Developing a framework for neurodivergent-inclusive park design integrates sensory regulation and environmental strategies, suggesting new architectural guidelines.
Making green spaces accessible to diverse user groups has become a mainstream objective in contemporary planning, design, and built environment However, existing restorative environment research predominantly focuses on neurotypical populations, while sensory and cognitive considerations relevant to neurodivergent users remain insufficiently addressed within park design practice. Although restorative environment theories, particularly Attention Restoration Theory (ART) and Stress Recovery Theory (SRT), explain psychological recovery in natural settings, their translation into architectural design remains limited in accommodating diverse sensory needs. Consequently, there remains a lack of an evidence-informed design framework translating restorative theory into practical neuro-inclusive park design strategies. This study aims to develop a neurodivergent-inclusive restorative park design framework by integrating environmental and physical design attributes, sensory regulation principles, and spatial sequencing strategies into a coherent architectural model. The framework was developed through an integrative research approach combining findings from a systematic literature review, observational analysis of restorative attributes within an urban park environment, and thematic synthesis of expert perspectives with their validation. The study proposes a multi-layered framework comprising nature-based and biophilic attributes, multisensory environmental regulation, graded spatial sequencing and environmental complexity, and sociality with user autonomy. The framework contributes an evidence-informed design approach that bridges restorative environment theory and neuro-inclusive environmental design, providing practical guidance for developing restorative park environments that support diverse cognitive and sensory needs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sani et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: