Evidence-Based Playground Design: Lessons ...

Landscape Research, 2013 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2013.824073

Downloaded by [Copenhagen University Library] at 04:32 24 October 2013

Evidence-Based Playground Design: Lessons Learned from Theory to Practice ANNE DAHL REFSHAUGE*, ULRIKA K. STIGSDOTTER*, BETTINA LAMM* & KRISTIN THORLEIFSDOTTIR** *

Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, Division of Landscape Architecture and Planning, University of Copenhagen, Denmark **Department of Design and Architecture, Iceland Academy of the Arts, Iceland

ABSTRACT This paper develops, explores and evaluates an evidence-based approach to playground design, with a public park playground (playlab Cph) in Copenhagen as a case study. In the increasingly urbanised world, park playgrounds are valuable places that support healthy child development by providing opportunities for play, nature exploration and sensory stimulation. As it is increasingly expected that designers base their decisions on research evidence, there is a need to develop approaches to facilitate this, which also applies to playground design. The design of PlayLab Cph was based on relevant evidence, best practice, and the theories of Affordances and Behaviour Settings. A post-occupancy evaluation was carried out through a questionnaire survey and observation studies, which revealed that a majority of the potential evidence-based affordances were actualised, and that the application of the theories resulted in a more informed design. Although preliminary, this evidence-based approach seems valuable for practitioners and students within the field of playground design. KEY WORDS: Affordances, behaviour settings, children’s play, park playgrounds, post-occupancy evaluation

Introduction An increasing number of children are growing up in cities (UN Habitat, 2008), which is causing concern about their separation from nature and its benefits (Louv, 2008); for example, improved mental well-being, relief from stress (Kaplan, 2001; Wells & Evans, 2003), and improved physical and cognitive development (Fjørtoft & Sageie, 2000; Grahn, Mårtensson, Lindblad, Nilsson, & Ekman, 1997). In general, children’s health, including that of Danish children, is deteriorating and they are increasingly suffering from poor motor skills, for example (Pedersen & Brodersen, 2008; The Danish National Board of Health, 2010; World Health Organisation, 2007). This could be the result of a lack of sensory stimulation during childhood, and may result in learning difficulties (Ayres, 1979). It is thus important that children adapt to physical challenges through interaction with the environment as early as possible (Ayres, 1979). Correspondence Address: Anne Dahl Refshauge, Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, Division of Landscape Architecture and Planning, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 23, Frederiksberg 1958, Denmark. Email: [email protected] 2013 Landscape Research Group Ltd


2 A. D. Refshauge et al. Playgrounds in urban green spaces can provide these everyday nature and sensory experiences (Moore, 2007), as well as opportunities for play and healthy childhood development (Burdette & Whitaker, 2005). Whilst playgrounds may provide these external benefits, play is also self-motivated, provides pleasure and creativity, and does not need to serve a particular purpose (Lester & Russell, 2008). There is a need for place-specific playground design approaches (Jansson, 2010), but it is equally important to turn to other fields within child development to gain knowledge about, for example, play behaviour and developmental stages to strengthen design decisions. When designing for specific user groups, types of situations and sites, it is also increasingly expected that landscape architects base their work on an evidence-based landscape architecture approach (Brown & Corry, 2011). This approach involves a triangulation of best design practice, client information and relevant research evidence (Brown & Corry, 2011). Although evidence-based design (EBD) can enrich the design process, its application is limited amongst landscape architects who therefore risk falling behind other professions (Brown & Corry, 2011).

Theoretical Framework In order to explore the interaction between human behaviour and designed space in a real world context, this study brings together two theories from environmental and ecological psychology: Barker’s behaviour settings (1968) and Gibson’s theory of affordances (1979). Behaviour settings are subspaces of geographical areas where the physical environment and behaviour are linked together in time and space (Barker, 1968). The theory has been applied within design research when analysing behaviour in specific types of spaces. This has enabled specifications of behaviour settings such as climbing and sand play settings in outdoor play areas, and comparisons with similar types of settings (Moore & Cosco, 2010). By focusing on how play features are connected to landscape features and each other in the design of the settings, a better understanding of the relation between children’s play and the environment can be obtained (Brown & Burger, 1984). Behaviour settings thus provide a medium for identifying the potential affordances of different types of areas (Moore & Cosco, 2007). The concept of affordances (Gibson, 1979) refers to the functionally significant properties of the environment. A feature in the environment with the right properties may, for example, afford seating, and affordances are thus related to an individual’s physical characteristics, as well as capabilities, perception skills, previous experience and the cultural meaning of their environment (Heft, 1988). Understanding the principles of affordances and how they relate to play environments can assist the designer in creating better spaces for play (Moore & Cosco, 2007).

Aim and Research Questions The aim of this research is to develop, explore and evaluate an approach to evidence-based playground design, which can be helpful to practitioners. The research questions are:

Evidence-Based Playground Design 3

• • • •

How can the triangulated nature of evidence-based design be implemented into playground design? Are the theoretical concepts of behaviour settings and affordances useful tools in an evidence-based playground design approach? How can the approach be implemented in an actual design? How does the actual use of the design correlate with the evidence-based design intentions?


Methods Case Selection Due to an increase in the birth-rate in Copenhagen and the general dilapidated state of many public playgrounds, special funds were allocated for an extensive renovation of all Copenhagen’s playgrounds in 2008–2012 (City of Copenhagen, 2008). The playground designed, built and tested in this project is located in Vigerslevparken in a Copenhagen suburb. It was selected from the city’s 129 public playgrounds based on the following criteria: 1) the playground should be located in a green space, as this study is part of a larger research project with a focus on playgrounds in urban green spaces; 2) it should be on the municipality’s list of playgrounds due for a complete renovation; 3) the park should not already have a playground constructed by the same company involved in this project as the municipality requested diversity; 4) the playground should be large and include more than one piece of play equipment. The 1200 m2 playground in Vigerslevparken best matched the above criteria. Research Methods The evidence-based design (EBD) process. The design team consisted of the paper’s main author (landscape architect and researcher), the Danish playground company Copla, and the landscape architecture office Vesterholts. The main author had the leading role of defining the design approach and developing the design solutions based on relevant evidence. Copla contributed expertise regarding the construction of equipment as well as experience from own best practice. Vesterholts supported the process by providing technical assistance regarding landscaping. The municipality’s requests and the site conditions were triangulated with relevant evidence on children’s play and development and playground design. The process consisted of iterative sketch-based explorations where possible behaviour settings were developed and matched with potential affordances, sensory stimulation and spatial characteristics identified through the research process. During the EBD process and evaluation, the playground was referred to as PlayLab Cph, to reflect the exploratory approach where design principles and solutions were tested in an actual on-site laboratory. Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE). As human behaviour and feelings are partly determined by the environment, it is important to study people in their context to understand this interaction (Gillham, 2000). For this reason, on-site research methods were chosen for the POE. The results were analysed according to the theory of


4 A. D. Refshauge et al. affordances. Actively actualised affordances are derived from perception and action, whilst passively actualised affordances are only derived from perception (Kyttä, 2004). The actively actualised affordances were recorded through on-site observations, for example, a child perceiving the potential affordance of a suspension bridge and actualising it by running across. The passively actualised affordances were recorded through a questionnaire survey, for example, a parent perceiving opportunities for hiding without personally actualising the affordance. Self-reporting questionnaires were distributed among accompanying adults at PlayLab Cph between July and October 2010, which were used to explore whether the intended affordances were passively actualised, and whether any affordances were unintentionally actualised. This enabled an analysis of whether the respondents perceived the playground in the way it had been planned, and whether they had missed any affordances, or considered them inadequate. The accompanying adults were asked to describe what they liked and disliked about the playground and their children’s likes/dislikes. The responses were transcribed and coded, and the total number of informants (N) was 49. The playground was observed using behaviour mapping and semi-structured observations, which took place in August and September 2010. This is a time of the year when school holidays are over and the weather is usually fairly good. No visits took place on rainy or stormy days so all the observed individuals were exposed to more or less the same kind of weather. We explored which of the intended affordances had been actively actualised, but also the affordances that had been actualised but which had not been identified in the design. The semi-structured observations were conducted to describe in detail a specific situation observed in the mapping, for example, specific play or what had been going on in general at the playground to gain a deeper understanding of the play activity and the interaction between the users and the environment. During the mapping, PlayLab Cph was visited five times by the same researcher; two morning visits (one in the week, one at the weekend), and three afternoon visits (two in the week, one at the weekend). This was to increase the chance of observing users from different age groups. The weekday afternoon observations were conducted after 3.30 pm as most children attend childcare or after-school care until then. Each visit consisted of three observation rounds (15 rounds in total). The duration of each round varied between 20 and 45 minutes depending on the number of visitors. The following variables were analysed: age: 0–5, 6–12, 13–17 and 18+; gender: type of behaviour: list of 31 different behaviour classes based on a pilot study and on Cosco (2006); play type: functional, dramatic, constructive and games (Smilansky, 1968). Functional play includes muscle movement such as running, jumping, spinning and climbing, but also the use of objects in a stereotypical manner (Smilansky, 1968). A child engaged in dramatic play adopts a role or uses objects to represent make-believe things (Smilansky, 1968). In constructive play, the child is engaged in constructing something, while in games, children consent to prearranged rules (Smilansky, 1968). Non-play, such as watching others or performing activities unrelated to play (Maxwell, Mitchell, & Evans, 2008), was also included. More boys than girls, more children aged 0–5 than 6–12 and very few 13–17-yearolds were surveyed (Table 1). Slightly more adult females than males accompanied their children to the playground.

Questionnaire Behaviour mapping Total

9 – –

–

2 (toddlers)

10 –

0–1 (infants)

–

32 –

3–5 (preschoolers) 45 45 90

158

6–12 (schoolaged)

51 107

0–5 (total)

Children, age groups

0

0 0

13–17 (teenagers)

Table 1. Distribution of surveyed individuals from both questionnaire and behaviour mapping observations

♀

♂ 44 27 21 97 33 27

♂

Adults, gender

107 141 60 48

52 55

♀

Children, gender


356

144 212

Children and adults

Total (N)


6 A. D. Refshauge et al. Findings


The Site and its Context The park is narrow, 4 km long and bordered by social housing and single-family residences with private gardens (Figure 1). A combined bike and pedestrian path runs along the length of the park, and access can be gained at junctions along its length, for example, at the playground. A stream runs parallel to the path and close to the playground. The area of interest (Figure 1) is lower than the immediate surroundings. Large trees frame the area which appears green. The playground was in general rather worn and resembled what Woolley and Lowe (2012) have categorised as a composite design which often contains fewer opportunities for diverse play and sensory experiences than playgrounds containing nature. It included a basketball court, an area

Figure 1. Aerial view of the park before intervention (colour figure online). The orange line indicates the area of interest and the green shape the location of the playground including a basketball court and an asphalt area (aerial photo: DDOland _2008_12.5cm).

Figure 2. A south-west facing view of the playground before intervention (photo: Anne Dahl Refshauge).

Evidence-Based Playground Design 7 of asphalt, and some scattered worn-out free-standing play equipment such as a swing set, a sandbox, and a small climbing feature with a slide (Figure 2).


Design Constraints The design was constrained by several external factors. First, the municipality had requested a playground for 1–12-year-olds. Second, the soil was highly contaminated (cadmium and lead) so new topsoil was added, which influenced the shaping and layout of the landscape which was moulded into a slightly raised compact island. The addition of the topsoil and a stipulation that the playground should not be enlarged prevented its intended integration with the surrounding landscape. The park manager requested a playground that was not too enclosed by vegetation or too inviting for teenagers, as the former playground had experienced problems with loitering male teenagers who used the playground’s benches as a place to smoke. According to Veitch, Bagley, Ball, and Salmon (2006), fear of teenage gangs at playgrounds can be a significant barrier preventing children from playing outside. For financial reasons, the redesign of the playground did not include a renovation of the basketball court or the asphalt area. Both are, however, included in the POE.

The Evidence-Based Design (EBD) Approach Based on the theoretical framework and on the triangulated nature of EBD, we developed the approach intended for playground design. The iterative process was led by the following main tasks illustrated in Figure 3: (a) To identify the developmental characteristics of potential users by age and gender, and thereby the affordances that should be designed (Table 2). (b) To design behaviour settings identified as providing these particular affordances based on previous play environment research as well as own best practice. (c) To analyse and evaluate each proposal with questions such as ‘Does this comply with client/user wishes?’, ‘What senses are expected to be stimulated in this solution?’, ‘Is it realistic to build?’, and ‘What other affordances are possibly provided through combining different behaviour settings?’

Figure 3. Diagram of the iterative evidence-based design process.

Gender differences

No distinct gender differences (Hughes, 2009)

No distinct gender differences (Hughes, 2009)

Boys more outdoors and vigorous (Harper & Sanders., 1975)Tendency to same gender play (Ramsey, 1995)

Girls prefer equipment which stimulates the vestibular sensory system (Jespersen, 2007)

Age group

Infants (0–1)

Toddlers (2)

Preschool (3–5)

School age (6–12)

Mostly sensory play (Hughes, 2009) and play with objects (Johnson, Christie, & Yawkey, 1999) Very simple games of peek-a-boo emerge (Johnson et al., 1999) Functional play with and without objects (Hughes, 2009) Participate in simple dramatic play (Frost et al., 2004) Simple constructive play in a functional manner (Hutt, Tyler, Hutt, & Christopherson, 1989). Include peers and caregivers in play, but primarily solitary (Johnson et al., 1999) Interested in sensory exploration and feeling the play materials (Hughes, 2009) Functional play and more advanced constructive play most prevalent (Hughes, 2009; Smilansky, 1968) Dramatic play advances (Johnson et al., 1999) Simple games such as chasing games (Johnson et al., 1999) More play with peers (Perry, 2003) Functional play decreases (Johnson et al., 1999) Constructive play decreases, but is often more collaborative and with the objective of creating something to include in a dramatic play or a game (Johnson et al., 1999) Dramatic play, but with more and more rules (Hughes, 2009) Games with

Play characteristics

General developmental characteristics (capabilities)

Climbable, jump-on-able, run-able, balance-able, swing-on-able, imagineable, touch-able, move-able, mould-able, hide-behind-able

Climb-able, jump-on-able, run-able, balance-able, swing-on-able, imagineable, touch-able, move-able, mould-able, construction-able

Climb-able, jump-on-able, run-able, balance-able, imagine-able, move-able, construction-able, hide-behind-able, swing-on-able, spin-on-able, roll-downable

Loco-motor, small motor and stability (Hughes, 2009)

More refined, better balance, e.g. skipping and climbing stairs (Johnson et al., 1999).

Mastery of fine and gross motor abilities, climb trees, risky play (Johnson et al., 1999)

(Continued)

Touchable, moveable

Affordances to be designed for

Crawl, creep and stand, start walking and exploring places (Johnson et al., 1999)

Motor skills development

Table 2. Identification of developmental characteristics, and affordances to be designed for in relation to the different age groups


8 A. D. Refshauge et al.

Internal body sensation: stimulation of sensations that tell us where the body is in space and how it is moving (Ayres, 1979) The vestibular sense, including jumping up and down, running, swinging, spinning, sliding, climbing and roller coaster riding. The proprioceptive sense, activated through the contraction and stretching of muscles and through the bending, straightening, pulling and compression of the joints.

Motor skills development

All age groups

rules finally take over dramatic play (Pollowy, 1977) Mostly play with peers (Hughes, 2009) and intimate peer relations (Johnson et al., 1999)

Play characteristics

External body sensation: stimulation of sensations that tell us what is coming from outside the body (Ayres, 1979) Visual, auditory, taste, smell and tactile senses

Gender differences

General developmental characteristics (capabilities)

All age groups

Age group

Table 2. (Continued).

Climb-able, jump-on-able, run-able, balance-able, swing-on-able, spin-onable, roll-down-able

See-able, hear-able, eat-able, smell-able, touch-able

Affordances to be designed for



10 A. D. Refshauge et al. (d) To make refinements if the solution was unsatisfactory, for example, if the questions could not be answered, if practical construction issues had not been resolved, or if the potential affordances did not comply with the age groups until the final behaviour settings had been defined and transformed into a satisfactory design.


Research-Based User Characteristics As children’s play needs change over time (Frost, Brown, Sutterby, & Thornton, 2004), it was necessary to identify the characteristics of different age groups. As children may have different abilities within age groups, it was also important to consider overlaps between age groups. Four age groups were studied: infants (0–1 year), toddlers (2 years), preschool age (3–5 years) and school age (6–12 years). The age groups’ developmental and play behaviour characteristics are presented in Table 2, together with sensory stimulations which are important for all age groups. The affordances are interpreted on the basis of the identified characteristics. EBD Program: Site Layout The intention was to integrate the playground in the park by anchoring the play equipment with, for example, vegetation and topography, thus creating more welldefined settings (Grahn et al., 1997). This allowed the definition of several behaviour settings which are sub-settings of the playground (Figures 4 and 5); a play structure setting, and a swing setting (functional play); a sand play setting (dramatic play and constructive play); and a dynamic open space consisting of grass, topography, the asphalt and basketball areas and seating (games and non-play). Games such as hide-andseek are, however, expected to take place in every sub-setting as they all offer opportunities for hiding, chasing, etc. As illustrated in Figures 4 and 5, the abovementioned sub-settings consist of several minor sub-settings such as vegetation, topography and other physical features.

Figure 4. Diagram of the hierarchy between different behaviour settings (colour figure online).



Figure 5. Plan of PlayLab Cph showing the four sub-settings as well as the behaviour mapping observations of children and adults (colour figure online).

The grass surface links the components together; also underneath the swings rubber mats allow grass to grow. Emphasis was also placed on creating differences in spatial character such as open/enclosed, convex/concave, light/shady, to provide variations in the experience of moving through the play area (Moore, 2007). The existing boundaries of the playground area were kept intact. POE of the Site Layout Several adults used the words ‘cosy’ and ‘beautiful’ to describe PlayLab Cph especially in relation to the equipment, seating and landscape. Many responded positively to the wooden materials and earthy colours of the equipment. A mother liked the fact that the playground was not fenced in, and that there was space between the features so that it did not feel ‘playground-like’. Some complained about the lack of opportunities and shade for the youngest children. On one of the observation days, it was sunny and 25°C, which seemed to influence the use of the playground as nearly all observations were in the sand play area which was shady. EBD Program: The Open Space Setting (1) Open spaces in between play settings can be dynamic areas where preschool-aged children, for example, chase, roll or run (Grahn et al., 1997; Mårtensson, 2004), while



Figure 6. Design layout and photo of the central open space sub-setting with seating platforms.

even surfaces (Fjørtoft & Sageie, 2000), together with smooth slopes (Heft, 1988), can afford running. The playground centre (Figure 6) is an even, open grass surface that connects the other sub-settings, while the immediate surroundings also have such surfaces and smooth topography which slopes down from the adjacent bike paths. As children like to play in natural settings (Thorleifsdottir, 2008) and can become strongly attached to places with nature (Chawla, 1992), additional opportunities for play in the immediate surroundings were considered in the overall playground design including two existing growths of Taxus and Fagus which could be a site for hideand-seek games. Six trees (Acer campestre) were planted throughout the playground to provide climbing affordances once fully grown. As with most of the selected features, the trees serve multiple functions in addition to climbing including providing shade, nature exploration and aesthetic experiences. Calmer areas in childcare outdoor environments have been identified as important spaces where children can retreat to relax alone or in smaller groups (Grahn et al., 1997; Mårtensson, 2004). As the PlayLab is fairly small, truly calm areas are limited. Therefore, to provide potentially calming experiences, five wooden platforms (Figure 6) were included. These, as well as multifunctional wooden platforms in the sand play setting and steps next to the play structure, also afford seating, which is particularly appreciated by accompanying female adults (Moore & Cosco, 2007). POE of the Open Space Setting The behaviour mapping indicates that non-play is the dominant usage in this setting mainly because a school class had lunch on the platforms one day. The platforms also function as objects to climb on and jump off. The survey revealed mixed opinions about the number of seats and their lack of back rests, but according to the park manager, there are no longer problems with loitering teenagers. The central grass setting is a dynamic setting that children cross while playing or to reach the other sub-settings. The two asphalt areas are rarely used, and the new trees are not yet mature enough to support climbing. A group of girls used an existing shrubbery for climbing instead. Generally, groups of children, or children with active parents, were

Evidence-Based Playground Design 13 more mobile than individual children or children whose parents were more passive. The latter stayed close to the centrally placed settings. The interaction between the PlayLab and the surroundings was characterised by an interplay between the ‘dangerous’ open and the safe PlayLab base.


EBD Program: The Play Structure Setting (2) All age groups seem to have a desire to climb and there are many physical features at the site such as trees and play structures which afford such opportunities. Certain play structures promote children’s gradual development including the cross-coordination of hands and feet, as well as the visual focus (Frost et al., 2004). Play structures typically also enable children to move from one part to another, which contributes to gross motor activity (Maxwell et al., 2008). Equipment that provides alternative routes gives children of different ages and with various skills the chance to choose a suitable level of challenge and risk (Moore, Goltsman, & Iacofano, 1992). Topography can enable vestibular motion that may continue out into the rest of the play space (Mårtensson, 2004). To provide climbing and running affordances and gross motor development, a play structure setting was designed (Figure 7), which consisted of topography, vegetation, a suspension bridge, horizontal and vertical climbing nets, and a tower with a slide. The tower can be accessed via the bridge or the nets. Smooth slopes are found in all of the four playground sub-settings, but especially in the play structure setting. The bridge and the horizontal net connect with topography on either side of the tower and are the only access ways. Younger children are expected to enter via the bridge. The play structure slide, the suspension bridge and the slopes are intended to stimulate the vestibular system. Two roll bars were placed next to the play structure to add spinning affordances. Vegetation and natural elements can stimulate the senses in different ways through leaf textures, shapes, sizes, colours, as well as scents, and edible fruits (Moore, 2007). Dense plantings provide opportunities for hide-and-seek games, thereby increasing the excitement of play (Mårtensson, 2004).

Figure 7. Design layout and photo of the play structure sub-setting with the play structure and roll bars in gravel surrounded by topography, grass and vegetation.

14 A. D. Refshauge et al. To support affordances for tactile stimulation, different kinds of Salix with various leaf textures were planted. Some grow catkins in springtime which increases their tactile attraction. Buddleia davidii shrubs were chosen for their fragrant flowers that also attract butterflies. These two types of plants were placed together on the slopes, and are supposed to support opportunities for hide-and-seek.


POE of the Play Structure Setting The observational findings reveal a high level of running, which is especially afforded by the topography and play structure where children run up the slopes across the bridge to the slide in mostly functional, but also dramatic play. The 0–5-year-olds enter via the slopes and bridge, often together with an accompanying adult. A father of a six-year-old boy reported that his son liked the good opportunities for adults’ participation. The 6–12-year-olds primarily climbed the net to enter the play structure. Younger children found more suitable climbing affordances at the other settings, especially at the wooden structures and platforms, and the playhouses. The behaviour observed here was related to gross motor skills. A mother of an eight-year-old boy emphasised how her boy liked the opportunities for expending energy. Several children hid in or walked through the vegetative settings; for example, one boy disappeared into the vegetation after climbing the net. He then rustled a twig for a while before slowly finding his way out (Figure 8). The roll bars were not used very often and rarely by girls. Boys used them for balancing or hanging on. The tower was occasionally used as a hiding place. EBD Program: The Sand Play Setting (3) Places with loose parts afford opportunities for constructive play and the creation of personal places (Maxwell et al., 2008). In a study by Maxey (1999), the most popular elements were self-made and found at the playground which could be used for

Figure 8. A young boy re-appearing from a vegetative setting at the play structure.



Figure 9. Design layout and photo of the sand play sub-setting with sandpit, vegetation, topography, wooden structures, and stumps leading to the two playhouses.

imaginative play. Movable loose parts, such as sticks, leaves, or cones from vegetation (Fjørtoft, 2004), can thus develop creative play and provide potential interaction with the environment (Nicholson, 1970). As PlayLab Cph is a public playground without supervision, it was not possible to incorporate loose material such as boxes or boards. Instead, the designers included sand in the sandpit and gravel underneath the play structure. Cones and needles from Pinus mugo and leaves from different Salix around the sandpit, as well as material from existing vegetation in the immediate surroundings are also moveable. Small play props are also important for fine motor skill development (Moore et al., 1992). A variety of spaces facilitate different social experiences (Herrington, 1999; Moore et al., 1992). Two different playhouses provide opportunities for social interaction as one is only accessible by children, resembles a watchtower and has stairs that lead up one level, with a hollow space underneath. The other has one level, peepholes and a tilted roof. The sandpit is spatially divided by wooden structures such as platforms, bars and stumps placed in a sequence (Figure 9) that afford balancing and jumping over and down from, and walking on (Heft, 1988). Loose parts (Woolley, 2008), the space between scattered shrubs (Fjørtoft, 2004) enclosed spaces, platforms and stage-like structures (Maxwell et al., 2008) can motivate dramatic play. The vegetation around the sand play setting and the play structure tower should provide spaces for dramatic play, together with the two playhouses which are placed next to the sandpit to afford play with loose material in dramatic play. POE of the Sand Play Setting All four types of play took place in this setting with constructive and functional being the most prevalent. Dramatic play mostly took place in the playhouses and functional play on the wooden structures. Constructive play took place in the sandpit and on the wooden structures. Hiding affordances were also actualised, as several children dug underneath the wooden decks, or hid inside or underneath the playhouses. Different opportunities for sensory stimulation were also provided here. A father reported that his three-year-old boy liked the green surroundings, the balance stumps, and walking in the sand in bare feet. The observations revealed that affordances for



Figure 10. Design layout and photo of the swing sub-setting with two swings on a hill bordered by vegetation.

solitary sand play were actualised between or at the wooden structures and underneath the tall playhouse, and that the play typically moved back and forth between play types, settings and sensory experiences. EBD Program: The Swings Setting (4) A swing’s rhythmic oscillations are linked to the stimulation of the vestibular senses, causing a feeling of excitement in children (Ayres, 1979), which is especially sought by school-aged girls (Jespersen, 2007). Swinging also affords social interaction between children and between family members, regardless of their capabilities or age (Moore & Cosco, 2007). Swinging affordances may be provided by non-rigid attached objects (Heft, 1988). Hence two tall swings were placed on a gently sloping hill to magnify the swinging experience (Figure 10). On either side, Aronia arbutifolia and Ribes nigrum provide edible berries, which may also eventually provide the experience of disappearing and reappearing when they reach maturity. POE of the Swings Setting Many adults mentioned that their children liked the swings because they were tall and afforded high swinging. A mother accompanying her two daughters (age three and five) and a neighbour’s daughter (age three) stated: [The children like] that there is relatively much space to gambol, that they can play/come up with own games besides what the playground offers in play equipment, and the big sandbox in the middle is a success plus the swings which can swing very high.

The affordance for a more intense swing experience was thus perceived. However, several visitors requested a bird-nest swing and infant swings. The observations show that this setting was primarily used by boys. The youngest tended to only swing for a short while, but the swings were generally the first setting

Evidence-Based Playground Design 17 children ran to when arriving at the playground. Several older boys actualised the affordances that occur in the conjunction of swings and topography, for example, a group of eight- and nine-year-old boys repeatedly jumped off the swings as far as they could and then ran down the slope. The only play types observed here were functional play and non-play, as especially older children used the swings for hanging out.


Discussion In evidence-based design it is equally important to base the design solutions on own best design practice, client and user wishes/attributes, as well as relevant research evidence. In this paper, we have presented a model to implement this triangulation in an evidence-based playground design. Transferring research evidence on children, play and playground design into affordances turned out to be useful. By incorporating intended affordances and the behaviour setting concept, the design embraces more deliberate interaction possibilities between the environment and behaviour. This is important as adults tend to perceive environments as forms, whereas children primarily notice possible actions (Heft, 1988). More attention is thus directed towards the functionalities and sensational affordances of designed formations. Following the steps taken in the suggested EBD approach ensures the triangulated nature of EBD, and can be characterised as research by design where explicit knowledge from research is combined with tacit knowledge from practice (Zeisel, 2006). The cooperation between researcher, municipality and playground company enabled us to test and evaluate the approach in a real world context. Due to the context-based constraints, this also negatively affected the creation of some behaviour settings and thereby intended affordances. However, as this will be the reality in most playground designs, the results are more valid than if they had been retrieved in a context-loose lab setting. The model for evidence-based playground design can be implemented in future projects as well as in the education of landscape architects. We acknowledge that it may be time-consuming but we find that it enhances the quality of the play environment and thereby positively influences child development. Conducting a POE of designed spaces is in general important in order to learn from mistakes and ensure higher quality for future projects. The POE of PlayLab Cph revealed that many anticipated affordances were either actively or passively actualised, whereas a few were actualised at other settings than those predicted or not at all. Some additional affordances also occurred. PlayLab Cph was perceived as a cohesive place well integrated into its green surroundings. The mixed opinions regarding the seating reflect how its reduced comfort, intended to avoid loitering teenagers, also affected the parents. The most negative feedback concerned the lack of affordances for the youngest children. In playground studies, parents and children usually complain about the lack of opportunities for the oldest children (Veitch et al., 2006). As the intention was to cater for all ages from one to 12, the design somewhat failed in this respect. Girls did not dominate any of the settings, not even the swings or the roll bars as anticipated. This gender difference is not caused by demographic differences alone as there are only 1.6% more 0–12-year-old boys than girls in this area. The


18 A. D. Refshauge et al. under-representation of girls at playgrounds is not new (Harper & Sanders, 1975), but there is still a need to further investigate which affordances girls prefer at playgrounds. In the sand play setting, more play types were observed than anticipated with functional play being the dominant type, which was unexpected. However, a recent study shows that play at public playgrounds tends to be dominated by functional play when children are not with peers or siblings of a similar age (Refshauge et al., 2013). The POE implies that the design of PlayLab Cph could have been improved, for example, by design solutions that catered more for the preferences of the youngest children and girls. Even though most anticipated and research-based affordances were actualised, there is no way of determining whether PlayLab is better than a non-EBD playground design. However, this study’s EBD approach is a first step towards the implementation of a method to create better playgrounds and make better informed design decisions. The challenge for a designer is not to create behaviour settings which are as easy to read as possible by, for example, selecting well-known play equipment from a catalogue and predicting whether a child will slide or not. Rather it is to create a landscape in which different types of behaviour settings in conjunction provide opportunities for many potential affordances and sensory stimulation with reference to the specific user group. It is clear that not only the individual play features but the whole setting and especially the relation between sub-settings are important in many of the play activities. Clearly, it is impossible to predict every single human action, no matter how many intentions have been included in the design. Even so, it is important that this preliminary attempt to link knowledge of children’s developmental needs and characteristics with potential affordances and the design characteristics of behaviour settings is further developed in the future. Methodological Discussion and Limitations During this research the main author was involved in a design process with external collaborators and afterwards had the task of evaluating the result. Having an awareness of possible biases in having this role was thus important, although it has been done before (see e.g. Herrington & Studtmann, 1998; Moore & Cosco, 2007). As opposed to these previous examples, we did not have a research team to collect and validate the POE data. Instead the analyses were validated by the co-authors. The researcher being involved in both the design and evaluation can also be an advantage (Fallman, 2008). The design is grounded in solid research and based on clearly defined intentions making it feasible to afterwards study and observe use on-site. EBD can really only be evaluated if the intentions are known by the observer. Another approach to research by design in which the researcher is more separated from the design process is the workshop-based method (Backhaus, Dam, & Bergen Jensen, 2012), where the researcher is a facilitator who feeds the designers with research-based knowledge and methods but otherwise leaves all design decisions to them. This may reduce the risk of bias but it also creates a distance between researcher and design. A small part of the evidence used in the EBD process was not peer reviewed. However, most of this evidence was derived using valid scientific methods. Further, some evidence is based on results from child care research. As individual playground

Evidence-Based Playground Design 19 visitors and children in groups (e.g. from child care centres) use public playgrounds differently (Refshauge et al., in press) this should be considered in future EBD projects. Due to time limitations, we did not obtain additional perspectives by interviewing children. Many adults did, however, discuss the relevant questions with their children if they were old enough.


Conclusion In evidence-based design (EBD), best design practice, client and user wishes and research evidence are triangulated on equal terms. This paper presents: 1) a model for evidence-based playground design; 2) the design of a playground based on this model; and 3) a post-occupancy-evaluation (POE) of the built playground. The model embraces the theoretical concepts of affordances and behaviour settings. Children’s developmental characteristics were transformed into affordances that were designed for in specific behaviour settings to support their actualisation. The behaviour setting design was based on the triangulation of playground research as well as client wishes and best practice. The POE shows that the affordance and behaviour setting concepts were helpful in creating a more informed design with many of the intended affordances being actualised. It was also clear that not only the individual play features but the whole behaviour setting and especially the relation between different settings were important in many play activities. The presented EBD model can be adapted by practitioners and included in the education of landscape architects. However, evidence to support the model is still needed to identify which affordances should be included in designs. Additional environmental studies that can support design decisions are also needed. Finally, the results should be made easily accessible to practitioners and students. References Ayres, J. A. (Ed.). (1979). Sensory integration and the child. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services. Backhaus, A., Dam, T., & Bergen Jensen, M. (2012). Stormwater management challenges as revealed through a design experiment with professional landscape architects. Urban Water Journal, 9, 29–43. Barker, R. C. (Ed.). (1968). Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods for studying the environment of human behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Brown, J. G., & Burger, C. (1984). Playground designs and preschool children’s behavior. Environment and Behavior, 16, 599–627. Brown, R. D., & Corry, R. C. (2011). Evidence-based landscape architecture: The maturing of a profession. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100, 327–329. Burdette, H. L., & Whitaker, R. C. (2005). Resurrecting free play in young children: Looking beyond fitness and fatness to attention, affiliation, and affect. Archives of Peadiatric and Dolescent Medicine, 159, 46–50. Chawla, L. (1992). Childhood place attachment. In I. Altman & S. M. Low (Eds.), Place attachment (pp. 63–86). New York: Plenum Press. City of Copenhagen (2008) Projektbeskrivelse for projekt ‘Plads til leg’ [Project description for ‘Space for Play’]. Cosco, N. (2006). Motivation to move: Physical activity affordances in preschool play areas. School of Landscape Architecture, Edinburgh College of Art Heriot Watt University. Fallman, D. (2008). The interaction design research triangle of design practice, design studies, and design exploration. Design Issues, 24, 4–18.


20 A. D. Refshauge et al. Fjørtoft, I. (2004). Landscape as playscape: The effects of natural environments on children’s play and motor development. Children, Youth and Environments, 14, 21–44. Retrieved 23 September 2008, from http:// www.colorado.edu/journals/cye/ Fjørtoft, I., & Sageie, J. (2000). The natural environment as a playground for children: Landscape description and analyses of a natural playscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48, 83–97. Frost, J. L., Brown, P.-S., Sutterby, J. A., & Thornton, C. D. (Eds.). (2004). The developmental benefits of playgrounds. Washington, DC: Association for Childhood Education International. Gibson, J. J. (Ed.). (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Gillham, B. (Ed.). (2000). Case study research methods. London: Continuum. Grahn, P., Mårtensson, F., Lindblad, B., Nilsson, P., & Ekman, A. (Eds.) (1997). Ute på dagis - hur anvender barn daghemsgården? Utformning av daghemsgårdar och dess betydelse for lek, motorik och koncentrationsförmåga [Out in the Preschool]. Alnarp: MOVIUM [in Swedish]. Harper, L., & Sanders, L. (1975). Preschool children’s use of space: Sex differences in outdoor play. Developmental Psychology, 11, 119–120. Heft, H. (1988). Affordances of children’s environments: A functional approach to environmental description. Children’s Environments Quarterly, 5, 29–37. Herrington, S. (1999). Playgrounds as community landscapes. Built Environment, 25, 25–34. Herrington, S., & Studtmann, K. (1998). Landscape interventions: New directions for the design of children’s outdoor play environments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 42, 191–205. Hughes, F. P. (Ed.). (2009). Children, play and development. London: SAGE. Hutt, S., Tyler, S., Hutt, C., & Christopherson, H. (Eds.). (1989). Play, exploration, and learning: A natural history of the pre-school. London: Routledge. Jansson, M. (2010). Attractive playgrounds: Some factors affecting user interest and visiting patterns. Landscape Research, 35, 63–81. Jespersen, J. F. (2007). Survey of teenagers’ physical activity behaviour, 2007. Retrieved 11 June 2009, from: http://teenagers.kompan.com/p75.asp Johnson, J. E., Christie, J. F., & Yawkey, T. D. (Eds.). (1999). Play and early childhood development. New York: Teachers College Press. Kaplan, S. (2001). Meditation, restoration, and the management of mental fatigue. Environment and Behavior, 33, 480–506. Kyttä, M. (2004). The extend of children’s independent mobility and the number of actualized affordances as criteria for child-friendly environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 179–198. Lester, S., & Russell, W. (2008). Play for a change. Play, policy and practice: A review of contemporary perspectives. London: Play England. Louv, R. (Ed.). (2008). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill. Maxey, I. (1999). Playgrounds: From oppressive spaces to sustainable places. Built Environment, 25, 18–24. Maxwell, L. E., Mitchell, M. R., & Evans, G. W. (2008). Effects of play equipment and loose parts on preschool children’s outdoor play behavior: An observational study and design intervention. Children, Youth and Environments, 18, 36–63. Retrieved 31 July 2009, from http://www.colorado.edu/journals/cye Moore, R. C. (Ed.). (2007). Plants for play: A plant selection guide for children’s outdoor environments. Berkeley, CA: MIG Communications. Moore, R. C., & Cosco, N. G. (2007). What makes a park inclusive and universally designed? A multimethod approach. In C. Ward Thompson & P. Travlou (Eds.), Open space: People space (pp. 85–110). Abingdon: Taylor & Francis. Moore, R. C., & Cosco, N. G. (2010). Using behaviour mapping to investigate healthy outdoor environments for children and families: conceptual framework, procedures and applications. In C. Ward Thompson, P. Aspinall, & S. Bell (Eds.), Innovative approaches to researching landscape and health: Open space: People space 2 (pp. 33–73). Abingdon: Routledge. Moore, R. C., Goltsman, S. M., & Iacofano, D. S. (Eds.). (1992). Play for all guidelines: Planning, design and mannagement of outdoor play settings for all children. Berkeley, CA: MIG Communications. Mårtensson, F. (2004). Landskapet i leken: En studie av utomhuslek på förskolegården. Alnarp: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Nicholson, S. (1970). What do playgrounds teach? In The Planning and Design of the Recreation Environment (pp. 5–1–5-11). Davis: University of California, Davis. Pedersen, B., & Brodersen, A. (2008). Tidligere Indsats 1 [Earlier effort]. Grundmotorik, 34(1), 1–36.


Evidence-Based Playground Design 21 Perry, J. P. (2003). Making sense of outdoor pretend play. Young Children, 58, 26–30. Pollowy, A. (Ed.) (1977). The urban nest. Stroudsburg: PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross. Ramsey, P. (1995). Changing social dynamics in early childhood classrooms. Child Development, 66, 764–773. Refshauge, A. D., Stigsdotter, U. K., & Petersen, L. S. (2013). Play and behavior characteristics in relation to the design of four danish public playgrounds. Children, Youth and Environments, 23, 22–48. Smilansky, S. (Ed.). (1968). The effects of sociodramatic play on disadvantaged preschool children. New York: Wiley. The Danish National Board of Health. (2010). Recommendations for children and young people. Retrieved 18 May 2010, from: http://www.sst.dk/English/Health_promotion/Physical_activity/Recommendations_for_ children_and_young_people.aspx Thorleifsdottir, K. (2008). Neighborhood design: Associations between suburban neighborhood morphology and children’s outdoor, out-of-school, physical activities. Chapel Hill: North Carolina State University. Habitat, U. N. (2008). State of the world’s cities 2008/2009. Nairobi: United Nations Human Settlements Programme. Veitch, J., Bagley, S., Ball, K., & Salmon, J. (2006). Where do children usually play? A qualitative study of parents’ perceptions of influences on children’s active free-play. Health & Place, 12, 383–393. Wells, N. M., & Evans, G. W. (2003). Nearby nature: A buffer of life stress among rural children. Environment and Behavior, 35, 311–330. Woolley, H. (2008). Watch this space! Designing for children’s play in public open spaces. Geography Compass, 2, 495–512. Woolley, H., & Lowe, A. (2012). Exploring the relationship between design approach and play value of outdoor play spaces. Landscape Research. doi:10.1080/01426397.2011.640432 World Health Organisation. (2007). Inequalities in young people’s health: Health behaviour in school-aged children: International report from the 2005/2006 survey. CAHRU: Child and Adolescent Health Research Unit, The University of Edinburgh. Zeisel, J. (2006). Inquiry by design: Environment/behavior/neuroscience in architecture, interiors, landscape and planning. New York: W. W. Noton & Company.