden and do they reflect thefeatures they use most often? The studyinvestigated the use of features in orderto find out users’ preferences.The highest number of users in bothspecial schools was engaged with thegrass, pathway, seating, animals andsound stimuli. This is because the layoutof the pathway network that connects thegarden to the site context is accessible.Although the pathway, sound stimuli,grass and animals had the highest number


91

of users, these features offered a shorterexperience, where users who engagedwith them had an immediate response. Incontrast, the willow tunnel, raised beds,seating, trees and textured wall had thelongest median time spend per user. Userschose to engage longer with thesefeatures because it afforded them variousactivities such as communicating(including sign language); sitting; barkrubbing; pulling the tree branch, pluckingand feeling the leaf; and taking photos.

4. Based on the interviews, why doproblems still exist in sensory gardenseven though they are designed by traineddesigners? The study examined thedesign process undertaken by, and theintentions of, the designers and theconstraints that they had to deal with.

In special education environments, itis particularly hard to generalise aboutdesign requirements, as schools tend tovary enormously in the range of specialneeds and ages that they cater for. Successmay rely upon a close partnershipbetween the designers, teachers andchildren (Stoneham, 1997; Farrer, 2008).While Stoneham and Farrer encourageteamwork, in the two case-studyexamples, the respective designersreported the following: Sue Robinsonwho designed the sensory garden ofRSDCD, mentioned that there were a fewminor designs she would change and shewould wanted to have been involved atthe detailed design and constructionstage. Mark Boothroyd, who undertookthe sensory garden project of the LS,believed that the path network had to beconstructed first to provide accessthroughout the garden, closely followed

by planting, however, the planting hadbeen carried out last.

The contribution of study: Subset ofdesign recommendations

A combination of soft, hard landscapeand landscape furniture placed adjacentto a continuous primary pathway thatoffered easy access to the functionalfeatures, recorded the highestpreferences. The layout of the pathwaynetwork linking to the sensory garden tothe overall site context is crucial inencouraging the number of users who willengage with the features placed along it.This finding echoed research undertakenby Moore and Cosco (2007), whichshowed that a highly positive feature andthe most popular among the users was awide pathway that gave access to thefacilities that were accessible. Another oftheir findings was that a meanderingpathway afforded inclusion and addedvisual interest to the pedestrianexperience. This raised another questionabout the direct pathway at the RSDCDcompared to the curvy one at the LS (seePlans 1 and 2). Does the formation of apath play an important role inencouraging the richness of affordancesand behaviour? The study looked backat the overall design framework relatedto the path layout of both sensory gardens.

‘Sensory trail’. A sensory trail has similarobjectives to the sensory garden inproviding a range of experiences but ithas more association with movement. Itcan, therefore, have a direct applicationto teaching orientation skills, for examplethrough people learning to recognise

92

Hazreena Hussein

different sounds, textures and scentsalong the trail and gaining confidence intheir own abilities to interpret theenvironment and find their own way. Thisis significant new knowledge, from adesign point of view, indicating thatpathway layout is more important than theparticular design of features as long asthe pathways are accessible. Mostdesigners spend a considerable amountof time worrying about hidden awayplaces that are supposed to offerwonderful experiences but which are notreally being used.

Sensory value. As mentioned earlier, theteachers and therapists in both specialschools had no strong views on aestheticvalues in relation to the use of area in thesensory garden. In contrast, the designersdisagreed with their views where theyoften talked about the beautification ofthe site. On the other hand, users of thesensory garden thought that the featuresshould not just be aesthetically pleasantto see but also they should be nice totouch, hear, smell and taste. In otherwords, aesthetic value is not as importantas sensory value. The fact that they canget access to and engage with them is thekey point when designing for a sensorygarden.

Conclusions

As the two case studies showed, theintegration of sensory garden design intothe overall design of special schools, andits inclusion in the curriculum, couldencourage the creation of an outdoorenvironment which could offer a widerange of multi-sensory learning

experiences for children with specialneeds. Designers should recommend,firstly, that sensory garden design shouldbe integrated into the overall planningphases of a special school’s development.Secondly, they should recommendstudents’ (and their carers’) involvementin sensory garden design. Thirdly,designers should observe and recordusers’ daily routines, to better understandthe affordances the way they perceivethem. Fourthly, designers should consideraccessibility to, and the functionality of,the soft, hard landscapes and landscapefurniture. With a continuous circulatorypathway network user enjoyment of, andengagement with, the features are likelyto be enhanced; and the sensory trail isone very good way to achieve that.

References

Books

Friedman, A., Zimring, C., Zube, E. (1978),Environmental design evaluation, London:Plenum Press.

Gibson, James J. (1979/1986), The ecologicalapproach to visual perception, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (originalwork published in 1979).

Heft, H. (1999), Affordances of children’senvironments: A functional approach toenvironmental description, In Nasar, JackL. and Preiser, Wolfgang F. E. (eds.)Directions in person - Environment researchand practice, Aldershot: Ashgate, pp 43-69.

Heft, H. (2001), Perceiver – environmentrelations, In Gibson, et al. Ecologicalpsychology in context: James Gibson,Roger Barker and the legacy of WilliamJames’s radical empirism, New Jersey:Laurence Erlbaum, pp 109 – 141.


93

Hill, W. F. (1995), Landscape Handbook for theTropics, Suffolk: Garden Art Press.

Kaplan, R. (1976), Way finding in the naturalenvironment, In Moore, R. and Golledge,R.G. (ed.) Environmental knowing:Theories, research and methods.Stroudsburg: Dowden, Hutchinson andRoss, pp 46-57.

Kytta, M. (2006), Environmental child-friendliness in the light of the BullerbyModel, In Spencer, C. and Blades, M. (eds.)Children and their environments –Learning, using and designing spaces.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,pp 141-158.

Lambe, L. (1995), Gardening: A multisensoryexperience, In J. Hogg and J. Cavet (eds.)Making leisure provision for people withprofound and multiple learning disabilities,London: Chapman and Hall, pp 113-130.

Moore, Robin C. and Cosco, Nilda G. (2007),What makes a park inclusive anduniversally designed? A multi-methodapproach, In Thompson, Catharine W. andTravlou, P. (eds) Open space: People space,London: Taylor & Francis, pp 85-110.

Olds, A.R. (2001), Childcare design. USA:McGraw Hill.

Rowson, N. J. (1985), Landscape design fordisabled people in public open space,University of Bath.

Ulrich, Roger S. (1993), Biophilia, biophobiaand natural landscapes, In Kellert, StephenR. and Wilson, Edward O. (eds.) Thebiophilia hypothesis. Washington: IslandPress, pp 75–137.

Journals

Bechtel, Robert B. and R.K. Srivastava (1978),Post occupancy evaluation of housing, InCraig M. Zimring and Janet E.Reinzenstein, Post occupancy evaluation:An overview, Environment and Behavior,Volume 12, Number 4, December 1980, p442.

Farrer, N. (2008), Golden Moments by TimCoulthard. Landscape Design: Journal ofLandscape Institute, No. 53, August 2008,pp 10–20.

Heft, H. (1988), Affordances of children’senvironments: A functional approach toenvironmental description. Children’senvironments quarterly, 5(3), 29-37.

Kytta, M. (2002), Affordances of children’senvironments in the context of cities, smalltowns, suburbs and rural villages inFinland and Belarus, Journal ofenvironmental psychology, 22 (1), 109-123.

Kytta, M. (2004), The extent of children’sindependent mobility and the number ofactualised affordances as criteria for child-friendly environments, Journal ofenvironmental psychology, 24, 179-198.

O’Connell, J. and Spurgeon, T. (1996), Gardensfor all, Landscape design: Journal ofLandscape Institute, No. 249, April 1996,pp 29–31.

Stoneham, J. (1997), Health benefit, Landscapedesign: Journal of Landscape Institute, No.249, February 1997, pp 23–26.

Thoday, P. and Stoneham, J. (1996), Access notexcess, Landscape design: Journal ofLandscape Institute, No. 249, April, pp 18-21.

Whitehouse, S., Varni, J.W., Seid, M., CooperMarcus, C., Ensberg, M.J., Jacobs, J.R. andMehlenbeck, R.S. (2001, Evaluating achildren’s hospital garden environment:Utilization and costumer satisfaction,Journal of environmental psychology, 21,pp 301-314.

Conference papers

Shoemaker, Candice A. (2002), Interaction byDesign: Bringing people and plantstogether for health and well – being, Aninternational symposium, Ames: Iowa StatePress, pp 195–201.

94

Hazreena Hussein

Internet sources

http://www.sensorytrust.org.uk [AssessedAugust 2009]

http://www.sensorytrust.org.uk/information/factsheets/sensory_ip.html [AssessedAugust 2009]

Disability Discrimination Act (1995) Disability-Related Terms and Definitions <http://w w w. o p s i . g o v. u k / a c t s / a c t s 1 9 9 5 /ukpga_19950050_en_1> [Assessed August2009]

http://www.pecs.org.uk/general/what.htm[Assessed August 2009]

Paper articles

Gaskell, J. (1994), Sensory Gardens (3) inGrowth Point, Autumn, number 206.

Unpublished doctorial

Kytta, M. (2003), Children in Outdoor Contexts:Affordances and independent mobility in theassessment of environment childfriendliness, Unpublished Doctorial,Helsinki University of Technology,Helsinki, pp 49-50, 74.

Footnotes

1 A sensory garden is a self-contained areathat concentrates a wide range of sensoryexperiences. Such an area, if designed well,provides a valuable resource for a widerange of uses, from education to recreation(h t t p : / / w w w. s e n s o r y t r u s t . o rg . u k /information/factsheets/sensory_ip.html)[Assessed August 2009]

2 The Sensory Trust was established in 1989and grew out of a multi-disciplinaryconsultation resulting in a wide network ofdisability and environmental organisationsworking together to promote and implementan inclusive approach to design and manageoutdoor spaces; richer connections betweenpeople and place; and equality of access forall people (http://www.sensorytrust.org.uk)[Assessed 2009]

3 A disabled person means an individual whohas a physical or mental impairment thathas a substantial and long-term adverseeffect on his/her ability to carry out normalday-to-day activities (DisabilityDiscrimination Art 1995).

4 Not all features will be assessed by loose-surface paths. The loose surface for someusers, particularly for users in wheelchairs,is problematic if it is the only form of access.On the other hand, if the school is unlikelyto have wheelchair users, the use of loosesurfaces can be sensorily stimulating andpleasant to them.

5 Aesthetic, quoted by Hill (1995:170) as‘The philosophy or theory of taste, or theperception of the beautiful in nature andart’. In this study, the term ‘aesthetic’ willbe used generally when describing thevisual composition of the respective schoolsensory gardens.

6 Photographs were taken by the researcherin the sensory gardens but none includeshots of the users due to the school policy.

7 Vaporised trail was the term used by thedesigner of the sensory garden. It wasdesigned for wheelchair users to offerchallenges, with a surface of gravel andlimestone blocks.

8 PECS allows staff and students with autismand other communication difficulties toinitiate communication. Further informationon PECS can be obtained at http://www.pecs.org.uk/general/what.htm[Assessed August 2009]

9 Main activities were walking/passingthrough, walking fast, walking together,walking with wheelchair/cyclist/walkframe, running, stopping/standing, stop/stand and talking, sitting, sitting together,sitting and talking, playing with sensoryequipment, laying down and singing.

10 Seated activity refers to users who sat eitheron seats or other features in the sensorygarden, including wheelchair users. Theanalysis of seated activity was undertaken


95

to find out in which area the users spentmost or least time sitting while engagingwith the features and whether the seatingprovided in the zones were used as it hadbeen intended or if users preferred to sit onother features of their choice.

11 Actualised affordances of an environmentare what the children encountered duringtheir independent mobility, perception andengagement with the environmental features(Heft, 1988, 1999; Kytta, 2002, 2003, 2004,2006).

12 Positive affordances relate to the children’smovement and their perceptions of theenvironment, resulting in them offeringsatisfaction, finding it appealing andfriendly (Heft, 1999; Kytta, 2003).

13 Negative affordances induce feelings ofavoidance, danger, escape and fear (Heft,1999; Kytta, 2003).

14 Landscape design terminology comprises‘Soft Landscape’, ‘Hard Landscape’ and‘Landscape Furniture’. Soft landscapeconsists of planted areas, trees, shrubs, grass(Hill, 1995:317). Hard landscape consistsof hard surfaces, structures, planters (Hill,1995:241). Landscape furniture consists ofseating, litter bins, lighting, signs, bollards,play structures, shelters (Hill, 1995:291).

sensory garden in special schools: the issues, design and use

Documents