A Study on the Optimal Selection for Designing Healing Components at the Hospice Public Space in Taiwan

• Main Authors: Shi Han Hong, 洪詩涵
• Other Authors: An-Ping Liou
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2014
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/47933035782491714931

碩士 === 國立高雄大學 === 創意設計與建築學系碩士班 === 102 === Recently the healing components for making the healing environment of the hospices in Taiwan have brought up mostly by the doctors and nurses based on their long-term experience, or suggested by the environmental designers, architects, interior designers or environmental psychology experts. As to the relative importance of some healing components in environmental design, probably cognitive difference exists among those experts due to their respective expertise. Accordingly, the priority to apply healing components was compared and analyzed for cognitive discrepancy among varied experts in this study. Through interview and questionnaire, the opinions of the experts and designers regarding the planning and design of the public space of the hospices were surveyed, especially the selection trend of the relative importance of some components of the healing environment. The relative findings were summarized as follows. 1. Among the evaluation criteria, quality of air and type of daylighting were relatively important. Linking up natural landscapes was vital too. 2. In the favored order of the evaluation factors, increase of natural ventilation, increase of opening area of window, and elimination of odors in the air were the three most essential factors induced by the consensus of the experts. The subsequent factors were glare control, establishment of miniascape as well as establishment of landscape garden. Indirect illumination and establishment of natural water resources were also regarded as fairly important selection. 3. The priority of ordering evaluation factors between the experts and the users presented significant cognitive inconsistency. The experts valued the type of daylighting while the users quality of air. 4. The architects regarded that greater part of the evaluation factors for type of daylighting were relatively very critical while the interior designers deemed that the evaluation factors for quality of air were most important. 5. The experts for therapeutic design considered almost all the evaluation factors for added environmental-relieving facilities were more important. 6. Both the interior designers and the hospice care givers thought that the factors for linking natural landscape ought to be valued. 7. The healthy-environment experts and the family caregivers considered that the evaluation factors for quality of air and type of daylighting were greatly vital.