ABSTRACT
There are numerous green spaces designated as ‘therapeutic’ in Europe and the UK (healing gardens, care farms, ecotherapeutic projects). This perspective veers people into a vision of these spaces as having a specific and possibly ‘medicalised’, single function. By so doing this reduces or limits the potential multifunctionality inherent in these ‘special’ green spaces. Much more creative scope exists to broaden the functional perspective of therapeutic green spaces, based on synthesising their intrinsic parallel uses. Further exploration of these uses leads to synergies and connections with:
• Access to and maintenance of urban green spaces by citizens for citizens, aiding the formation of urban ‘green grids’ and healthy biospheres
• Sustainability education, multicultural integration and interdisciplinary networks • Stigma abating, safety and community identity • Citizenship, stewardship and local networks • Public health outcomes through active assessment of the health impact on the local
community (Health Impact Assessments – HIA)
This chapter will consider the extended functionality of therapeutic urban green spaces, based on some good practice ‘showcase’ examples. There is a general assumption that therapeutic green spaces, often known as ‘healing gardens’ or ‘therapeutic landscapes’, are spaces designed for specific clinical or rehabilitative functions, for people with disabilities or ill-health. This is the case for some of the evidence-based designed green spaces, which are usually associated with healthcare settings (AHTA 2007). They are often seen as a retreat, a place of respite and usually only accessible to those people who are considered to be eligible to use them by virtue of their role as a patient, visitor or staff member. Where such spaces are not located within healthcare settings, but are nevertheless designated as therapeutic, they unfortunately often become associated with the ‘separateness’ of the above. Whether a care farm or an urban green space or any other type of ‘therapeutic green space’, they run the risk of being perceived by the general public and, alas, many specialist disciplines or agencies, as spaces
reserved for those who are referred there by virtue of their physical or psychological conditions. Many people also believe that these spaces are awash with medicinal plants or that the plants have to have a specific symbolism and sensory quality held in their scent, texture or aesthetic qualities. All of these factors can be expressly true and are valuable from the point of view of their specific therapeutic value; however there is much broader scope for considering that therapeutic values can co-exist with other and more multifunctional values. These spaces are also spaces where the ‘feel good factor’ can be achieved by all in the local community. The key in unearthing the broader characteristics and uses of these green spaces is in eschewing the conventional view and embracing the more holistic and broader social facets inherent in them. The East London Green Grid Primer Paper (GLA 2006: 11) illustrates ‘multifunctionality’, asserting that:
Green infrastructure projects can deliver multiple objectives: they can frame and shape the growth of sustainable communities, to strengthen their image and identity; they help cities to adapt to climate change by reducing flood risk and overheating; they promote access to open space, nature, culture and sport, improving the offer to visitors and quality of life for all.
