A small study finds promise in placing therapeutic sensory gardens on college campuses Many university and college campuses have plenty of green space. However, these spaces typically aren’t designed specifically to support college students’ wellness. This article reported on a small-scale study of a therapeutic sensory garden on a regional campus of a U.S. university. Therapeutic sensory gardens are designed to stimulate smell, vision, taste, hearing, touch, and movement. Faculty recruited students to visit this garden weekly for one month, so they could use the space to sit, reflect, meditate, experience nature, read, study, or socialize with their friends. The study analyzed self-report data from 12 college students who visited the garden to understand how it impacted their quality of life. The aim was to consider how more intentionally designed campus gardens may support students’ health and wellness.
The authors framed this study as a mixed methods case study. Faculty recruited 13 student volunteers who pledged to visit the garden weekly for one month. For the quantitative measures, they administered a quality of life scale and negative affect scale before and after the month-long intervention. Students also completed a demographic survey. The researchers compared average scores for these measures before and after the intervention. For the qualitative data, students completed a semi-structured interview after the intervention, which asked them about their use of the garden space.
Only 6 of 13 students visited the garden weekly with most using it a total of 3-4 hours over a month. The most preferred uses were meditating and socializing with friends, and the garden’s swing was the most popular sensory item. Even though students only used the garden for a few hours, the authors reported positive changes between the pre-intervention and post-intervention measures in the following quality of life categories: general health, self-esteem, satisfaction with relationships, and total quality of life scores. The satisfaction with relationships change was statistically significant. No scores decreased. For the affective measures, half of the participants had an increase in total positive affect between their baseline and post-intervention scores, and 10 out of 12 had a decrease in negative affect scores (with two participants maintaining the same scores). According to the semi-structured interviews, participants used the garden for both active and passive activities. Participants also described the sensory garden as supporting positive emotions and decreasing negative emotions. They also expressed a preference for choice of activities in the garden, described connection to nature as a form of self-care, and noted that scheduled garden visits provided a welcome counterbalance to their busier schedules. Overall, the study’s findings and relevance were limited by a small convenience sample of students.
This study’s findings are not generalizable due to its small number of self-selected participants. However, the data did point to this intentional green space as a place for college students to connect with nature, study, relax, and socialize, supporting higher quality of life and lower negative affect scores. Qualitative responses emphasized the importance of this form of nature engagement as a form of self-care and balance. The commute to the campus with the sensory garden was the main barrier to students not utilizing the garden more. Given this, higher education institutions should consider locating such gardens along common routes to classes to encourage more nature participation.
The Bottom Line