Eco-effective design (EED) and evidence-based design (EBD) are two powerful trends currently shaping healthcare architecture. EED addresses whether/how the design and operation of buildings improve ecological value and enhance human health. EBD addresses whether/how the design and operation of buildings support positive health outcomes in the built environment through a growing collection of solutions informed by research and practical knowledge. The primary hypothesis of this study was that EBD and EED are compatible approaches to health facility design, especially when addressing the impact of the environment on human health. To explore this hypothesis, healthcare facility administrators were surveyed regarding their perceptions of the relationship between EED and EBD. Input from focus groups and EED and EBD experts was used to formulate the administrator questionnaire. The study concluded that the relationship between EED and EBD typically was synergistic.
BouchardT.BarsalouxJ., & DraudenG. (1974). Brainstorming procedure, sex and group size as determinants of the problem-solving effectiveness of groups and individuals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(2), 135–138.
2.
BouchardT., & HareM. (1970). Size, performance, and potential in brainstorming groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54(1), 51–55.
3.
BraungartM.McDonoughW., & BollingerA. (2007). Cradle-to-cradle design: Creating healthy emissions: A strategy for eco-effective product and system design. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(13/14), 1337–1348.
4.
CarpenterD. (2008). Greening up: Hospitals getting savvier on sustainability. Health Facilities Management, 21(7), 15–21.
5.
ClitheroeH. (2000). Mapping the creative context of architects. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Irvine.
6.
CoderreF., & MathieuA. (2004). Comparison of the quality of qualitative data obtained through telephone, postal and email surveys. International Journal of Market Research, 46(3), 347–357.
7.
EagleA. (2005). Taking the LEED: Environmentally friendly design and construction earns distinction. Health Facilities Management, 18(6), 10–19.
8.
EagleA. (2008). Measures of success: Greenfield facility adopts evidence-based design as part of Pebble Project. Health Facilities Management, 21(6), 12–17.
9.
EstradaA., & LaurenceJ. (2002). A guide to focus group interviews. Washington, DC: Defense Department Advisory Committee on Women in the Services.
10.
FramptonS. (2003). Putting patients first: Designing and practicing patient-centered care. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/AHA Press.
11.
GarmanA.TylerL., & DarnallJ. (2004). Development and validation of a 360-degreefeedback instrument for healthcare administrators. Journal of Healthcare Management, 49(5), 307–322.
Green Guide for Health Care. (n.d.). About the green guide for healthcare. Retrieved October 16, 2008, from http://www.gghc.org/about.cfm
14.
GrovesK. (2006). View from the top: CEO perspectives on executive development and succession planning processes in healthcare organizations. Journal of Health Education Administration, 23(1), 93–110.
15.
GuentherR.VittoriG., & AtwoodC. (2006). Values-driven design and construction: Enriching community benefits through green hospitals. In Designing for the 21st century hospital. Papers presented by the Center for Health Design and Health Care Without Harm at a conference sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, September 2006, Hackensack, NJ.
16.
HamiltonD. (2003). The four levels of evidence-based design practice. Healthcare Design, 3(4), 18–26.
HarvieJ. (2006). Redefining healthy food: An ecological health approach to food production, distribution, and procurement. In Designing for the 21st century hospital. Papers presented by the Center for Health Design and Health Care Without Harm at a conference sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. September 2006, Hackensack, NJ.
19.
JohnsonJ., & BarachP. (2008). The role of qualitative methods in designing healthcare organizations. Environment & Behavior, 40(2), 191–204.
20.
JonesR., & PittN. (1999). Health surveys in the workplace; Comparison of postal, email and World Wide Web methods. Occupational Medicine, 49(8), 556–558.
