Volume 13, Issue 49 (12-2024)
Haft Hesar J Environ Stud 2024, 13(49): 45-62 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Asadian Zargar N, Sozanchi K, Sepehri M. The Cognition and Analysis of Environmental Quality Assessment Tools of Hospital Outdoor Landscape*. Haft Hesar J Environ Stud 2024; 13 (49) :45-62
URL: http://hafthesar.iauh.ac.ir/article-1-2140-en.html
URL: http://hafthesar.iauh.ac.ir/article-1-2140-en.html
Abstract: (96 Views)
Introduction: Although the hospital’s outdoor landscape positively affects the physical and mental well-being of patients and staff, this aspect is frequently overlooked in research on hospital design. Effective investigation into hospital landscape design necessitates the accurate identification and assessment of existing conditions. A notable challenge is the absence of standardized evaluation tools, such as questionnaires and checklists, to measure user attitudes and behaviors regarding the quality of hospital campuses. The primary objective of this paper is to identify and analyze the tools employed in assessing the physical quality of hospital landscapes while evaluating their strengths and limitations.
Methodology: To accomplish the objectives of this research, a systematic review was performed using databases including Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science databases. Following the collection of articles and the removal of duplicates, the screening process was conducted by evaluating the titles and abstracts in accordance with established inclusion and exclusion criteria. Subsequently, the full texts of 37 articles were analyzed. Ultimately, 12 assessment tools met the criteria for inclusion in the study. Of these, seven tools were specifically designed to evaluate the hospital landscape, while five tools assessed both the interior and exterior physical environment of the hospital. The latter five tools were included in the study due to their inclusion of items specifically related to the landscape and hospital campuses. Subsequently, an analysis was performed examining the structure, production methods, dimensions measured, and the measures taken to ensure the validity and reliability of these tools.
Results: The identified tools exhibit a hierarchical structure that employs a combined evaluative approach integrating psychological and cognitive approaches. A total of 13 distinct dimensions of environmental quality were delineated within these tools. Notably, the four dimensions that contain the highest number of items across each instrument are "type of activity and use," "comfortable facilities and furniture," "space and layout," and "environmental safety." These dimensions provide a foundational basis for scoring items, which is grounded in observational data and the user's subjective assessment of the environment's capacity to fulfill these criteria. All tools exhibit acceptable content validity; however, reports on reliability and structural validity assessments are not available across all instruments. Furthermore, these tools present several limitations, including issues related to item structure, multi-dimensionality, theoretical foundations, and the time required for evaluator training and the evaluation process itself. Also, these tools are primarily designed to assess whether the campus meets the needs of its users and ensures their satisfaction. They are user-oriented rather than function-oriented. However, the relationship between the campus and the hospital building, as well as the campus's integration into the city, has not received much attention. Additionally, most tools lack a standard definition for the landscape and hospital campus. This oversight may lead to challenges in the tool's repeatability and comparing findings across different tools.
Conclusion: This research's findings highlight the necessity of developing new tools with a more robust theoretical foundation accompanied by comprehensive reports addressing the reliability and stability of the results. The H-GET tool can serve as an initial framework for the development of future tools.
Methodology: To accomplish the objectives of this research, a systematic review was performed using databases including Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science databases. Following the collection of articles and the removal of duplicates, the screening process was conducted by evaluating the titles and abstracts in accordance with established inclusion and exclusion criteria. Subsequently, the full texts of 37 articles were analyzed. Ultimately, 12 assessment tools met the criteria for inclusion in the study. Of these, seven tools were specifically designed to evaluate the hospital landscape, while five tools assessed both the interior and exterior physical environment of the hospital. The latter five tools were included in the study due to their inclusion of items specifically related to the landscape and hospital campuses. Subsequently, an analysis was performed examining the structure, production methods, dimensions measured, and the measures taken to ensure the validity and reliability of these tools.
Results: The identified tools exhibit a hierarchical structure that employs a combined evaluative approach integrating psychological and cognitive approaches. A total of 13 distinct dimensions of environmental quality were delineated within these tools. Notably, the four dimensions that contain the highest number of items across each instrument are "type of activity and use," "comfortable facilities and furniture," "space and layout," and "environmental safety." These dimensions provide a foundational basis for scoring items, which is grounded in observational data and the user's subjective assessment of the environment's capacity to fulfill these criteria. All tools exhibit acceptable content validity; however, reports on reliability and structural validity assessments are not available across all instruments. Furthermore, these tools present several limitations, including issues related to item structure, multi-dimensionality, theoretical foundations, and the time required for evaluator training and the evaluation process itself. Also, these tools are primarily designed to assess whether the campus meets the needs of its users and ensures their satisfaction. They are user-oriented rather than function-oriented. However, the relationship between the campus and the hospital building, as well as the campus's integration into the city, has not received much attention. Additionally, most tools lack a standard definition for the landscape and hospital campus. This oversight may lead to challenges in the tool's repeatability and comparing findings across different tools.
Conclusion: This research's findings highlight the necessity of developing new tools with a more robust theoretical foundation accompanied by comprehensive reports addressing the reliability and stability of the results. The H-GET tool can serve as an initial framework for the development of future tools.
Keywords: Systematic review, landscape & hospital campus, landscape assessment, evaluation tool, environmental quality.
Type of Study: Research |
Received: 2023/05/16 | Accepted: 2023/12/1 | Published: 2024/12/30
Received: 2023/05/16 | Accepted: 2023/12/1 | Published: 2024/12/30
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
