Universal Playgrounds:

Integrating All Children Through Play

Gemstone Universal Playgrounds Team

Sharika Bhattacharya, Holly Cummings, Jordan Gilmore, Amanda Karr, Clint Lee, Jamie Olson, Jonathan Roberts, Dora Syin, Paula Yellon, Nathan Yokel
Team Mentor: Mr. Glenn Rahmoeller

Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Gemstone Program, University of Maryland, 2003.

Table of Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 1 Acknowledgements............................................................................................................. 2 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 3 Play and Playgrounds.......................................................................................................... 4 Definition of Play............................................................................................................ 4 Playground History ......................................................................................................... 7 Importance of Playgrounds ........................................................................................... 13 Benefits of Play and Playgrounds ..................................................................................... 16 Psychological Development.......................................................................................... 16 Social Development ...................................................................................................... 18 Physical Development .................................................................................................. 24 Benefits of Play and Playgrounds to Those with Disabilities........................................... 28 Psychological Development.......................................................................................... 28 Sociological Development ............................................................................................ 31 Physical Development .................................................................................................. 34 Benefits of Play and Playgrounds for All Children .......................................................... 37 Playground Design through Two Sets of Eyes ................................................................. 41 Guidelines and Legal Requirements ................................................................................. 43 International Guidelines................................................................................................ 43 The Americans with Disabilities Act............................................................................ 44 Solutions for Playgrounds for All Abilities ...................................................................... 48 The Maryland Boundless Playground Initiative ........................................................... 48 Weaknesses ................................................................................................................... 51 Adult Accessibility........................................................................................................ 53 Research Methods............................................................................................................. 54 Survey ........................................................................................................................... 54 Interviews...................................................................................................................... 57 Ratings .......................................................................................................................... 59 Safety .................................................................................................................... 62 Landing Area Surfacing.................................................................................... 62 Equipment Condition ........................................................................................ 64 Local Dangers ................................................................................................... 64 Property Condition............................................................................................ 65 Layout of Playground ....................................................................................... 65 Accessible Equipment........................................................................................... 66 Type of Access.................................................................................................. 66 Integration Level............................................................................................... 67 Accessible Facilities.............................................................................................. 68 Pathway............................................................................................................. 68 Parking Location............................................................................................... 69 Benches ............................................................................................................. 70 Shaded Areas .................................................................................................... 70 Age Appropriate Design ....................................................................................... 71 Promotes Social Development.............................................................................. 72

Physical Development .......................................................................................... 73 Intellectual Stimulation......................................................................................... 75 Sensory Stimulation .............................................................................................. 75 Aesthetics.............................................................................................................. 76 Meets the Need ..................................................................................................... 77 Research Results ............................................................................................................... 78 Survey ........................................................................................................................... 78 Interviews...................................................................................................................... 85 Ratings .......................................................................................................................... 90 A Novel Recommendation for Truly Boundless Play .................................................... 100 Introduction................................................................................................................. 100 Proposal....................................................................................................................... 101 Swing .................................................................................................................. 109 Adjustable Basketball Hoop ............................................................................... 110 Sand/Mud/Water Table....................................................................................... 111 Horizontal Ladder ............................................................................................... 112 Spring Ride ......................................................................................................... 112 Intercom .............................................................................................................. 113 Other Structures .................................................................................................. 113 Community ..................................................................................................................... 117 Communication........................................................................................................... 117 Site .............................................................................................................................. 120 Support and Approval ................................................................................................. 127 Funding ....................................................................................................................... 128 Benefits of Playground ............................................................................................... 130 Conclusions..................................................................................................................... 133 Appendix A: Tables ........................................................................................................ 139 Table 1: Relationship between the number of elevated and ground level components. ..................................................................................................................................... 139 Table 2: Probability of Supporting Universal Playgrounds Given Position of Respondent.................................................................................................................. 140 Table 3: Probability of Supporting Universal Playgrounds Given Need Category .... 141 Table 4: Probability of Perceived Benefit Given Need Category............................... 142 Table 5: Chi-square Calculation for Position of Respondent versus Perceived Benefit ..................................................................................................................................... 143 Table 6: Chi-square Calculation for Support versus Position of Respondent ............ 144 Table 7: Chi-square Calculation for Perceived Benefit versus Support for Universal Playgrounds................................................................................................................. 145 Table 8: Chi-square Calculation for Perceived Benefit versus Need Category.......... 146 Table 9: Chi-square Calculation for Position of Respondent versus Perceived Benefit ..................................................................................................................................... 147 Table 10: Preferred Type of Equipment for All Survey Respondents, Ordered by Descending Mean Value ............................................................................................. 148 Table 11: Preferred Type of Equipment for All People with Disabilities, Ordered by Descending Mean Value ............................................................................................. 149

ii

Table 12: Preferred Type of Equipment for People with Disabilities, Broken Down by Type of Disability ....................................................................................................... 150 Table 13: Proposed Playground Equipment and Material Costs ................................ 151 Appendix B: Figures ....................................................................................................... 152 Figure 1: Breakdown of Respondents by Position...................................................... 152 Figure 2: Breakdown of Need Categories for People who Reported a Relationship to a Child with a Disability ................................................................................................ 153 Figure 3: Preferred Location of Playgrounds.............................................................. 154 Figure 4: Adaptations Needed to Current Playgrounds .............................................. 155 Figure 5: Playground Rating Results .......................................................................... 156 Appendix C: Codebook for the Universal Playgrounds Survey 2002 ............................ 157 Appendix D: Sample Survey .......................................................................................... 161 Appendix E: Informed Consent Form and Survey Cover Letter .................................... 163 Appendix F: Sample Form for Playground Rating System ............................................ 165 Appendix G: Sample Form for Development of Playground Rating System................. 166 Appendix H: Sample ADA Accessible Checklist........................................................... 167

iii

Figures Appearing Within the Text

Figure 6: Wheelchair ramp to central play structure 108 Figure 7: Transfer station Figure 8: Dual slide Figure 9: Slide Figure 10: Specialized wide slide Figure 11: Spiral slide Figure 12: Specialized support swing Figure 13: Adjustable basketball hoop Figure 14: Sand/water table Figure 15: Roundabout horizontal ladder Figure 16: Spring ride with sidecar attachment Figure 17: Three-way spring ride Figure 18: Specialized spring rides prevent falls Figure 19: Intercom 108 108 109 109 109 109 110 110 111 111 112 112 113

iv

Abstract
Children with disabilities face many challenges affecting their future interpersonal relationships and emotional health, including poor integration into their peers' play. Playgrounds are traditional sites for youth interaction, but playground designs often require children with disabilities to sit on the sidelines. In order to assess these challenges and determine how best to address them, a literature review, survey, and interviews with experts in the field were conducted. Existing playgrounds were also evaluated for safety, accessibility, and play value. Through the survey, parents and teachers of children with disabilities and therapy specialists (N=265) provided first-hand and expert insight to the optimal design of a universal playground capable of integrating children of all abilities. Results of the survey show slides, swings, and structures facilitating social interaction, like play huts, tunnels, and bridges, to be the most popular and chinning bars, horticulture areas, and balance beams to be the least popular pieces of equipment. These data must be integrated with research from the experts showing structures like balance beams to be therapeutic for patients with disabilities, and therefore beneficial to a playground. Playground ratings showed large deficiencies in landing surface material, type of access for children with disabilities, integration and difficulty level, cooperative play activities, intellectual activities and sensory stimulation activities. Results were used to design a blueprint for a universal playground that can be integrated into any community and plans to construct a prototype in College Park, MD, have begun.

Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the following people and organizations for their assistance with our project and thank them for the time, energy, and expertise they donated to our team: Our discussants, Dr. Jane Clark, Dr. Paul H. Hahn, George F. Jamar, Donna Klem; our interview subjects, Christina Bishop, Dr. Jane Clark, Li-Chiou Chen, Dr. Paul H. Hahn, Teri Kozlowski, Laura Money, Andrea Richardson, Kathleen Rodriguez, Yvonne Smith, Dr. Kaci Thompson, Jennifer Ways, Susan Zwany; those instrumental in survey distribution, Naomi Cohen, Trisha Klokow, Carol Legarreta, Beata Okulska, Ellen Olson, Charlotte Stinnett, Pat Streeder, University of Maryland Center for Young Children; those who provided valuable information, Melissa Busch, Childrens Playgrounds Inc., Naomi Cohen, College Park City Council, especially Mayor Steven Brayman and councilmen Andrew Fellows and Eric Olson, Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning CommissionCherry Hill playground forum, PlayDesigns, Playworld Systems; William Daniel Newsome, our team librarian; the Gemstone Program staff; and Glenn Rahmoeller, our team mentor.

Introduction
When this team was first founded in spring 2000, its broad goal was to address the field of technology for people with disabilities. The team felt the ongoing research into this particular topic was promising, and wanted to make its own contribution. Adaptive technology (AT) was particularly appealing to us, but, as we quickly learned, each disability and disease brings with it a multitude of required adaptations for daily living. To address just one single adaptation for one specific disorder seemed too narrow a focus; our hope was to help the greatest possible number by addressing a more common experience. The largest problem fitting that description is inclusion into the non-disabled world, and the population subset arguably most affected by non-inclusion is children. One of the activities most important to childhood is play, yet this activity is one in which children with disabilities are often not able to participate, at least not in the conventional school and playground setting. The problem we were addressing became clear: to integrate children with and without disabilities in play settings and include all children in the activity of play. Our mission became to plan and build a universally accessible playground that would help alleviate this problem in the College Park area, and provide a blueprint for other communities to follow in suit. We have conducted an intensive literature review of material pertinent to disabilities and disability awareness. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1991 provided a starting point, and has guided each step of the planning process. We constructed a survey about the design and application of universal playgrounds and administered it to adults from many walks of life. We administered it to a wide crosssection of parents and teachers of both children with and without disabilities in order to

gain an understanding of the communitys needs and opinions. We set out to rate Maryland playgrounds for safety and accessibility in order to show that the need for a universal playground is profound. We also interviewed experts who work with children and children with disabilities to gather professional opinions on the importance of play and playground equipment. After taking into account the suggestions of the literature, community, and playground ratings, we were able to design a prototype for a universal playground prototype that can be adapted for any community and location. The prototype will be implemented in the College Park area, and follow up studies of its effectiveness will be planned. The Gemstone Universal Playgrounds Team comprises 10 undergraduate students from the University of Maryland and several fields of study, including biology, psychology, journalism, computer science, kinesiology, government and politics, and criminology and criminal justice. Our research was done under the guidance of a Gemstone mentor and was augmented by numerous individuals and organizations.

Play and Playgrounds

Definition of Play
Play takes many forms, but the heart of play is pleasure an important component in learning (Perry, 2001). Play can be defined in many different ways and can take many different forms. It is the general consensus among educators that if it isnt fun, it isnt play (Perry, 2001). Play starts immediately after birth just in different forms. Children play using different parts of their bodies, their minds, and their words in different methods such as building things, fantasy and humor, which are all pleasurable (Perry, 2001). Play can also be viewed as the passion of young children (Honig, 2000).

Play allows children to learn about their surroundings and become comfortable in their environments. The definition of play used in this thesis will be the one created by the International Association for the Childs Right to Play: PLAY is communication and expression, combining thought and action; it gives satisfaction and a feeling of achievement. PLAY is instinctive, voluntary, and spontaneous. PLAY helps children develop physically, mentally, emotionally, and socially. PLAY is a means of learning to live, not a mere passing of time. (2002e) This definition can be directly related to play on playgrounds. Play is a form of communication between children especially on playgrounds because children congregate on them. They work together to explore the equipment and make up their own of games. Children acquire a sense of accomplishment when reaching the top of a piece of playground equipment or going down a slide together. On a playground, children are allowed to choose the equipment they want to play on when they want to play with it. Play, according to Brett, Moore, and Provenzo, consists of two elements: a social dimension and a content dimension (Brett, Moore, & Provenzo, 1993). The social dimension of play focuses on collaborative and cooperative skills fostered by children as they play with adults as well as with each other. Social participation among children ages 5-12 can further be broken down into six stages: unoccupied behavior, onlooker behavior, solitary play, parallel play, associative play, and cooperative play. The content dimension of play relates to the content of the childrens play as well as to the equipment with which the children play. The content dimension can be broken down into sensorimotor play, symbolic play, and games with rules.

The conception of play has taken a dramatic turn over the past few decades. Twenty years ago in the 1980s, the school-age child could devote 40% of the day to free time, meaning the hours left over after sleeping, eating, studying, and engaging in organized activities. By 1997, that percentage was down to 25 (Cole, 2001). Current research suggests that out society has the capability of taking the fun out of everything, including fun itself (Cole, 2001). At the top of a list of the enemies of play are adults. Parents have been endangering play with more school-related and extracurricular activities. Experts on play, including Alvin Rosenfeld, conclude that play is joyful and emotionally nourishing (Cole, 2001). Stuart Brown, founder of the Institute for Play, believes that too little play may have a dark side. Play deprivation can lead to depression, hostility, and the loss of the things that make us human beings (Cole, 2001). Forty percent of school districts across the country have recently removed recess and replaced it with more learning time, leading Arnold to write, More and more, it seems that we have lost sight of the child in childhood and turned it into a joyless training camp for the adult world (Arnold, 2001). Experts are beginning to believe that society has taken away the opportunity for children to play and be children. Parents are forcing their children to pick up a hobby, sport, or instrument with an overly competitive edge. However, young children need their own time to grow. Play brings joy, contentment, and detachment from the trouble of the day. Especially nowadays, in our hectic, timeand money-driven culture, the important of play cannot be emphasized enough (Arnold, 2001). The father of modern kindergarten, Friedrich Froebel, states, A child who plays thoroughly and perseveringly, until physical fatigue forbids, will be a determined adult, capable of self-sacrifice both for his own welfare and that of others (Arnold, 2001).

Many school systems are eliminating recess from their school days, leading Arnold to believe we as a society need to re-evaluate the importance of play in our schoolyards. By eliminating the amount of recess time in a childs school day, the focus of play is shifting toward parents and play outside school. Playgrounds offer a solution for parents, who may have difficulty organizing family activities, to take the entire family to go play together.

Playground History
Although play has been integral in childrens development throughout human history, it was not until the 19th century that Western society developed the play yard (Hendricks, 2001). Before the early 1800s, children were thought of as small adults and as such, an area for them to play in was thought unnecessary. Play occurred more sporadically and only after chores and work was complete. A few playgrounds graced the country in the 1890s, but support waned and depended completely on philanthropy. Compounding the problem of the development of the playground was a lack of space. Cities were constructed around the grid system with little open spaces for play or playgrounds (Eriksen, 1985). However, play activities were increasing in the first two decades of the 20th century as schools began developing physical education programs (Eriksen, 1985). The Reform movement in the early 1900s sought to free children from labor and the hardships of industrialization that prevented play. With the passage of labor laws, the growth of public education, and increasing prosperity in the lower class, the stage was set for play and playgrounds to develop (Eriksen, 1985). The Reform movement gathered public and private funds for playgrounds in urban areas (Hendricks, 2001). However,

most support for the playgrounds did not come from the reformist ideals about childhood, but from studies of urban young mens physical fitness when entering the military. It was determined that boys from urban areas were denied military approval because they were weaker, and therefore unfit for service, as compared to boys from rural areas. Because of a need for soldiers in World War I, support grew for play areas to help childrens physical development (Hendricks, 2001). The major types of playgrounds are traditional and adventure. Other divisions of playgrounds include the creative, preschool playground, educational playground, backyard playground, and designer playground. However, the adventure and traditional playgrounds form the basis for the other subdivisions. The traditional playground dominates the American perception of playgrounds (Brett et al., 1993). It typically includes jungle gyms, swings, slides, and teeter-totters. Traditional playgrounds are often arranged in circular fashion, with a sandbox at the center (Wilkinson, 1980). Critiques of the traditional playgrounds include its onedimensional style, lacking the ability to respond to childrens imagination and individual needs. The traditional playground emphasizes exercise and physical development, leaving limited room to foster a childs other critical skills, including socialization and imagination. The adventure playground is usually an informal, large, fenced-in play area with a variety of scrap materials for children to use in imaginative and creative play (Brett et al., 1993). Instead of the traditional playground equipment, the adventure playground

contains lumber, pipes, tires, and other pieces of junk. Many refer to the adventure playground as the junk playground, work yard, or Robinson Crusoe playground, but the adventure playground movement sought to bring elements of rural play to city children (Eriksen, 1985). The adventure playground movement began in the 1940s, flourished in the late 1970s, and decreased in popularity shortly thereafter because of money constraints, lack of aesthetic appeal, and safety concerns. The first adventure playground was built in Emdrup, Copenhagen, in 1943, 12 years after C.T. Sorensen developed the concept of a junk playground in his book, Open Spaces for Town and Country (Bengtsson, 1972). The first American adventure playground was built in Minneapolis, Minn., in 1950. Although deemed highly successful, the idea of adventure playgrounds was not duplicated anywhere else in the country until the mid-1960s (Eriksen, 1985). Adventure playgrounds never fully took off in America, although they are common in Europe and Japan, because Americans are more worried about safety and visual aesthetics and have therefore shied away from these unstructured junk piles (Shell, 1994). An adventure playground needs staff members, or leaders, to organize activities such as hut building, cooking, carpentry, painting, and tunnel digging. However, the play leader does not initiate or direct the activities, but supervises for safety and assistance. John Bertelsen, one such play leader, describes his job as a facilitator of play among the children to make sure all children are playing safe and helping to foster development by

not hindering their own creativity (Bengtsson, 1972). He goes on to explain that he wants to give children the opportunity to play, but the initiative must come from them. Bill Michaelis developed six basic values the adventure playground has over the traditional playground (Brett et al., 1993): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. At adventure playgrounds, the lack of adult-prescribed structure encourages social and moral growth. Adventure playgrounds provide change and flexibility. Adventure playgrounds provide for fantasy making as opposed to fantasy feeding. Adventure playgrounds provide for physical and psychological development through self-selected risk taking. Adventure playgrounds provide for mainstreaming and integration of diverse groups. Adventure playgrounds are creative settings for the modeling of play behavior for children by adults.

In February 1970, an adventure playground for children with disabilities opened in Chelsea, London. The playground consisted of a jumping frame, a lookout tower, a sand and water area, and areas for creative play. The creative play could include cooking, dressing up, playing a piano, building, painting, making a fire, or other activities the child developed from materials in the play area. Dorothy Whitaker described the playground as similar to other adventure playgrounds, but smaller, with only a 30-person maximum (Bengtsson, 1972). The playground catered to those with physical disabilities, including spina bifida, epilepsy, and deafness. Whitaker notes that the adventure playground increased the childrens confidence and led them to be more independent. It helped children who normally used braces to learn to play on the climbing equipment and children who originally needed complete adult supervision to become independent.

10

Creative playgrounds are traditional playgrounds with an adventure appeal. They are low-cost playgrounds that usually result from a community initiative. The creative playground has a semiformal arrangement of commercial equipment along with scavenged materials such as tires, road ties, and telephone poles. While they are not adventure playgrounds because they do not have a play leader and often have some typical traditional equipment, they lend themselves to a more wide range of activities than the basic traditional playground. In the 1950s, playgrounds focused on motor skills. Parallel bars, monkey bars, and seesaws were common to all playgrounds (Seligman & Cohen, 1993). A decade later, the focus switched to imaginative play, with equipment fostering situations such as living in a house, captaining a pirate ship, riding a horse, and ruling over a kingdom. The newest revolutions in playground design are playgrounds focused on learning (Seligman et al., 1993). Playgrounds now contain equipment that teaches children about geography, music, and science. The playground of the United Nations International School features models of the Eiffel Tower, Taj Mahal, and an African hut. It also has a musical table of varying thicknesses that produces different tones at different spots. An echo chamber provides vocal amusement and a speaking tube mimics a telephone. These playgrounds are fun themselves, but also educational; both teachers and parents can incorporate them into lessons (Seligman et al., 1993). Nature also plays a large part in newer playgrounds. A Jacksonville, Fla., playground features an archeological dig site, and a bog, bayou, and shipbuilding area were added to supplement school activities (Seligman et al., 1993). A San Mateo, Calif.,

11

playground contains a sand dune, water area with a dam, chute, and pump. These water activities are built at varying heights and are therefore wheelchair accessible (Seligman et al., 1993). Deborah Ryan, a playground specialist, has developed a few new, innovative playgrounds focused on equality (Seligman et al., 1993). She uses recycled and discarded materials to foster imaginative activities such as simulating the sounds of a thunderstorm and crawling in tunnels like a bear. Other new playgrounds have incorporated art and painting. Gardens that the children tend are becoming common on playgrounds (Seligman et al., 1993). Flood Park is a model playground in Menlo, Calif. Children are encouraged to be acrobats, engineers, actors, directors, and scientists. Susan Goltsman, Flood Parks designer, recounts that the back alleys, vacant fields, and vacant lots where children retreated to a few decades ago have turned into danger zones or no longer exist (Shell, 1994). Flood Park and other Glotsman playgrounds attempt to incorporate local cultures, native topography, and nature into their designs. Some parks have climbing areas made of logs and rocks. Glotsman was the mastermind behind installing the archaeology site in the Jacksonville, Fla., playground cited earlier. Her Harlem playground has modules that resemble the Apollo Theater, a store, fire engine, and ambulance (Shell, 1994). However, there is also a garden that encourages the appreciation of and care for nature. Murals surrounding the park depict the farther reaches of the city and beyond. One mural shows Yankee Stadium and the Arctic. Another depicts a bridge and Egyptian pyramids. These images and activities bring local and worldviews together. Shell reports the combination

12

encourages pride in the neighborhood, but also helps the children see beyond to the rest of the world (Shell, 1994). The Playground for All Children, located in Addison, Ill., is another model playground. This playground was designed in the early 1980s to be as easily accessible to children with disabilities as it is for children without disabilities, and more importantly, to allow all children to play together. However, the truly inspirational part of the playground is the fact that it employs trained play leaders, like those at many European playgrounds, who organize games, art and gardening projects, and animal encounters (Shell, 1994).

Importance of Playgrounds
The goal [of people involved in childrens play] is to improve childrens play environments and to increase the quantity and quality of childrens play opportunities and positive play experiences (Wilkinson, 1980). Many principles and criteria have been used to evaluate different play experiences. It is important to include the following values no matter where the playground is located: physical fitness, intelligence, creativity and imagination, emotional stability and initiative, social assurance and cooperation, selfconfidence and competence, individuality, a sense of responsibility and integrity, a nonsexist outlook, and a sense of humor (Wilkinson, 1980). Evidence shows that not only does the school and home influence a childs development, but his or her play life also has a major role. It is important to be able to evaluate the type of play a child is engaging in so that the perfect play experience can be developed. Physical fitness involves activities and equipment that foster development of large muscles of the body. It is important that children have opportunities requiring the use of large muscles and presenting a challenge. A childs development should be pushed, but challenges cannot

13

be restricted. The opportunity to explore and experiment with new things will foster the development of a childs intellect and prepare the child for tackling real-world problems. These opportunities can be provided through the presence of a variety of equipment with lots of loose material and natural materials that can be studied and molded (Wilkinson, 1980). Sensory stimulation develops creativity and imagination, and the opportunity for a child to make decisions encourages emotional stability and initiative. By taking initiative in decision-making and seeking out new experiences, children begin to feel good about themselves and achieve emotional satisfaction. In this sense, play leaders are beneficial to a playground because they actively develop an environment that encourages initiative taking. The right play environment can also promote social interaction, self-confidence, individuality, and a sense of responsibility. Social play can be encouraged by play houses; by materials to make their own huts; by blocks and boards for younger children to construct into houses, stores or spaceships; by places to meet and talk; by lots of loose materials with which to work together (Wilkinson, 1980). Creative and adventure playgrounds offer an opportunity for families, including working parents, to have more quality time together (Frost, Wortham, & Reifel, 2001). The value of play to a developing child is that it allows interaction among other children, which is an invaluable experience. Play gives children the opportunity for physical, social, and mental development. For these reasons, play is one of the most important activities in a childs life. The facility in which children are best able to engage in play is the playground. A playground provides a setting where children can interact on

14

a variety of equipment and utilize their mental and social skills simultaneously (Frost & Klein, 1979). At its most basic level, a playground can be considered an environment made up of a collection of large play objects in close proximity to each other (Frost et al., 1979). Most parents would agree that toys are necessary to a childs upbringing, and playgrounds are just as important. Play objects have two important properties that play key roles in the development of a child: the novelty of the object and its complexity. Novel objects are ones that make a child want to explore them, and the novelty of an object is directly related to the intensity of play the child engages in. If an object is not novel, a child will not explore it upon first contact with it and will instead ignore the object. If a play object is novel, however, the child will explore and then play with it. The complexity of a play object is also important to its use. As an objects complexity increases, the amount and quality of time spent with the object changes, resulting in two different outcomes. A child may regard a more complex object as restricting to its creativity and would choose not to spend as much time with it. In the other outcome, the quality of time spent with the object would decrease, as the child would be forced to spend unnecessary time trying to figure out how to play with the object instead of actually playing with it. Children soon exhaust the limited uses of a complex object and discard it much more quickly than less complex ones. A simple object such as a large box can be used in many different ways and allows children to use their imagination and creativity as opposed to playing with a complex toy designed to perform only a single, complex action.

15

These concepts of novelty and complexity translate into larger play environments but can mean different things in different settings. A study of 4- and 5-year olds playing on high and low complexity play environments showed those playing on the high complexity environment had a higher rate of interaction with the playground itself and less interaction with their peers. Other studies have shown that the number of pieces of equipment on a playground is directly related to the amount of motor play and play with play materials a child experiences (Frost et al., 1979). As the number of pieces of equipment increases, motor play increases and undesirable peer interactions such as hitting, arguing, and teasing decreases. Conversely, a decrease in equipment number correlates to a decrease in gross motor play and an increase in social conflicts. One explanation for these observations is that if children do not have an adequate level of complexity in a play environment, it leaves them to wander aimlessly and find undesirable situations. A 1977 study analyzed the effects of the different types of playgrounds. Creative environments foster more positive peer interactions than traditional playgrounds, which tend toward more solitary play with individual pieces of equipment (Frost et al., 1979). These studies illustrate the importance of playgrounds in childrens play. The types, amount, and complexity of play equipment within a playground have vital roles in childrens development. The activities which occur during free play on the playground form a valuable part of any childs developmental program (Ensign, 1993).

Benefits of Play and Playgrounds

Psychological Development
The act of play has invaluable benefits for a childs own development, in addition to facilitating his or her interactions with peers. These years as a child create the

16

foundation of personality. Experiences during this time have significant repercussions for psychological health. Aspects of personality that emerge during these childhood years include self-concept, self-esteem, self-regulation of emotions, and empathy (Frost et al., 2001). Cognitive ability plays a significant role in the nature of play, as well as regulating the formation and expression of personality. The interactions experienced during this period of growth for a child are dominated by play. The two processes that make up play are utilization of thinking processes and repetition of social interaction, which form the cornerstone of academic learning, illustrating the interdependence of cognitive processes with psychological and social growth (Frost et al., 2001). A direct correlation is found between physical environmental interactions and the number of learning opportunities a child has to increase their physical acuity. Research has also found that children who take part in and enjoy pretend play score higher on measurements of imagination and creativity. This type of play improves their cognitive ability to reason and discern objects from their meanings, allowing them to manipulate the meanings as separate entities (Frost et al., 2001). Jean Piaget, a cognitive developmental psychologist, developed a stage theory to describe the development of cognitive abilities in children, directly related to how children play. Some aspects of Piagets theory concentrated more on positive outcomes for the individual child, which directly affect psychological health, rather than the process of socialization. According to him, children between the ages of 2-7 are in the preoperational stage. They have the ability to conceive objects not present, as evidenced by artwork representing houses, flowers, or people. They are also now capable of

17

symbolic pretend play, which aids them in distinguishing between what is real and what is imaginary. This stage is characterized by egocentrism. The child has difficulty understanding perspectives different from his or her own. The child may believe that everyone feels like him or her, and has difficulty relating to children who feel or act differently (Piaget, 1962). Successful completion of this stage by an appropriate age may depend on the childs exposure to others and their ideas, in an ideal play setting. Psychologist Lev Vygotsky changed the focus from stages of play to a dual nature of play; namely representational play and fantasy play. The former allows the child to deal with unrealizable desires, and involves the process of separating objects from their meanings (Frost et al., 2001; Vygotsky, 1976). This facilitates abstract thinking later on in life. Fantasy play appears when children first develop a moral sense and must learn to delay gratification and do what is appropriate. As the child grows he or she is subject to more rules, which are reflected in the nature of fantasy play. Vygotsky focused on the self-restraining nature of play-the child delegates his or her desires to fantasy roles and voluntarily follows rules in the context of play, making it easier for the child to follow rules in real life (Vygotsky, 1976).

Social Development
Play is well established as a social behavior for children. Either with other children or adults, play is an important avenue of socialization into a particular culture and a way of learning about the world. Most everyone would agree that developmental benefits arise from a wide array of playful activity, including language, cognitive, social and emotional aspects (Ivory & McCollum, 1999). However, the details of which activities lead to which benefits are still an area of interest to researchers. Theoretical views of the levels

18

of play have been striving to understand and explain the process of socialization in the child for more than 60 years. Piagets cognitive theory incorporates psychological with social factors of development. He described the nature of play between 4 to 7 years of age as dramatic or symbolic. Children begin by creating exact replicas of reality, then evolving into play themes where they each partake in a different role. Piaget believed the most advanced form of play was games with rules. Children become competitive and show increasing interest in activities where rules must be followed, an example of socialization (Piaget, 1962). Sara Smilansky added to Piagets model by including collective dramatic play and construction play as categories (Smilansky, 1968). Dramatic play is at its most advanced when representations are person-oriented and attempt to imitate human relationships. Construction play is when the child moves from simply handling objects to actually creating something. Smilansky elaborated on Piagets concept of games with rules, stating that the child must be willing and capable of adjusting to the prearranged rules, thus requiring social interaction. Smilansky claimed that children oscillate between different types and complexities of play from the age of 3 until school age, rather than a strict progression through levels (Smilansky, 1968; Smilansky & Shefatya, 1990). Erik Erickson applied a broader perspective to fantasy play, claiming that children learn about their social world by a greater understanding of cultural roles and internalizing social norms, both a part of play (Creasey, Jarvis, & Berk, 1998). Brian Sutton-Smith is one of the prominent proponents of the correlation between play and evolution. The social play of children is very similar to that of primates, and

19

provides a survival benefit, which is more apparent in primate societies. Playful aggressive behavior provides experience with dominance, increasing the likelihood of self-confident, assertive behaviors later in life (Sutton-Smith, 1976). More recent researchers are hesitant to classify the act of play into categories and levels. They insist that play is a complex behavior, and children can engage in several categories at once (Takhvar & Smith, 1990). In order to describe the act of play fully, additional information on play tempo, intensity, style. play setting and context is necessary (Johnson, 1998). The basic ideas that current research has uncovered are that developmental levels and categories of play overlap, and their definitions are affected by numerous variables, such as length of time in a particular play activity, or subjective experiences of the child (Frost et al., 2001). Because play is a necessary part of development, children will always have the drive to engage in playful activity. However, play is most beneficial when other participants are involved. A childs development can be affected significantly by the number and quality of interactions with other children or adult caregivers (Frost et al., 2001). Social interactions with deprived qualities during the critical period can lead to a risk in the future for poor academic performance and psychological issues. This period should not be thought of as a set age range, but a combination of critical experiences, the childs developmental level, and the childs readiness for interaction (Bailey, 2002). Siblings are a primary source of play interaction for children, making these relationships substantially important. They can be the cause of a childhood filled with conflict, or one with support. Birth order, relationships with parents, and the childrens personalities all affect sibling interactions. Peer relationships are also essential. By participation in early

20

education programs children are given more opportunities for social interaction, but the quality of the program affects whether the child benefits and becomes more socially competent, or instead develops aggressive maladaptive behaviors. Being capable of appropriate socialization, liking, and being liked by others are all characteristics of social competence, the main facet of positive social development (Frost et al., 2001). The childs social network has its base in parental care. Parents decide if and where a child will attend education programs, and how often and with whom a child will interact, to some degree. However, factors external to family influences can support, compensate for, or even undermine thefamily context (Frost et al., 2001). The relationship with primary adults in the childs life is crucial, since this essentially guides social-emotional development, the resulting product of parenting style, child temperament, and type of discipline. The concept of play training, adult intervention in childrens play for the purpose of enhancement, was first introduced by a pioneering study in 1968 by Smilansky (Christie & Johnson, 1985). In this study, Israeli children of low socioeconomic status were taught to engage in sociodramatic play, an advanced form of play behavior in which children plan and cooperate with each other in order to create dramatizations. The results showed improved cognitive performance in some of the children. Other early research has claimed that play training has a beneficial effect on level of play, intelligence, language development, problem solving, conservation attainment, and perspective taking (Christie et al., 1985). Social interaction is also believed to increase as a function of play, regardless of whether it occurs with other adults or children. For children, play acts as a social context for significant experiences later in life, such as conflicting roles.

21

The conclusion reached is that play training, when an adult deliberately instructs a child in play with the purpose of education, is an essential activity for early childhood programs. However, it is not clear if the engaging in playful activity itself promotes change, or the socialization experiences occurring in the context of play. For each child, there is a critical stage at which instruction or aid with play is most beneficial. This stage will differ from child to child based on age, socioeconomic status, and social/cognitive maturity (Christie et al., 1985). For example, impoverished children will not exhibit advanced play until a later age (Christie et al., 1985). If play training is provided too early, the child may not have the necessary social and mental skills to process the instruction and benefit from it. If play training is provided too late, the child may have already mastered that level of play, and receive no benefit either. This information is crucial when constructing a playground, in terms of deciding what types of equipment should be included, and what is the likely mental age of the targeted children. The value a community places on play is another component to keep in mind. Because we live in a capitalistic society, behaviors are valued for their ability to create some sort of profit. In terms of play for education, activity is often evaluated for being capable of leading to some sort of useful skill. Recently, play has become much more constructed, appearing to occur more and more as a type of work for children. However, values typically associated with work are almost polar opposites of those that are associated with play. For example, work can be considered to be planned, serious, and goal-oriented. Play on the other hand, is ideally spontaneous, joyful, and aimless (Christie et al., 1985). Instructional play is optimal for children to obtain skills that are essential for their future,

22

but play without rigid construction contributes to socialization of children and probably serves their most prominent need best, that of enjoyment. As early as the 1930s, Mildred Parten identified developmental levels of social play. The 6 categories she identified progress from least to most advanced: 1. Unoccupied behavior-child is not actively playing, but keeps busy with whatever is of interest in his or her surroundings. 2. Onlooker behavior- child is engrossed in watching others play, speaks with them, but does not overtly enter the play interaction. 3. Solitary play- child engages in play activity dissimilar from those around him, makes no effort to interact. 4. Parallel play- child engages in activity similar to those around him, naturally bringing them together, but they play beside rather than with each other. 5. Associative play- disorganized play with other children, no goal or group interest. 6. Cooperative play- highly organized play, either for the purpose of achieving some goal or competition with formal rules (Frost et al., 2001). Parten claimed that the child is developing in a positive manner as he or she progresses through these stages. However, later research has established a mature role for solitary play as well. Recent findings claim that children today are not as skilled in the more advanced forms of play (Frost et al., 2001). By providing a convenient setting such as a playground for children to interact in, isolation from others can be somewhat avoided, and the child can become more experienced in skilled play. A few major conclusions have been reached from the study of levels of play. There is a noticeable increase in prominence of social play during the preschool years,

23

including a greater frequency, duration, and variation in social contacts (Holmberg, 1980; Jones, 1972; Rubin, Watson, & Jambor, 1978). Children may spend more time in types of non-cooperative play, but they interact with a broad range of peers (Howes, 1983). The amount of play in each of the 6 categories remains relatively unchanged, but the cognitive maturity experienced at this time alters the quality of the play engaged in within each category (Frost et al., 2001).

Physical Development
For the child without physical disabilities, play provides an outlet for muscle and coordination development. Interactions occur with the environment through active exploration, helping a child gain valuable insight on their surroundings and abilities. To interact with their environment, a child without disabilities utilizes perceptual and motor processes. Essentially, children use these processes to improve their skills toward perceptual-motor development as they interface with more and more environmental stimuli. These motor experiences build on one another, enabling the child to learn and understand more complex situations. Researchers Joe Frost and Sue Wortham explain the simple steps that describe this skill acquisition: 1. Our behavior is touched off by the input of a basic stimulus either touch, taste, sound, smell or sight. 2. That sensory input then travels to the brain by way of neural channels. 3. The brain collects, organizes, and stores this sensory information to mix and match as new information constantly arrives.

24

4. Based on the sensory information stored, a decision for action upon the environment is carried back down those neural channels and an action response is initiated. 5. The reaction to the response is then fed back to the individual as to its success or appropriateness. 6. Motor response feedback allows for a change in perception, enabling the individual to try out new responses. 7. As the feedback cycle continues, it ensures that the perceptual and motor learning processes are working together. (Frost et al., 2001) These steps occur within the context of developmental phases, which depend on the age and maturity of the child (Gallahue, 1993). The suggested 4 phases to describe the attainment of motor skills are: 1. Reflexive movement phase is limited to the use of reflexive movements only, such as sucking, grasping, or kicking, usually from birth to about 1 year of age. 2. Rudimentary movement phase is when basic motor skills are achieved, such as holding objects, sitting, standing and walking, usually during the first 2 years of life. 3. Fundamental movement phase involves increased control over gross and fine motor skills. Abilities to run, jump, throw, and catch are developed. This stage, lasting from about 2 years of age to 7 years, is essential for success later on in recreational activities. If children are not moderately adept at these skills by this stage (taking age into context) many may experience frustration and isolation at a later age, when other children appear to be more skilled, leading to social

25

anxiety, or psychological issues. Playgrounds are crucial for children at this stage, to promote skills and interaction with other children. 4. Specialized movement phase ranges from about 7 years of age and continues through the teenage years to adulthood. Individuals in this stage may begin to focus on recreation they particularly enjoy, becoming proficient in specific sports or activities (Gallahue, 1993). Environmental interaction can be broken down into kinesthetic and sensory mode experiences. Awareness in these areas is expanded by a childs physical interactions and movements within space and time (Gallahue, 1993). There are several types of awareness that a child learns through play as described by Gallahue in 1976: 1. Body awareness describes the childs ability to distinguish among body parts and also the knowledge involving what each part does, where it is located, and how certain body parts are better used in different situations. 2. Spatial awareness refers to a childs ability to understand both how much space the body encompasses and the ability to project the body effectively into external space. Children start out tentatively understanding their own place in the environment and how everything is located in relation to them. As children progress, they begin to see things objectively. 3. Directional awareness involves the ability of a child to give objects dimensions in space, specifically in the areas of laterality and directionality. Laterality involves internal awareness of their body with regard to their location and direction. Directionality gives the actual dimensions of objects in space.

26

4. Temporal awareness describes the development of time structure in children directly related to coordinated muscle movements and senses. An example of this is eye-hand coordination. Awareness in this area helps a child to become fluid and smooth in their actions. They develop rhythm and learn synchrony. Auditory elements are most efficient at fostering this development, through activities such as marching with music and general movement (Gallahue, 1976). All of the components listed above can be achieved through play on playgrounds. Play experiences integrate all of these areas of development as children are in perpetual motion on various pieces of equipment. Within a playground, certain pieces of equipment lend themselves to development of specific areas of kinesthetic and sensory development. These areas include locomotion, balance, body and space perception, rhythm and temporal awareness, rebound and airborne movement, projection and reception movement. These pieces of equipment will be described below by first listing the sensory area followed by pieces/activities within a playground that help to promote this sensory area. 1. Locomotion crawling across a wide plank, stepping on graduated levels, i.e. platforms, logs, etc., jumping from varying heights, hurdling over natural objects. 2. Balance Standing and balancing on a walking beam, vertical in ground tire, moving bridge. 3. Body and Space Perception large viewing mirror, fitting in boxes, coordinating movement within a space, climbing under, over, through, around equipment. 4. Rhythm and Temporal awareness swings (recurrent rhythm), jump roping, moving to music, tossing, catching, kicking and dodging objects.

27

5. Rebound and Airborne movement bouncing on springboards, hanging by hands or legs, swinging on a rope. 6. Projection and Reception movement rolling large balls to others or at a target, throwing balls through a hoop, chasing and catching soap bubbles, keeping a balloon off the ground. Children gain confidence in other areas of their life as they develop mastery of their body. Following this mastery, children then progress to higher-level skills such as peer social interaction, athletics, thought and judgment decisions, and academics. Without the fundamental skill of control of ones body, the development of these advanced skills is restricted during the early years of a child. Through these movements within the setting of a playground, children are able to learn about their bodies and gain motor skills. These skills enable children to interact with others, eventually having a positive effect on their emotional, social, and psychological growth.

Benefits of Play and Playgrounds to Those with Disabilities

Psychological Development
The early years of an individuals life, from the ages of 3-12, are crucial in personality formation; they affect future interpersonal interactions and psychological health. The interactions experienced during the early period of a childs growth are dominated by play. Regardless of whether it occurs with other children or adults, play is the way children are socialized into their cultures and how they learn about the world around them. Children often play by themselves when they lack companions. However,

28

social play is an important part of learning and development. It covers linguistic, cognitive, social, and emotional aspects of development (Ivory et al., 1999). For children with disabilities, finding someone with whom to play is often not an easy task. They can experience rejection, ignorance, and unequal treatment by their ablebodied peers, adding issues of low self-esteem and lack of confidence to their existing physical and/or mental disabilities. For these reasons, children with disabilities may be slower to develop emotional maturity. Children with emotional deficits often do not have the skills for normal socialization. Inappropriate outbursts and internalization of feelings are common (Ensign, 1993). Research has shown that the disabled child is most likely to be identified as someone whom non-disabled children would prefer not to have as a friend or a playmate (Field, Roopnarine, & Segal, 1984). If a child with a disability has encountered many situations that resulted in personal failure, this may have debilitating effects on motivation and goal-directed behavior (Field et al., 1984). This suggests childrens feelings of helplessness in social situations might be associated with isolation from others to avoid social rejection from peers. Therefore, if children with disabilities can create lasting friendships with able-bodied children, they can also be exposed to new behaviors, self-esteem, and goal attainment. To create friendships, children with disabilities must engage in play with other children. Sadly, despite play being an integral part of childhood, children with disabilities may have a lack of what can be considered real play with children or parents, replaced instead with therapy and instruction by a professional (Lane & Mistrett, 1996). Parents may not be able to devote the extra time to providing play opportunities to children with disabilities, or they might not know how to facilitate play for them. When interacting

29

with children on a normal developmental scale, parents respond to their childrens actions and promote play scenarios. As the child grows, complexity of play increases, and playing behavior is incorporated into peer interactions. For children with disabilities, this essential early parental focus on play is lacking. When there is a professional involved, he or she is usually in charge, and the parent takes on a passive and observant role. The parent may be included in play, but he or she is not looked at as a primary source of information, or the primary initiator of play. Instead, the parent is usually merely incorporating the professionally suggested play activities at home with the child. Because play holds such an important role in the development of a child, the lack of such interaction in the lives of children with disabilities can have significant consequences. Studies have shown that children with cognitive disabilities require more modeling in order to demonstrate constructive behavior, prefer toys that offer more structured and less creative play, and show limited pretend play. Young children with developmental delays are reported to attend to play tasks less well and to rarely explore their environment spontaneously (Lane et al., 1996). In terms of physical disabilities, the common myth is that these children possess less intelligence. While this is not true, it is often hard for children with disabilities to demonstrate intelligence in play situations. For children who are intellectually delayed, a way to compensate is to encourage social and motor development (Ensign, 1993). From these experiences, a child can begin to reach his or her potential. Play situations need to include all intellectual levels. Children with physical disabilities engage in different types of play than those without disabilities. For children with disabilities, play can often be characterized as

30

passive, sedentary, and solitary. Overall, children with any kind of disability are dependent on facilitators of play (i.e., parents, teachers) long after other children have gained independence in providing themselves with play opportunities and interactions with others. Because of this, caregivers of children with disabilities must be dedicated and skilled in providing these children with the opportunities they need. According to past research, mothers of children with disabilities tend to increase their own input into the play interaction because their child is less responsive. This often results in the child being a passive participant and the mother being the dominant controller of interaction. Parents will often struggle to understand how to interact with their child based on cues that are being received from the child. What is instinctual and normal will often not be appropriate. These barriers prevent play from being the natural source of development, learning, and fun that it is for children without disabilities.

Sociological Development
Social interaction is essential in the early stages of a childs life. Play is the primary vehicle for this social interaction. These early play experiences teach a child how to act with others and develop their imaginations and creativity These interactions are often a childs first exposure to gender role behavior and can greatly influence the advancement of his or her social development. Children learn about cooperation, diversity and acceptable behavior while playing with other children in play settings. Children with disabilities often experience difficulties with this early social interaction and often lag behind their able-bodied peers in social and physical skills that are partially learned in a play setting such as a playground (Ensign, 1993). These difficulties can be attributed to several key factors that children with disabilities possess, many dealing with how those

31

children view themselves. Allowing a child with a disability to overcome these difficulties in order to play and experience social interaction with children with and without disabilities is very important. Children with disabilities experience many feelings that hinder their ability to play with other children. They often lack confidence and many times are withdrawn and passive (Kennedy, Smith, & Austin, 1987). Many children with disabilities see themselves as different and unable to perform physically on par with children without disabilities. They hold themselves back and are lacking in the areas of assertiveness and exploration. These feelings prevent children with disabilities from interacting with others and cause them to fail in their interpersonal relationships with non-handicapped peers (Field et al., 1984). Research has shown that because these children interact infrequently, they experience problems in their social adjustment. Bad experiences early on can only further discourage a child with disabilities. It lowers their confidence even more and makes them apprehensive about future encounters with other children, for fear of rejection. Rather than hear that other children would not like to play with them, children with disabilities resort to playing by themselves. Without the skills learned from key social interactions, children with disabilities can suffer greatly as they attempt to interact with peers later on. Research by Strain and Kerr (1981) note three areas where they are harmed. 1. Children with disabilities do not engage generally in behaviors that are reinforcing to peers. As a consequence, developmentally more advanced youngsters seldom seek children with disabilities out for interaction.

32

2. Children with disabilities do not respond generally to the infrequent approach behaviors of normally developing children. As a result, handicapped children may quickly extinguish attempts to interact and establish a friendship. 3. Children with disabilites often misread subtle social cues and, as a result, behave in ways that are viewed as bizarre and unpredictable (Phillip & Strain, 1981). Because of the difficulties children with disabilities face, it is that much more important for them to have the opportunity to play in an environment where they feel comfortable. Play settings such as playgrounds that are openly accommodating to children with disabilities would greatly encourage them to interact with other children. As mentioned above, children with disabilities often feel isolated because they do not think they can perform some of the same physical activities as their peers. Given equipment that emphasizes their skills, children with disabilities gain confidence. They feel competent on pieces of equipment that they are able to use, and furthermore, non-disabled children would have the chance to see the abilities of their peers with disabilities. Disproving the preconceived notions non-disabled children may have about children with disabilities will lead to a greater likelihood of interaction. A positive cycle follows in which children with disabilities continue to gain confidence as they interact more and more with both other children with disabilities and non-disabled peers. The physical activity alone and the setting of the playground gives a child with disabilities more access to able-bodied children and also encourages social bonding (Taub & Greer, 2000). As one researcher notes, By participating in physical activity, these children with physical disabilities

33

believe they are more similar to peers than they previously thought possible. Interview responses indicate that the physical and social nature of their disability limits opportunities to fulfill role requirements of a child. Physical activity is a means for them to legitimize their social identity as children and to enhance typical childhood interaction (Taub et al., 2000). Children both with and without disabilities feel this benefit from social interaction and play. Children with disabilities develop more positive self-concepts and skills through successful experiences and interactions, and children without disabilities become more sensitive to individual differences and develop more accepting attitudes through mutual friendships (Schleien, Ray, & Green, 1997).

Physical Development
Motor development in children with disabilities cannot occur in the same way as in children without disabilities. Children with disabilities do not respond as quickly to their environment. These children with development delays are particularly at risk for social delay. They require more time in order to develop themselves on play equipment in order to gain the social knowledge more easily acquired by their non-disabled peers (Frost et al., 2001). Children with physical disabilities or significant developmental delays often benefit from physical and occupational therapy interventions designed to promote the childs integration into the mainstream of society (Kurtz & Harryman, 1997). The main goal of any physical development program for a child with a disability is to minimize any restrictions he or she may have due to the disability but at the same time allow him or her to gain necessary skills. In order to fulfill this requirement, adults play a vital role in helping a child with a disability to succeed. Adults purpose in play

34

interventions is to minimize the effects of the restriction caused by the disability (Frost et al., 2001). Although adults or caregivers are present, the play must still be mainly focused on helping the child achieve confidence and independence with personally meaningful daily activities (Haley, Coster, & Binda-Sumberg, 1994). Specific interventions can be implemented that focus on certain areas of development in children with disabilities. One of these interventions is neurodevelopmental therapy (NDT). NDT focuses on sensorimotor experience to facilitate the development of normal movement and postural responses (Kurtz et al., 1997). By using therapeutic handling techniques, abnormal movement patterns are controlled while emphasizing normal motor patterns allowing the child to learn through sensory feedback associated with active movement. Areas such as the musculoskeletal system, cognition, environmental factors, motivation, task requirements, and practice effects are manipulated to bring about changes in the motor ability of the child (Campbell, 1994; Heriza, 1991). Overall, NDT helps to improve the rate of motor development and quality of motor control. Children with disabilities sometimes have problems with coordination of motor skills resulting from clumsiness and avoidance of playground activities or recreational sports (Kurtz et al., 1997). An intervention called Sensory Integration (SI) therapy helps to correct these problems by emphasizing the use of controlled sensory inputthat promotes the childs success in making adaptive responses to environmental challenges (Ayres, 1979). The therapy enhances the ability of the childs brain to learn rather than teach them a series of functional skills applicable inpne specific area. Therefore, the child can use this knowledge in a variety of unfamiliar situations and still be able to adapt and

35

perform physically. Overall, the improvement of a childs physical skills promotes selfesteem leading to increased motivation to participate in more physical activities (Schaffer, Law, & Polatajko, 1989). Despite their disabilities, mental or physical, children still prefer the same kinds of activities as children without disabilities. Therefore, equipment must be adapted for children with disabilities allowing them to participate on the equipment despite their impairments. Once the proper equipment has afforded this gap, children with disabilities may proceed along a similar path to physical development as their non-disabled peers within the range of their disabilities. Obviously, a child with an impairment that prevents them from walking will not learn to walk to because of the rehabilitation program, but they will still acquire skills in areas necessary for their development. This development is only acquired in slightly different ways. For example, a certain disability may prevent a child from acquiring certain gross and fine motor skills, but play activities can still enable a child to gain physical experience in risk taking, an important social skill acquired through play (Frost et al., 2001). In risk taking, children challenge each other physically in order to test what they can and cannot do. Two children may race or wrestle in order to test their limits and try out new skills learning through trial and error. On a playground, this may entail crawling through mazes or climbing on certain pieces of equipment. Children with disabilities participate in this risk taking activity advancing their physical development as long it is modified to minimize their disability. For example, a maze could be built wide enough for a wheelchair to fit through. This would enable both a child with a disability and one without a disability to play in the same environment. The disabled child would develop

36

upper body strength and coordination while the able-bodied child would develop his or her entire body. Both would benefit physically as well as mentally from the social interaction with each other. After engaging in this type of activity, both children would gain knowledge about their own abilities. They would then use this knowledge to proceed on to more difficult or more challenging events, continuing to test their limits. For example, the children may traverse the maze again but instead of going forward, may choose to go backward. Physical development programs for children with disabilities should have play equipment that exhibits various levels of difficulties allowing a child to explore and advance their abilities (Thompson, 2002b). Free play is also an essential piece of the physical development of a child with disabilities. Free play is mainly accomplished during recess of school where children are allowed to decide on their own what they wish to do, engaging in unstructured play. This may involve something as simple as moving around or throwing an object back and forth. Children with disabilities may participate in these activities with able-bodied children as long as their disability does not restrict them. This type of play enables children with disabilities to interact creatively with their environment. They may learn balance and space perception as they move their bodies through space without the aid of equipment.

Benefits of Play and Playgrounds for All Children

Playful behavior is a tenet of childhood for various species. As we have evolved, the play of children has progressed as well. Play occurs within the context of the community: behavior that is culturally appropriate is reinforced by others, and thus repeated. Children also make use of whatever implements of play the community makes available. As knowledge about the benefits of play has grown, the involvement of

37

communities in providing play opportunities has increased. Playgrounds are a major source of play interaction, funded and supported by communities. Organizations to study and promote play have materialized, such as the Playground Association of America (PAA) and later, the National Recreation Association, in the 1920s. This latter group developed a list of equipment most beneficial for children of specific ages. For preschool children, the recommendations were: sandbox, small slide, six chair swings, and a low climber. For elementary school age children: a slide 8 feet high, a giant stride, a balance beam, a horizontal ladder, horizontal bar, and six swings on a frame 12 feet high. Optional equipment mentioned included a see-saw, traveling rings, and low climbing devices (Hudson & Thompson, 2001). Even though this list was created about 80 years ago, these basic pieces of equipment are still the standard on most playgrounds, according to a broad survey conducted by the National Program for Playground Safety (NPPS) (Hudson et al., 2001). Our society has changed drastically since the 1920s, affecting play topics for children, the nature of play, and tools used in play. However, despite the devotion of communities in providing ample play opportunities, the basic structure of playgrounds has remained inherently the same. Some of the play equipment mentioned may be considered necessary for promoting some aspects of motor development, but it is important to provide modified versions of these pieces, in terms of safety and structure. It is also crucial that a wider variety of equipment is being placed on modern playgrounds. A playground that serves a wide range of children and consists of only basic equipment is not attaining the full benefit potential. Hudson and Thompson surveyed 48 professionals in relevant fields to determine the viability of playgrounds in the 21st century. Playgrounds have remained somewhat

38

constant over many years, while the communities that surround them have changed in substantial ways. Other modes of play are now widely available, such as organized playgroups, or play with technology. We all know that play is integral to child development. In 1921, Joseph Lee wrote, Play seen from inside, as the child sees it, is the most serious thing in life. Play builds the child. It is the essential part of education (Hudson et al., 2001). Are playgrounds still as important as they once were in providing play? Hudson et al. (2001), concluded in their survey that the primary benefit for the necessity of playgrounds was socialization. Playgrounds facilitate free and unstructured communication with peers, whereas organized playgroups may lack some of this spontaneity. However, if a play station is a conglomerate of unrelated activities, chosen by adults in a haphazard way, crowding and confusion can ensue. It is important to choose equipment carefully, taking note of how well pieces fit together in terms of social interaction (Hudson et al., 2001). For optimal social benefits, children need to be able to interact with peers and adults alike. However, many playgrounds leave little room for active adult involvement. The ideal playground should include some solitary play opportunities (so that social interaction is indeed genuine when it occurs, and not forced), areas for adult interaction, and areas for small and larger groups of children to play (Hudson et al., 2001). Another major benefit for children is physical development. The NPSS study mentioned earlier found that many playgrounds now are designed for children ages 2-12, attempting to reach as wide a range of children as possible. While this is a noble goal, this one size fits all policy is not so useful for several reasons. There is an immense

39

range of physical ability between the ages of 2 and 12, creating situations where younger children may not be able to utilize all of the equipment, or may be subdued or even injured due to the involvement of significantly older children. Similarly, the presence of younger children may hinder the play of older children. Even parents can be partly at fault, by lifting children onto equipment that is beyond their physical capability with the idea of promoting exploration. However, even a small distraction for the adult can lead to serious injury for the child. These situations would not be occurring in the first place if playgrounds were geared toward smaller and more specific age ranges (Hudson et al., 2001). Another major benefit of playgrounds for children is fun. What exactly does fun translate to? Children view their world in a very different way from adults, leading to major differences in ideas of fun. Yet adults design playgrounds, making it essential for them to understand concepts of childhood fun and play behavior on a deep level. Children will use any and every object in their play areas in surprising and imaginative ways. It is important for adults to be aware of this tendency when designing playgrounds, through more research of childrens characteristics during play. Playgrounds are often cut-and-paste structures based on an adult communitys desire, without the imagination and carefree components familiar to a childs mind. It should be no surprise that researchers claim that most children play no longer than 15 minutes on outdoor play equipment. Playground designers often build playgrounds believing that children will conform to the equipment provided. The goal should be instead to provide a supportive outlet for childrens play behavior.

40

Playground Design through Two Sets of Eyes

Looking at a playground through the eyes of a child and an adult can reveal two drastically different views. The adult sees a tool helpful for the development of a child that has to look nice to be effective. A child sees a device to be played with and explored that holds many opportunities for fun and discovery. These views sometimes clash in the design of a playground, as parents tend to overemphasize aesthetics, what the community wants, and improvement of gross motor skills in their minds, a design that children will enjoy. On the other hand, children want an area where they can do myriad different things while developing all their skills, regardless of the playgrounds appearance. This area must also be able to hold their attention for long periods of time (Stoecklin, 2000). Children learn best through free play and discovery. Children's free play typically is pleasurable, self-motivated, imaginative, non-goal directed, spontaneous, active, and free of rules imposed by adults. Quality play involves the whole child: gross motor, fine motor, senses, emotion, intellect, individual growth and social interaction (Stoecklin, 2000). This statement summarizes the goal of any playground design. This view often gets skewed when the needs and wants of the child are ignored. Adults can get too caught up in the look of a playground rather than what the child wants. This idea can be seen in the design of outdoor, natural playgrounds. These playgrounds place emphasis on specific play components but also place emphasis on the environment the playground is in. They help children develop their senses of wonder and imagination, important for learning throughout their lives. Since these playgrounds are outdoors, adults tend to admire a healthy lawn and a nicely tended vegetable garden and beds of beautiful flowers. When children are outdoors, they're crawling under bushes, digging in dirt,

41

damming streams, and climbing anywhere their legs and sense of adventure will take them (Stoecklin, 2000). When adults design these types of playgrounds, they view nature as a background for events. Children instead see nature not as a background for events, but as a stimulator and experiential component of their activities (Stoecklin, 2000). There is no substitute for feeling and experiencing the play environment as they play in it. Adults forget this vital component to development focusing more on the playground looks than how children may experience the play components. By making the look of a play environment too perfect, adults lose the adventure contained in a natural outdoor playground. Children enjoy unkempt spaces allowing them to hide and experience open spaces. They can then manipulate and experiment with their environment allowing them to use their imagination (Stoecklin, 2000). This is just one example of how the views of a child and adult sometimes conflict in the area of playground design. Adults need to learn how to view an environment in terms of child spaces not adult spaces. These differences can lead to a poor playground experience for a child. Development is hindered and may lead to a decreased amount of time spent on a playground. Any poor experience on a playground can cause the child to lose this essential part of their development. Today, this loss of development is even more magnified, as childrens lives tend to be more structured and constrained. Children are supervised more than ever as more free time is experienced inside of the house watching television and playing on the computer. Taking into consideration the needs and wants of a child is then essential in designing a playground. Without this key component, children cannot experience the sense of adventure and exploration associated with a play environment, which is something no child should be without.

42

Guidelines and Legal Requirements

International Guidelines
The right of children to play has been considered a worldwide issue for several decades, with an international organization established in the early 1960s and the United Nations taking a stance on play in the late 1980s. The United Nations developed its policy on children and play in 1989. On November 20, 1989, the General Assembly adopted Article 31 of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. The article states that: 4. States Parties recognize the right of the child to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to the age of the child and to participate freely in cultural life and the arts. 5. States Parties shall respect and promote the right of the child to participate fully in cultural and artistic life and shall encourage the provision of appropriate and equal opportunities for cultural, artistic, recreational and leisure activity. The UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and the United Nations Childrens Fund (UNICEF) both recognize the International Association for the Childs Right to Play (IPA). The IPA is an international, non-governmental organization founded in Denmark in 1961. The organizations Declaration of the Childs Right to Play is typically read in conjunction with Article 31. The declaration was originally produced in November 1977 at the IPA Malta Consultation held in preparation for the International Year of the Child (1979). In September 1982, the IPA International Council in Vienna revised the declaration and did so again in Barcelona in September 1989. One of the goals of the organization is to integrate play into the lives of all children, including those who have disabilities. The IPA considers play to be necessary to the development of

43

children around the world. This is because play, according to the organization, stimulates creativity as well as the emotional, cognitive and physical development of children, regardless of their level of ability. The IPA adopted several resolutions relating to playgrounds at its 1984 convention in Ljubljana. These resolutions include one stating that in order to counteract passive play such as television, varied facilities to attract children to outdoor play should be developed. Another resolution stated that the construction of playgrounds should be considered as an integral part of childrens lives. A resolution dealing specifically with children with disabilities was also passed. The resolution says it is important the special needs of children with disabilities, whether they be physical, behavioral, or emotional, being taken into consideration. Those special needs should be addressed in aiding those children to be able to play with other children. Special effort, the article states, should be made to integrate children through play, which is a childs everyday activity. (2002e).

The Americans with Disabilities Act

In 1990, then-president George Bush signed an important piece of legislation regarding accessibility for those with disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) deals with many disability-related issues. It also specifically addresses playground accessibility, which was important to take into consideration in our project. The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability and includes regulations on play areas. Under Title II of the ADA, all state and local government facilities must be made accessible to individuals with disabilities. Play areas for public use are considered facilities under the ADA and required to be accessible. Since our playground will be built for public use, we looked carefully at these guidelines.

44

Title III of the ADA covers privately held businesses providing play areas. The ADA specifies that all new play areas built after Jan. 26, 1992 must be accessible. Renovated play areas must also be made accessible. The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board was responsible for developing accessibility guidelines for constructions and alterations on existing facilities; however, the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) issued in 1991 did not yet address playgrounds (2000). Therefore, uncertainty about what should be done with regard to playground accessibility has persisted. Finally, in October 2000, the U.S. Access Board issued Final Rule, an edict that provides guidance to public officials specifically about playground components, ground level and elevated; and playground surfaces, including routes and ramps. The provisions for the play area were developed through publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register in April 1998. Then followed regulatory negotiations between play equipment manufacturers, architects, landscape architects, recreation facility managers, city and government representatives, childcare givers, and people with disabilities. The negotiations were held at many cities and public participation was encouraged. The Access Board developed and revised guidelines based on the suggestions that resulted. The guidelines, which include technical provisions for building elements designed specifically for children ages 12 and younger, ensure that facilities covered by titles II and III of the ADA are accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. However, the guidelines are not enforceable until the Department of Justice issues regulations consistent with the accessibility guidelines issued by the Access Board. The Department of Justice has adopted ADAAG as title III of the ADA (2000).

45

The play area guidelines include technical provisions for ground level and elevated play components, accessible routes, ramps and transfer systems, ground surfaces, and soft contained play structures. The play area guidelines apply to play areas designed and constructed for children ages 2 and older. The guidelines address everything from routes onto the playground to the equipment itself. An accessible route must be provided to the perimeter of the playground, with a minimum of 36 inches in width. If it is less than 60 inches wide, then passing areas of 120 inches must be provided at least every 200 feet. Any slope should not exceed a onefoot rise over 20 feet. If it does, it is considered a ramp, and ramp regulations must apply. An area of transition from approaching the playground to the actual play area must be provided. Sudden changes in elevation must be avoided, since even a half-inch difference can be a barrier to someone in a wheelchair. One section of the guidelines applies to play components, which are manufactured or natural elements used for play, socialization, or learning. The two types of play components are ground level and elevated. Ground level play components are approached and exited at ground level. Elevated components are approached above or below grade and are part of composite structures that provide a variety of play activities. At least half of the elevated components must be accessible either by ramp or transfer platform. A transfer system provides a platform onto which children using wheelchairs can transfer between different elevation levels. Generally, access can be provided by either method, though ramp access is required where play structures with 20 or more elevated play components are provided. The minimum number of ground level components is based on

46

the number of elevated components in a play area. Table 1 shows the relationship between the number of elevated and ground level components. The guidelines also provide design criteria for play components including: height and clearances of play tables, space for wheelchair maneuvering to and from the play component, wheelchair space at the play component, height of entry points or seats, and a requirement for transfer supports. Play tables have a 24-inch height minimum, 30-inch width minimum, and a 17-inch depth minimum. The maximum allowable slope for a ground-level accessible route is 1:16. Ramps may have a slope of 1:12 or less. Ramps also must have at least a 36-inch width. Landings must be as wide as the ramp they connect to and at least 60 inches long. If ramps change direction, the minimum landing size is 60 inches wide to accommodate a turn. Handrails are required on both sides of ramps connecting elevated play components. Where a transfer system is provided instead of a ramp, the combination of transfer platforms and transfer steps must provide a continuous accessible route to elevated play components. A transfer system provides individuals with the space necessary to physically transfer up or down in a composite play structure. A 24-inch minimum width is necessary for individuals moving around a structure. Transfer supports must be provided on transfer platforms and transfer steps at each level where transferring is the intended method of access. Transfer supports include handrails, handgrips, or custom designed handholds. Accessible surfaces must be soft enough to limit injury from falls, but firm and stable enough for wheelchair maneuvering. The guidelines rely on two standards from the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). For wheelchair access, surfaces are required to be "firm, stable, and slip resistant. The standard assesses the accessibility of

47

a surface by measuring the work an individual must exert to propel a wheelchair across the surface. The standard includes tests of effort for both straight-ahead and turning movements. To meet the standard, the force required must be less than that which is required to propel the wheelchair up a ramp with a slope of 1:14. Accessible surfaces within the ground level area beneath and immediately adjacent to a play structure are required to be "impact attenuating to prevent injuries from falls. Rubber surfacing and some engineered wood fiber products meet the standard. The play area guidelines also include advisory information on recommended reach ranges. Reach ranges are the recommended designated regions of space that a person seated in a wheelchair can reasonably extend their arm or hand. Ranges are: 20 to 36 inches for 3- to 4-year-olds, 18 to 40 inches for 5- to 8-year-olds, and 16 to 44 inches for 9- to 12-year-olds (2000). The very specific requirements of the guidelines are key in allowing a playground to be accessible, as well as comply with the law. In designing our playground, we took these requirements into consideration. The guidelines also gave us a good idea of what types of equipment are considered accessible and common means of addressing accessibility, such as transfer stations. The guidelines also provide a key for areas in which we needed to make sure accessibility was accounted for.

Solutions for Playgrounds for All Abilities

The Maryland Boundless Playground Initiative
On June 6, 2000, Maryland Governor Parris N. Glendening announced an initiative aimed at giving children both with and without disabilities the opportunity to play together. This initiative was the first of its kind in the nation. The result will be a set

48

of universally accessible playgrounds across the state. The playgrounds will be designed to accommodate the needs of children with physical, sensory, and developmental disabilities. This Maryland Boundless Playgrounds Initiative is funded by a $1.75 million public-private partnership. Because of this program, every Maryland resident should be within one hours driving distance of one of the universally accessible playgrounds. On Dec. 4, 2000, state grants ranging from $75,000 to $200,000 were awarded to 11 community organizations or local governments whose sites were selected by a panel of judges representing child development, consumer safety, and sport and leisure organizations from a pool of 30 applicants. Applications were considered both for building new playgrounds and for renovating existing ones. The sites were selected with consideration for community need and geographic location. The Maryland Chapter of Boundless Playgrounds will manage the program. Boundless Playgrounds is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization established in 1997 that is devoted to constructing universally accessible playgrounds across the United States where normal and disabled children can play together without limitations. Of the $1.75 million committed to the project, the state will contribute $1 million that will come in the form of a grant from the governors fiscal year 2001 supplemental budget. The participating local communities will match at least 50 cents for each state dollar. This money will come from private contributions, grants, and scholarships. The remaining $250,000 is a grant from the Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Foundation. Additionally, a donation of $50,000 form the Naomi and Nehemiah Cohen Foundation will be divided among the selected sites to be put toward their required matching grants.

49

The J. Walter Marriott Foundation has also contributed $10,000 to Boundless Playgrounds for use in completing the project. The locations selected for this initiative are: Willows Road Park, Lexington Park ($75,000); Fairland Regional Park, Laurel ($75,000); Salisbury Park, Salisbury ($100,000); South Penn Elementary School, Cumberland ($75,000); Washington County Rainbow Connection Playground, Martin L. Snook Park, Hagerstown ($75,000); I Can Fly Playground, William S. Baer School, Baltimore ($200,000); Garrett Heights Elementary School, Baltimore ($75,000); Lake Waterford Park, Pasadena ($75,000); Martin Luther King Park For All Children, Silver Spring ($75,000); Longview Special Education Center, Germantown ($100,000). Each of these sites will receive technical, design, and support services from the Boundless Playgrounds Hasbro National Resource Center. An 11th site, Lake Seneca Elementary School, Germantown ($75,000), was also chosen, but will receive technical support from Hadleys Park, Inc., instead (2001b). As of March 2003, construction on the following playgrounds have been completed: Lexington Park, Hagerstown; Baer Elementary School, Baltimore; Garrett Heights Elementary School, Baltimore; Annapolis, Gaithersburg; Cumberland; and Germantown (which unfortunately burned down after construction had been completed; arson is suspected) (Boundless Playgrounds, 2003). The remaining playgrounds are set to open by spring 2003 (2001b). Mark Shriver, a member of the Maryland House of Delegates, was integral in the development of the Boundless Playgrounds project. He lobbied and worked to gain funding for the playgrounds (Gardy & Pledger, 2000). In 1998, Shriver worked with Shelley Kramm, a concerned parent who led a community effort, to procure $350,000 in

50

funding for Marylands first universally accessible playground, Hadleys Park, in Potomac. The park is named for Kramms daughter, who has cerebral palsy. Hadleys Park was designed with specific components to make it more accessible than previously existing playgrounds not designed for children with disabilities. The playground has an increased number of ramps; groundcover consisting of rubber surfacing instead of woodchips to allow wheelchairs to operate more easily; and swings with five-point harnesses, wide seats, and plastic backs to prevent falls and injuries. Similar layouts were used in the playgrounds designed by Boundless Playgrounds (Gardy et al., 2000).

Weaknesses
In order for a playground to comply with the requirements set forth by the Americans with Disabilities Act only 50% of the elevated play structures must be universally accessible. Although this has been deemed to be adequate, the limited number of play structures that can be used by all children often leads to exclusive play and hurt feelings. Boundless Playgrounds are somewhat better in that they offer 75% complete accessibility, but this still leaves a great deal of room for improvement. There is a wealth of information already available in the areas of playground design and play equipment design. However, one area of concern that is usually found to be a hurdle in constructing universally accessible playgrounds is the issue of cost. Securing and preparing the land for the playground, purchasing and installing the equipment, installing the surfacing, and providing regular maintenance combine to make establishing an universal playground an expensive endeavor. These costs are many times higher for universally accessible playgrounds as compared to less accessible playgrounds because of the increased variety of play structures, and the more stringent demands on the type of

51

surfacing that can be used. Thus, a great need for improvement lies in developing effective ways of defraying the expenditures required to complete a playground and possibly shaping a set of broad guidelines that could be utilized by any group interested in constructing a universally accessible playground. Another possible weakness that should be considered in designing an accessible playground is ensuring play structures do not lose their sense of adventure and fun as a result of conforming to the demanding accessibility requirements. This can be accomplished by ensuring that there are a sufficient variety of structures so that every child can find something that appeals to their particular interest, or concept of fun. This will ensure that the resulting playground appeals to a widely diverse set of individuals. In the area of integrative play, more attention needs to be given to the location of individual play structures with in a playground. By intermixing the structures that promote different types of play, the playground designer can bring together children that may not normally play with each other. This may be as obvious as alternating swings on a swing set between sympathetic swings and basic swings, or as subtle as locating a slide (or any physically demanding piece of equipment) adjacent to a tic-tac-toe board (or any cognitively demanding piece of equipment). Benches or areas for parents to sit and supervise their children should also be intermixed so parents and other responsible adults can serve as catalysts for integrated play. Finally, one area that is ignored in most playgrounds currently under construction or operation is that of play coordination. One way to ensure integrative play is to hire a play coordinator that can organize different programs at the playground, as well as to be present at certain times during the week to supervise more natural, freeform play

52

(Bengtsson, 1972). The costs of this valuable addition can be further defrayed by recruiting active members of the community to volunteer their time. A wide variety of people with varying professional and recreational interests making a minimal commitment can provide an excellent framework for developing a level of play coordination and supervision that will ensure a thriving, well-utilized playground.

Adult Accessibility
The accessibility of our playground is important not only to integrate children of all ability levels, but also to allow parents and guardians with disabilities to take children, whether they have a disability or not, to the playground. Children, especially in a setting such as a playground, require a great deal of supervision, thus is it important a guardian with a disability be able to have easy access to a playground. According to the 2000 census, about 21 percent of adults over the age of 21 in Maryland have a disability. That amounts to 757,844 adults, many of who have either children or grandchildren. Guardians with disabilities need as much access to a playground as a child needs to play on it, because they must be able to access the equipment to monitor their child. This is especially relevant for grandparents who often play a large part in watching their grandchildren. About 40 percent of adults over the age of 65 have a disability. These are people who should be able to enjoy such activities as taking their grandchildren to play. The components on the playground that are important to child accessibility, are also key in adults with disabilities being able to take their child to the playground. Parking for those with disabilities and accessible bathrooms are some of the basic necessities for those of all ages. Also, sidewalks, ramps, and accessible ground surfacing

53

are important so adults with mobility impairments are not left standing outside the playground gate while their children play.

Research Methods
Survey
Motivation We have already established the need for and examined the features of universal playgrounds. In order to expose subtle deficiencies in current playgrounds and to move towards constructing an ideal universal playground, we have constructed and administered a survey to parents and teachers. This survey was designed to determine the need for and preferred characteristics of universal playgrounds. The survey was preceded by a cover letter that described the purpose and objectives of our research as well as an informed consent form. Because this study dealt with human subjects, we obtained Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval to comply with University policy. However, the survey was exempted from fully IRB review based on two criteria. First, even though the survey was about children, it relied on independent observations and not direct interaction. Second, surveys of adults fall under the category of well-known and accepted techniques. Accordingly, the IRB granted us approval quickly. Respondents were asked to complete a short survey questionnaire to indicate the developmental benefits they believe should be fostered on a playground for their child/student. The survey was also designed to let respondents indicate which pieces of equipment they thought would be most beneficial for their child/student. Our respondents were parents, schoolteachers, and therapists from the Washington metropolitan area (i.e.

54

Maryland, District of Columbia, and Virginia). We enlisted their cooperation by contacting schools and asking teachers to participate in the study. We provided teachers with additional copies so that they could send our survey, cover letter, and informed consent for home with their students, enabling us to reach an audience of parents. We also administered surveys to parents at public libraries during both scheduled activity times as well as regular library hours. Finally, we sought comments from adults at various public locations in the College Park, Maryland area. Our subjects were not selected for any specific characteristics. Instead, we sought a wide cross-section of respondents so that we could gauge the overall receptiveness of both the people who have children with disabilities in their family/class and people who have able-bodied children in their family/class. Accordingly, we solicited responses from special education teachers, teachers from non-specialized programs, parents of children with disabilities, and parents of able-bodied children. The results from our participants were tabulated and stored electronically to facilitate statistical analysis. Appendix C, Codebook for the Universal Playgrounds Survey 2002, explains how data was coded and recorded. It should be read with the Results. Appendix D contains a sample survey, and Appendix E contains the informed consent form and survey cover letter. Statistical Analysis Plan The following statistical analyses fall into three broad categories. First, a series of descriptive statistics will outline general features of the sample population. Second, a series of probabilistic and Chi-square tests were performed to reject or fail to reject seemingly intuitive relationships. Lastly, the data were grouped to form a predictive

55

model of acceptance of and perceived benefit to the sample community. Further detail of each of the categories follows. Because every respondent was assigned an ID, counting the number of entries in the ID field will yield an accurate number of cases in our sample. Histograms will be produced to illustrate the breakdown of our respondents in terms of their position, need category, desired locations for playgrounds, and adaptations needed to current playgrounds. Tables will show the support for universal playgrounds. A count of the needed adaptations will quickly identify perceived deficiencies in existing playgrounds. Finally, the mean, median, and standard deviations will be calculated for each of the equipment types. The second group of analyses will be a collection of conditional probability calculations along with Chi-square tests that test for independence of groups. Specifically, the probability of supporting universal playgrounds given the position of respondent will be calculated along with the probability of supporting universal playgrounds given need category. Similarly, the probability of perceived benefit given respondents support will calculated along with the probability of perceived benefit given the need category. Finally, Chi-square analyses will be conducted to determine whether teachers/parents expect a tangible benefit from universal playgrounds, whether individuals with certain types of disabilities expect a specific tangible benefit, whether teachers/parents favor a specific type of development more than another, and whether individuals with certain types of disabilities expect different types of development. Finally, a series of three Loglinear Regressions will be run. The first will attempt to determine perceived benefit as a function of support, need category, age group,

56

developmental aid, adaptations necessary to existing playgrounds, and equipment ratings. The second will attempt to determine support as a function of benefit, need category, age group, developmental aid, adaptations necessary to existing playgrounds, and equipment ratings. The third model will attempt to explain the cross between benefit and support as a function of need category, age group, developmental aid, adaptations necessary to existing playgrounds, and equipment ratings.

Interviews
Motivation By surveying parents and caregivers and evaluating existing playgrounds, we are able to determine whether the needs and desires of our population are being met with currently available playground equipment. Another important source of information, though, is the pool of experts who work professionally with children, and specifically, children with disabilities. Physical therapists and others who work with children with disabilities have experience determining how best to treat various types of physical impairments and integrate patients with their peers so they may develop better social skills. Therapy professionals would have unique insight into why particular pieces of equipment were beneficial for different disabilities, something not found in the current literature. In order to determine which playground equipment provides the most therapeutic activities for children with disabilities, we interviewed 12 professionals, ranging from physical therapists and recreation and childrens services specialists to researchers studying various aspects of motor development and play behavior. Individuals who were chosen for interviews were professionals involved in the construction of existing

57

universal playgrounds, the distribution of the teams surveys, or childrens development research. We also interviewed personal contacts that happened to work in our field of interest. Design Rationale In addition to answering questions about their occupations and length of time spent in their fields, interviewees addressed the following questions: In what capacity (if any) do you interact with children with disabilities? What kinds of disabilities do you work with, and with which do you work most often? What type of expertise do you have on childrens social interactions? Have you worked to integrate children of varying abilities and disabilities? How do you think playing or playground equipment is therapeutic for children with disabilities? What needs do you think are addressed by the various types of playground equipment available? What equipment or play activity do you think is most therapeutic for the disability you are most familiar with? What are you most and least favorite pieces of play equipment, in terms of their benefit to children with disabilities? Why? If you were to design a playground, what piece of equipment would you be sure to include? What pieces of equipment do you feel most meet children social, mental, and physical development?

58

What advantages do you see modern playgrounds have over older ones? What do you think are the best ways to foster interaction among children of varying abilities?

If you were to build a playground, where would you locate it (at a school, park, medical center, etc.)?

The first three sets of questions gave us a reference as to the interviewees professional backgrounds and the extent to which they might be considered experts on children, children with disabilities, and playgrounds. The rest of the questions were designed to describe the particular motor functions addressed by various pieces of playground equipment and how best to foster sensory stimulation and development. We also wanted to know the experts personal feelings toward individual pieces of equipment, as well as which pieces of equipment each expert felt were the most important or beneficial to include. Because the purpose of a universal playground is to promote interaction among children, we also wanted the experts insights into how best to catalyze socialization among children of varying abilities, as well as their thoughts as to where a universally accessible playground would be of most benefit. We documented the answers for later reference and compared the professionals opinions and recommendations with the data obtained from the surveys and playground ratings.

Ratings
Motivation Numerous playground rating systems and checklists exist. However, each has a very specific, and what we deemed to be limited, focus, concerned solely with safety or accessibility. For example, the National Program for Playground Safety checklist covers

59

only safety issues such as upkeep, surfacing, and hazards (Thompson, 2002a), while PAM Repeaters Universal Playground Design covers only accessibility issues such as ramp gradients and walkway widths (Ensign, 1993). In 1979, Joe Frost published a rating system that merged equipment, safety, and playground purpose considerations to form a more complete rating system (Frost et al., 1979). However, this rating system is outdated, as the more recent ADA guidelines and new theories on play have been developed. In addition, Frosts system considered individual pieces of equipment more important than the ideas of safety and accessibility. These checklists are therefore insufficient for our purposes, because the ideal playground will address play benefits in addition to safety and accessibility concerns. For these reasons, we set out to develop our own rating system that would address all aspects of play and the playground. Developing the rating system was a trial-and-error experience. The first attempt focused on rating playgrounds accessibility and compliance with existing guidelines. This system failed because most playgrounds received similarly high ratings even though obvious differences existed between them. ADA guidelines require only a little more than 50% of playground equipment to be accessible, as outlined by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (ATBCB), but a good playground should exceed these standards, because fully functional playgrounds provide more than accessibility. Based on our research about the importance of play, we added social, intellectual, physical, and sensory development criteria into the formula. Experts have identified these categories as being vital to childrens development. Finally, we added categories to address aesthetics and meeting the needs of communities. Since we cannot determine the

60

need of each community, we designed this category for use by people planning to build their own playgrounds, but did not use it ourselves when rating playgrounds. More emphasis and consideration were given to the issues of accessibility, integration, and safety. Although other concerns, such as development, are very important to a childs growth, an unsafe playground poses more risk than can be compensated for by the benefits of child development. Preventing injuries, and reducing the seriousness of injuries that do occur, should be a major concern of playground designers. And because part of our mission is to promote accessibility to playgrounds and interaction between children with and children without disabilities, these were given more weight. We tested our initial rating system against playgrounds subjectively deemed to be below average, average, and above average through our own observations. This rating system appeared to confirm these subjective distinctions. Next, we rated new playgrounds to see if the rating system could accurately rank them. Again, we saw strong correlation between playgrounds that we subjectively rated as above average and playgrounds the rating system ranked highly. Yet, there were still small deficiencies. A series of three revisions to the rating system followed, based on the methods described above, until a final system was developed that addressed all the deficiencies that emerged. The final rating system can be found in Appendix F. Once the final rating system was developed, we set out to rate 20 playgrounds in the College Park area. When rating playgrounds, it is important that all pieces of equipment are listed (Appendix G), and then all lists be analyzed by a single person so as to minimize bias. In rating the playgrounds, we also checked complete compliance with ADA guidelines (Appendix H).

61

This rating system can be used by playground planners in determining whether their proposed playground meets standards and expectations; by communities in determining whether their existing playgrounds are in need of renovations; and by parents and caregivers in determining whether a particular playground meets the needs of their children. Design Rationale Safety Researchers at the Children's Hospital Medical Center of Cincinnati determined playgrounds are responsible for a higher number of severe injuries than motor vehicles or bike accidents (Feuer, 2001). Since more than 205,860 children in America visit emergency rooms each year after playground-related accidents, safety is a key component to a good playground (Thompson, 2002a). In the 10-year period from January 1990 to August 2000, 147 children under the age of 15 died from playground-related accidents (Thompson, 2002a). Landing Area Surfacing One quarter of all playground deaths are the result of a fall (2002b). It is believed that falling onto hard surfaces accounts for 90% of serious accidents (Frost et al., 1979). Walter Henderson explains that shock absorbency is the main criteria for choosing a surface material (Henderson, 1997). The ASTM has a specific test to measure the deceleration that a head-like instrument experiences when it hits a surface material. ASTM guideline F 1292-99 and F 1951-99 are the specific standards for playgrounds. ASTM has determined that a life-threatening head injury should not occur if peak deceleration at impact does not exceed 200 times the acceleration due to gravity (200

62

Gmax) and Head Injury Criteria (HIC) is less than 1000. HIC is a measure of deceleration during the time the head decelerates to a halt (Henderson, 1997). These calculations must be taken in reference to the height from which the fall occurs, as a fall from a higher height will result in a greater impact force. An important question to ask is how better surfacing can be used to decrease injuries. Eighty percent of playgrounds in the United States still have surfacing that is too hard, such as concrete, asphalt, or packed dirt (2002d). Concrete and dirt fail the ASTM standards at a height of mere inches off the ground (Brown, 2002). Sand and wood chips fail the standard at varying heights depending on the depth of the fill, but usually will pass for a fall from less than four feet above ground with six inches of uncompressed fill. New technologies including shredded rubber tires and poured-in-place rubber have even greater critical heights, meeting standards for falls from up to 10 feet. Specific products certification can be found through the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the ASTM. It is important to check that a specific product meets the ASTM standard because similar products do not all pass (2001c). Materials approved for placement under climbing and moving equipment include sand, pea gravel, shredded wood, and manufactured rubber products. However, a better playground utilizes more of the synthetic rubber products than loose fill in places with greater possibilities of fall injuries. For these reasons, we rated playgrounds with concrete and dirt fill in areas of fall zones in the lowest safety category. Playgrounds that utilize wood chips and sand are rated in the middle column and playgrounds that utilize rubber areas rate in the highest column. It is important to note, however, that, A fall onto a shock absorbing surface is less likely to cause serious injury however, it should be

63

recognized that some injuries will occur no matter what playground surfacing material is used." (Brown, 2002). Equipment Condition Maintenance of a playground is an important part of safety for a playground. It is estimated that 30% of playground injuries result partially from poor maintenance, and even the best playground will quickly become unsafe if it is not properly maintained (Thompson, 2002a). Communities need to consider maintenance when building playgrounds. Playground designers cannot control how well the playground is maintained, although they can make recommendations based on the needs of their designs, but communities and parents can still use maintenance as a criterion when rating a playground. Therefore, equipment condition remains an integral part of this rating system. Metal, wood, and plastic are common materials, but each has disadvantages. Metal can become very hot in direct sun light and may rust if not maintained. Wood rots and splinters when not regularly treated to prevent decay. Plastic needs routine maintenance, but has fewer dangers than woods and metals (Wade, 2002). For this system, a playground rates as unsafe if it has a large amount of rust, splinters, or broken parts. Fair playgrounds may have one or two splinters or the beginning signs of rust, but these have not become a severe problem. Highly rated playgrounds have no broken parts, rust, or splinters. Local Dangers Playground safety extends beyond the immediate perimeter of the playground. Children have the tendency to wander off playgrounds and therefore need to have a barrier between the playground and any danger zone. According to the National Program

64

for Playground Safety (NPPS), barriers, hedges, and open spaces can serve as a buffer between the playground and dangers outside the playground (Thompson, 2002a). Forests and streets are particularly dangerous hazards for children. If either of these hazards exists, a fence should surround the playground (Frost et al., 1979). For this rating system, we consider playgrounds near a street or other hazard without a barrier as poor and playgrounds that have a natural buffer zone or fences as good. Property Condition Playground property maintenance and upkeep is another important consideration. As with equipment maintenance, playground designers are unable to control the condition of the playground property, but should address this need in their design proposals. Communities, on the other hand, should be able to monitor property condition, and parents should use this category when rating playgrounds their children use. Trash, broken glass, and natural debris such as animal feces can be unsafe for children. Unfortunately, needles and drugs are other concerns on playgrounds, as a childs daytime playground can be a teenagers hangout zone. Therefore, better playgrounds are kept clean of debris and dangers. This system rates playgrounds as poor if trash and debris is overwhelmingly apparent and/or of a more dangerous variety (broken glass, needles, animal feces). The playground rates in the fair category if there trash is present, but not very prevalent or dangerous. A highly rated playground is completely clear of trash and debris. Layout of Playground Equipment layout is the final concern in playground safety. In general, public playgrounds should already meet guidelines for clearance of structures, swing stability,

65

and height restrictions. Further information on these topics can be obtained through the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) (Brown, 2002). An issue that is not addressed by the CPSC, however, is adult involvement, which is both a safety and accessibility issue. Adult supervision is a key ingredient to a safe playground, and playgrounds need to be designed to support adult supervision. The NPPS recommends that equipment be designed so children can be easily viewed (Thompson, 2002a). This can be accomplished by using transparent materials for tunnels and arranging equipment so there are no blind spots. A playground should have numerous benches for caregivers to sit on as they watch the children, and these benches should have a view of a majority of the activity on the playground (Wade, 2002). Equipment should also allow for adult participation. It is suggested that 40% of playground injuries result partially from a lack of supervision (Thompson, 2002a). However, for a child with a disability, adult involvement takes on new roles. Many children need adult assistance with transfer stations and steps, and even with the play activities, such as when sliding down a slide. An ADA-accessible playground should have equipment wide enough to support such involvement, but extra-wide playground equipment is better still. However, since equipment accessibility and benches are already on the rating system and equipment layout should already been cleared, we are listing this section only as a reminder to designers. Accessible Equipment Type of Access The ADA has set up guidelines of accessibility through the ATBCB (Appendix H). The guidelines are based on the number of pieces of equipment present on the

66

playground. Ramps are not required unless there are 20 or more elevated play components on the playground. If the playground has fewer than 20 pieces of elevated components, transfer stations can be used to connect 50% of elevated play pieces (2001c). Transfer stations require a child to leave his or her wheelchair or mobility device at the entrance of the equipment. Although better than nothing, many children need assistance with exiting their wheelchairs and climbing the transfer steps. Therefore, ramps are more useful for children with disabilities. Even when ramps are required, they need only connect 25% of the elevated components. Better playgrounds exceed these guidelines and connect as many pieces of equipment as possible. A truly good playground makes the best use of its ramp system to connect numerous pieces of equipment and make the playground truly integrated for children with disabilities. We are classifying playgrounds with the absence of any accessible route to the equipment as poor. Playgrounds with transfer stations are rated as fair, and playgrounds with ramps are rated as good. Integration Level One of the largest complaints derived from our survey of parents of children with disabilities is the lack of integration between able-bodied children and children with disabilities because of the playground design. Christina Bishop, a recreational therapist and playground designer, states, For a child with a disability, just being next to his buddy is a huge deal (Bishop, 2002). A child with a physical disability already is only guaranteed 50% of the elevated equipment to be accessible, so that 50% should be as fully integrated with other children as possible. Examples of integrated equipment are two levels of an activity next to each other, double slides, sand tables, and other pieces of

67

equipment that involves social interactions between a child with disabilities and other children. For rating playgrounds, a playground is rated poor if it has less than 75% of its accessible equipment promoting integration. A playground is rated as good if it has 75% of the equipment or more promoting integration. Accessible Facilities A truly good recreation area and playground should have restroom facilities that are accessible for people with disabilities. Although not always possible for smaller communities to build, it still should be considered when reviewing playgrounds. When building a playground, look for a location that may already have such facilities. An accessible bathroom complies with section 4.23 of the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), which include provisions on height, guardrails, and clear space of toilets, sinks, and mirrors (2000). Note that there are also special provisions for children that should be addressed in a bathroom near a playground. A playground is rated poor if these facilities either not present and not accessible and good if the facilities are present and accessible. Pathway Many playgrounds meet the ADA requirements for playground equipment, then fail to have an accessible means of getting to the playground. The path from the parking lot to the equipment may be full of obstacles for a child with a physical disability. The first obstacle that may be encountered is the curb in the parking lot. There should be ramps in the parking lot curbs to allow entrance into the playground. The next obstacle is the path into the playground. The final rule by the ADAAG requires an accessible route from facilities around the playground site to the playground. The path of the accessible

68

route must be a minimum of 36 inches wide and contain passing spaces every 200 feet, unless the route is more than 60 inches wide, in which case no passing spaces are necessary (2002a). Many playgrounds do not have a defined entrance into the playground. Some wood chip playgrounds use railing ties to prevent the surfacing from being blown away by the wind. This is another obstacle for a person with a physical disability. An elevation change as small as a half an inch can be a barrier for someone in a wheelchair and the area should contain a beveled ramp if elevation changes are present (Hendy, 2001). Once on the playground, accessible routes need to be maintained. The ADAAG and ASTM have determined that rubber surfacing and many wood fibers are accessible materials. It is important that an accessible route be provided at both the entrance and exit points of equipment. Teri Hendy writes, If a child is given an accessible route to the entrance of an activity such as a slide, but no accessible route is provided from the exit how can the child get back to his or her assistive device? (Hendy, 2001) The requirements for the actual pieces of equipment vary depending on whether the equipment is ground level or elevated. There are specifications for ramps gradient, width of aisles, and handrails that can be found in the Final Rule from the ADAAG (2002a). For this rating system, we are concerned with only the pathways leading up to the equipment. A playground is rated poor if there are any significant obstacles, or where should be present but is not. The playground is fair if ramps are present, but there are obstacles such as a narrow pathway. A playground will be rated as good if there are no noticeable obstacles. Parking Location

69

If the playground is any larger than a small neighborhood park, parking needs to be provided nearby. It is imperative that there be handicap parking spaces. The number of parking spaces should reflect the size of the playground. Adaptive Access suggests 1 handicap space for every 25 spaces provided in the parking lot (2001a). However, since one of the playgrounds goals should be accessibility, a higher percentage of handicap parking is necessary. A handicap parking spot should be 5 feet wide and clearly marked, while a van accessible spot should be 8 feet wide and clearly marked as van (2001a). The ADA requires 1 in every 8 handicap spots should be van accessible, yet again, a greater proportion would be better for a playground setting. In addition, the parking lot should be constructed so a child never needs to travel behind parked cars (Ensign, 1993). For this rating system, a playground is considered poor if no consideration is given to handicap parking, fair if parking is available, but unsafe because children need to travel behind cars, and good if safe, handicap parking is available. Benches As mentioned above, benches are needed to allow for parental supervision. Benches are also a good place for children to rest and participate in on looking activities. For children with disabilities, they are even more essential. Many disabilities of the lungs or physical disabilities require the child to take frequent breaks. A playground is considered poor if there are no or very few benches, fair if there are benches located far apart, and good if there are benches placed strategically around throughout the playground that allow for frequents rest and easy supervision. Shaded Areas

70

Everyone enjoys shaded areas on hot summer days. Shaded areas are needed to allow the child to cool down and relax. Ideally, they should coincide with the benches or tables. In addition, certain pieces of equipment should be shaded to allow a child to be sheltered from the heat if desired. A playground is rated poor if there is little consideration given to shade, with few covered areas and little covered equipment (less than 10% of the activities). A playground is rated fair if there at least 25% of the activities are covered, and some shaded benches are present. A good playground has greater than 25% of its activities covered and most of its benches are in the shade. Age Appropriate Design The typical age divisions for play areas are 2-5 year-olds in one area, and 5-12 year-olds in another. This division is based both on the size of the children, their centers of gravity, social development, cognitive development, and the preschool/elementary school divide (Brown, 2002). Having separate areas for these groups prevents dangerous misuse of equipment. A small child may be afraid of the larger playground or get hurt on larger equipment. Similarly, a larger child is a danger to smaller children on the smaller equipment and this set of equipment does not fully stimulate the older child. According to the CPSC, 10,720 children aged 4 and under were hurt on climbers and monkey bars, equipment not designed for their age group (Brown, 2002). The CPSC recommends that the following equipment not be included on a preschool playground: chain and cable walks, arch climbers, free standing climbing equipment, fulcrum see-saws, log rolls, spiraling slides, overhead rings, parallel bars, track rides, and vertical sliding poles (Brown, 2002). Signage is an important part of the playground for the both the child and the adults supervising them. It provides the age guidelines of the equipment for the adults

71

and delineates rules for the children. However, rules will not make up for a poorly designed playground (Frost et al., 1979). For this rating system, a poorly designed playground has only one area with no attention to age and size of equipment. A fair playground has equipment for both younger and older children, but the play areas are not effectively separated and there are no signs identifying the play areas. A good playground is either specific for a certain age or has two separate areas for the two age groups and identifies these areas by signs. Promotes Social Development As explained earlier, play is an important part of social development. A playground should contain equipment that foster development of all five major types of play (unoccupied, solitary, parallel, associative, cooperative/goal-oriented). Activities for cooperative/goal-oriented play of three or more children include: work, play, and sand tables; stage areas; open spaces; tunnels; basket games; and other activities where 3+ children can gather together in a safe manner with the intent to actively play together. A good playground contains group activities (although the required number of such activities depends on the size of the playground) and a poor playground lacks group interactions. Associative play is a middle ground between parallel play and cooperative play. It differs from cooperative play as the children can have their own interests, but are still playing together. Since the equipment for associative play is basically the same as cooperative and parallel, we will not specifically rate this area. Yet the reader should know the difference in the types of play and that it was considered in the rating system.

72

Parallel play occurs when two people play independently but next to each other. This type of play is used as a primary type of play by children 2.5 years-3.5 years old, but continues as a source of play in later years. Activities that foster parallel pay include swings, monkey bars, sand, and play tables, and art or music areas. Therefore, a good playground contains an activity for two children and a poor playground lacks group interactions. Solitary play was looked upon unfavorably in the early 20th century. However, since the 1970s, benefits of individual play have been noted (Frost et al., 1979). Activities that can promote independence are play, work, and sand tables, swings, climbing pieces, balance beams, and strength bars. Therefore, a good playground contains equipment for one child to play alone on and a poor playground lacks these types of equipment. Playgrounds have a tendency to become very busy places full of commotion. Children with certain mental and social disabilities can become overwhelmed in this environment. It is therefore beneficial to have quiet places on the playground. This can be accomplished through a sensory garden set apart from the equipment or confined play huts. Quiet areas are also good for unoccupied, onlooker behaviors of play. At certain points in development, children isolate themselves and prefer to watch and be unoccupied. A good playground has a quiet place to retreat to and a poor playground lacks this space. Physical Development Playgrounds need to challenge a childs physical abilities. Equipment should strengthen the upper and lower body, improve coordination and balance, and help develop fine motor skills. Equipment that stimulates upper body improvement include

73

overhead bars (monkey-bars, chinning bars, parallel bars, climbing rings), basketball hoops, and climbing nets. Swings, log rolls, climbing pieces, and free space areas promote lower body strength. Balance and coordination is promoted through balance beams, swings, log rolls, teeter totters, and bridges. As one will notice, each piece of equipment can work numerous body areas and most playgrounds naturally have equipment that works all these areas without much thought being used to maximize benefit in development. We have determined maximum physical development comes from having various types of components. Different play components provide different play experiences. Examples of common types of experiences include swinging, rocking, sliding, spinning, and climbing. These types of experiences bring variety to the playground while naturally promoting all types of physical development. It should be noted that the different types of activities required for a playground to be meet ADA guidelines is related to the number of elevated play components (Table 1). In addition, fine motor skills and balance should also be included on a playground but may not qualify as a type of experience and component. For this rating system, a playground rates poor if it lacks an activity that allows the participant to experience swinging, rocking, sliding, climbing, balance, and fine motor skills and rates good if it contains a piece of equipment that satisfies that experience. It is also important that a playground have various difficulty levels for each skill in physical development. A playground should challenge a child, but not scare the child or be dangerous. For example, a playground should provide both taller and shorter slides, wider balance beams and narrower ones. Climbing equipment should be at various

74

heights to promote development of all abilities level. This issue becomes especially pertinent to children with disabilities, who benefit from the therapeutic aspects of playground equipment. Providing similar pieces of equipment at various ability levels also promotes interaction among children with different abilities, thereby promoting integration as well. Therefore, a playground is considered poor if it caters to mostly one ability level and good if it contains equipment for all ability levels. Intellectual Stimulation Education is easy to integrate into play, but is often left out completely. The use of certain props can encourage imagination, academics, and problem solving. A steering wheel or acting stage can encourage imagination. A map of the country or sign language board can encourage academics. A tic-tac-toe board or puzzle board can encourage problem solving. A good playground provides activities that encourage imagination and exploration, academics, and problem solving. Sensory Stimulation All children benefit from stimulation of four senses: sight, hearing, touch, and smell (taste is too risky for a playground to promote). When considering disabilities and playground design, people mostly concern themselves with physical disabilities and accessibility. However, children with other types of disabilities use playgrounds and could especially benefit from a design that encourages all the senses to be stimulated. Playground equipment should be brightly colored and should occur at various heights to stimulate vision. Intricate designs on the equipment will enhance the visual field, as will objects not usually associated with playgrounds, like trees and other natural objects.

75

Equipment that encourages auditory stimulation includes musical panels, chimes, voice distorters, intercoms, and other pieces of equipment that make noise. A playground should present a variety of textures to its users, and this can be accomplished either through different surfacing and equipment materials (rubber, wood chips, sand, plastic, metal) or through providing textured equipment or activities with tactile components. Finally, most playgrounds neglect to provide olfactory stimulation, although this is very easy to provide with proper landscaping. Flowers and trees serve a dual purpose of enhancing visual and olfactory stimulation. We consider a playground to be visually stimulating if its design uses at least three bright, contrasting colors on its equipment. Poor visual stimulation is indicated by natural browns, grays, and greens. A good playground will contain noisy activities or equipment, a variety of textures, and fragrant landscaping. Aesthetics A playgrounds aesthetic value is a result of its design and maintenance. Some of these aspects have been addressed already, including equipment color, equipment height, and cleanliness. Spaciousness and efficient flow have not yet been addressed, but are also important. A playground should have plenty of open, free space for numerous reasons. First, it gives children additional areas in which to play in an unstructured manner. Second, it helps to make pathways more accessible. It is also visually pleasing and therefore an aesthetic consideration. A crowded playground neither looks good nor functions well, and a playground that does not function well will not have efficient flow. Spacious playgrounds are more likely to have been better designed, and good designs will have addressed flow concerns. We believe the most efficient playground design is a

76

central station in the center with smaller stations surrounding it. As long as a playground provides a logical progression from one piece of equipment to the next, however, it is functional. For this rating system, we are considering a playground aesthetically pleasing if it is spacious and appears to provide efficient flow from each piece of equipment to the next. Meets the Need We did not evaluate the category of meeting the needs of the community for the playgrounds we visited. However, it is important when considering how to build a playground. Size, cost, use, and programming are issues that need to be considered in the planning stage. When designing a playground, designers should consider how many people will be using the playground and scale the size appropriately. Communities should price shop and design the equipment to be a cost efficient as possible. The NPPS suggests that 10 playground surfacing companies and equipment companies be consulted (Thompson, 2002a). Proper use of the playground will result from adult supervision and community involvement. This category includes making sure children use the equipment properly and the community keeping unwanted intruders off the playground. Programming on the playground makes a large difference on the success of a playground. As outlined earlier, adult play specialists have been employed in Europe to promote beneficial play on playgrounds. Encouragement of games and creative play will make the time on the playground much more fun and pleasurable. Programming can also help bring intellectual, social, and physical development. Since we cannot identify the needs of a community by looking at the equipment and layout, we list these criteria for future playground planners to consider.

77

Research Results
Survey
Introduction In accordance with the statistical plan described above, what follows is a general characterization of the data, tests for simple relationships, and the development of a predictive model. Data for each section will be presented, and an accompanying discussion will be provided for each section. Descriptive Statistics Two hundred forty-nine valid responses were collected to complete this survey. Figure 1 shows a breakdown of the respondents by their position. The most common response was parent of a child without a disability, with 37.8 percent or 94 of the respondents identifying with that group. Figure 2 illustrates the need categories for those people who reported some relationship to a child with a disability. It is interesting to note that more people indicated some type of disability to the question Which category best describes your child/students special needs? that the total number of people who indicated that they had a relationship with a child/student who had special needs. In this case, the disability cited with most frequency was social/emotional. It is our conjecture that parents who have children with social/emotional disabilities are less inclined to think of their children having disabilities, unless prompted to do so. If this is true, with a reordering of the questions, we might have received more responses indicating that the respondent was a parent of a child with disabilities or a parent of at least one child with a disability and one child without disabilities. There is clearly a sight-bias taking place, but it is not clear whether our specified ordering of questions or an alternative ordering of

78

questions would be better. Accordingly, unless otherwise noted, for tests that involve a population of disabled people, the responses of not None and not No Response to the question of Which category best describes your child/students special needs? will be used. Figure 3 gives the preferred location of playgrounds. Playgrounds can be built in any number of locations. A simple pie chart would not be appropriate because the locations are not mutually exclusive. Local Park was the most common response, but an equal number of people indicated Community School and Regional Park. This is somewhat confusing, as the parks in ones neighborhood might actually be regional parks. This might indicate that people would not be as willing to travel to a regional park, even though they are using them. For example, because a large number (47) of people surveyed were from Silver Spring, Maryland, their closest park might actually be Wheaton Regional Park. Finally, Figure 4 shows the adaptations needed to current playgrounds. The mean was used to capture the percentage of affirmative responses out of the subset of actual responses. Alternatively, the mean ignored all non-responses. There seems to be a definite problem getting around and thriving in playgrounds, though actually getting to the equipment from parking areas does not seem to be too big of a problem for most individuals. This is an interesting result, as many of the additional comments we received indicated that parking was largely inadequate. Nearly all people supported building playgrounds of some kind (239 out of 249, or 96.0 percent). Of those, 229 supported building integrated, universal playgrounds. Of the 112 people who had heard of universal playgrounds, almost two-thirds had actually

79

been to one. Finally, 190 people believed that a universal playground would support their child/student. Probabilities The conditional probability functions proposed in the statistical plan are very easy to work out. In general, the probability of A given B, denoted P(A | B), is P(A B) when P(B)

A and B are dependent. However, when A and B are independent of each other,

P(A | B) =

P(A B) P(A)P(B) = = P(A) . In each of the tests described in the statistical P(B) P(B)

plan, A and B are dependent of each other because there is no a priori reason to believe otherwise. This point will be verified and further clarified in the Chi-Square tests below. Table 2 gives the probability of supporting universal playgrounds given the position of the respondent. Support for integrated, universal playgrounds was clearly strong among all groups. Table 3 gives the probability of supporting universal playgrounds given the special need category. It is interesting that respondents who had relationships with children with perceptual/motor disabilities had the lowest positive response rate. Many traditional playgrounds do not make extensive use of sensory and motor stimulation through the musician panels common to many modern playgrounds. Instead, we expected to see a low positive rate of response from those respondents with connections to children with physical or social/emotional disabilities. However, we can take this to mean that parents are already seeing the benefits of having their otherwise physically disabled play with children of similar social skills, with the reverse holding true as well (Hahn, 2002).

80

The probability of perceived benefit given the respondents support of universal playgrounds yields one surprising results. 96.7 percent (59/61) of those who see a benefit from universal playgrounds indicated that they would support them. However, of those who saw no benefit from universal playgrounds, 94.1 percent (16/17) still supported the construction of integrated, universal playgrounds. The probability of perceived benefit given category of need is given in Table 4. These data coincide fairly well with the test of supporting universal playgrounds given need category. However, the None and Social/Emotional categories are significantly lower. This could be a result of the ambiguity discussed above, where respondents indicated that they had no relationship to a person with disabilities and later indicated otherwise. If this is the case and the above conjecture that people do not consider many types of social/emotional disabilities actual disabilities was correct, this would help explain the relatively low response rates for social/emotional disabilities. If this type of disability is not seen as a disability unless specifically prompted, then logically there is little benefit to be gained from a universal playground because the problem does not really exist in the first place. The Chi-square calculation for teachers/parents versus expected benefit from universal playgrounds is given in Table 5. The Chi-square statistic is 87.127 with an associated probability value of p < .000. This means that the differences between groups are unlikely to occur by chance. Several cells are highlighted to emphasize their comparative abnormality. The most notable differences observed are an overestimate in the number of parents of children with disabilities who do not expect a benefit from universal playgrounds and an underestimate in the number of parents of children with

81

disabilities who do expect a benefit from playgrounds. Conversely, there is an underestimate in the number of parents of children without a disability who do not expect a benefit from universal playgrounds and an overestimate of parents of children without a disability who do expect a benefit from universal playgrounds. There is also an overestimate in the number of other individuals who expect a benefit from universal playgrounds. This is not so surprising, given the catchall nature of this category of individuals. Table 6 is a Chi-Square test for support for universal playgrounds vs. position. The Chi-Square statistic was 114.754 with an associated probability of p < .000. This means that the differences between groups are unlikely to occur by chance. Only one cell is abnormal, but because it is a non-response, it is probably meaningless. Table 7 is a Chi-Square test for perceived benefit vs. support for universal playgrounds. The Chi-Square statistic was 82.389 with an associated probability of p < .000. There is an excess of support for integrated playgrounds by those who perceive a benefit. Although this is abnormal, it is not beyond the range of unexpected. An example of an abnormal, unexpected result would be an excess in the number of people who support the building of a playground who do not perceive a benefit for their children. There are a number of abnormalities in the perceived benefit vs. need category Chi-square analysis, which appears in Table 8. The Chi-Square statistic was 92.710 with an associated probability of p < .000. Discouragingly, there is an excess of people who have no special needs who do not see universal playgrounds as a benefit. Children/students with physical disabilities are extra-likely to see universal playgrounds as beneficial. However, people with other disabilities also have an excess of no

82

perceived benefit. Most of the other respondents later indicated that their children/students had multiple disabilities. They might see universal playgrounds addressing some of their needs but not being able to fulfill their extra-special needs. The Chi-square test for position vs. perceived benefit also yielded several interesting results, and it can be seen in Table 9. The Chi-square statistic for this test was 87.127 with an associated probability of p < .000. Specifically, non-identifying people, parents of children with disabilities, and parents of able-bodied children and children with disabilities were extra-likely to perceive a benefit from universal playgrounds. However, conforming to the above observation, parents of children without disabilities reported no perceived benefit from universal playgrounds more frequently than would be expected. Table 10 lists the preferred type of equipment for all survey respondents by descending mean value. The mean was computed to account for disparities in the number of people responding. We believe that the response rate is different for several reasons. Many people indicated some explicitly that they though all of the pieces of equipment were important. Others indicated that they did not believe any of the pieces of equipment. Some respondents made notes that they were confused by our terminology. It is also unclear how respondents answered that is, whether they indicated which pieces of equipment they thought were the most beneficial developmentally versus which pieces they though were most enjoyable. Table 11 is the same test for the disabled population. There is very little change between the two populations. Clearly able-bodied and children with disabilities do not play the same way. However, this survey suggests able-bodied and children with

83

disabilities do play with the same equipment. The two groups are likely to simply play in different ways according to their abilities. To test this, Table 12 breaks down the ratings of equipment alphabetically by disability category. The five highest rankings in each category are highlighted. Play areas/huts are still important for all of the groups. Sympathetic swings and spring rides were not as important to all of the groups, though it is still present in two cases. Water tables moved up slightly in two cases. While these data are interesting and useful, it should be noted carefully that the sample sizes in this breakdown are very small. This pushes the standard deviation up. This means that the estimates are approximate representations of what the whole population values, but there is no way of being statistically certain.
Loglinear Regression Models

The loglinear regression models use a categorical variable as the dependent variable and combinations of numerical and categorical variables as independent variables. We ran three related loglinear regression tests. First, we wanted to determine the perceived benefit as a function of support, need category, age group, developmental aid, adaptations necessary to existing playgrounds, and equipment ratings. Second, we wanted to determine support as a function of perceived benefit, need category, age group, developmental aid, adaptations necessary to existing playgrounds, and equipment ratings. Finally, we wanted to determine the cross between benefit and support as a function of need category, age group, developmental aid, adaptations necessary to existing playgrounds, and equipment ratings.

84

These calculations are computationally intensive. Accordingly, our statistical analysis package limited us to the number of variables we could include. However, even the simplified regression analyses were too complicated for our equipment. We hope to have access to more powerful equipment so that we can analyze these results. We predict, however, that in the first model the most significant factors will be support and need category. Similarly, we predict that in the second model the most significant factors will be perceived benefit and need category. Finally, in the third model, we predict that the key factors will be need category.

Interviews
While the experts we interviewed had differing opinions when it came to certain topics, they agreed that a playground should be safe and accessible for all who use it. When comparing modern playgrounds with older ones, nearly all the professionals said the best thing newer playgrounds had to offer was safety. The interviewees comprised seven individuals trained as pediatric physical therapists or occupational therapists, one county therapeutic specialist, one county childrens services coordinator, two motor development specialists, and one specialist in animal play behavior. The interviews provided insight into the specific benefits particular pieces of equipment provide. Survey results showed that slides were the most popular piece of equipment, but that finding is based on parents ideas of fun and enjoyment. We hoped physical therapists would be able to tell us if slides provided therapeutic benefits, and if so, what they are. Additionally, many of the interview questions targeted social interactions and integrating children with and without disabilities; many of the

85

respondents were able to tell us how playground equipment can foster interactions between children, and how to design our playground to accommodate those factors. Many different pieces of equipment provide physical benefits to their users. Climbing builds coordination and motor development, forcing users to extend their hands and bear weight, thereby forcing them to work against gravity and increase upper trunk strength and flexibility. Climbing is found in equipment like slides, cargo nets, various types of ladders, and monkey bars. These pieces can be constructed in a variety of shapes, with many different materials (rope, chain, metal bars), creating myriad different structures for children to play on. The most popular pieces of equipment among therapists are slides and swings. Slides provide the climbing experience beneficial to strength- and coordination-building, but they also provide their users with a different type of motion than that normally felt in everyday activities. Jennifer Ways, a pediatric physical therapist, said slides are especially good for developing a childs startle reflex (Ways, 2002). However, playgrounds need to have a variety of slides in order to accommodate different users. Doublewide slides without a middle divider are good for children with little-to-no ability to control themselves; they are able to sit between the legs of an adult, who can fit on the large slide. At the same time, double slides with a divider in the middle are appropriate for children with better physical strength (Ways, 2002). Slides of different lengths, heights, and inclines provide different experiences for children, yet also accommodate different abilities and promote interaction between children of different abilities, who are able to share an activity that the presence of a single piece of equipment might preclude

86

(Clark, 2002; Richardson, 2002). Playground designers need to be wary of slides that are too high, however, because of the dangers they pose. Swings are also popular with therapists because of the different type of motion they give their users. Ways says it gives kids a chance to feel their bodies in motion kinesthetic awareness (Ways, 2002). Swinging promotes vestibular stimulation, strengthening balance and equilibrium, as well as head and trunk control if they are swinging themselves. Therapists warn against providing too few types of swings, though. Swings can be precarious for children without highly developed equilibriums, so they have been designed for different users. Bucket seats support smaller children, and swings resembling reclined seats support children with less upright stability. Sympathetic swings have been designed to allow one persons leg pumping to power two swings, allowing children to benefit from each others abilities, and other swings accommodate wheelchairs. Susan Zwany, an occupational therapist, cites swings as a place on the playground to provide passively forced mingling; by alternating sympathetic swings with traditional ones, children of different abilities will be forced to interact (Zwany, 2002). Tire swings are another site of social interaction. A multi-sensory experience is important for all children. Physical therapist Laura Money pointed out that bright colors benefit children with visual impairments by stimulating their vision (Money, 2002). Color can be integrated into a playground by color-coding equipment (e.g., all the slides are a single color) and providing contrasting colors on a single piece of equipment. Sound can be incorporated in many ways as well. Rumble strips that make noise when walked or rolled over or a musical grid that makes music when a wheelchair moves over it are variations on a musical theme. Similarly,

87

musical instruments such as chimes and xylophones provide auditory stimulation and allow children to play both by themselves and with their peers (Money, 2002; Ways, 2002). Textures are important as well, and can be incorporated through sand, fibers, and the playgrounds current ground covering. Playgrounds provide more than physical therapy. Imaginative play can be encouraged through activity panels, which may be geared toward individual or multiple users, as well as steering wheels and other real-world activities children can mimic. Social interaction and cognitive and mental development can also be stimulated through imaginative play, with the use of model houses, ships, and other situational activities that encourage role-playing. These equipment also allow children to rest and remain sedentary, rather than requiring them to constantly move (Ways, 2002). Other playground necessities include sand boxes and tunnels, which allow children to explore new spaces. Balance beams promote vestibular stimulation as well, but need to be present in different widths and heights from the ground (Clark, 2002). Overall, all the experts interviewed cited accessibility and safety as the most important playground must-haves. Dr. Jane Clark, a motor development researcher, says, If children with disabilities can act like other children without being singled out, it helps them emotionally and socially (Clark, 2002). Oftentimes, the lack of social and emotion development is caused by delays in physical development. Children with disabilities choose to participate in activities they think they can do, which causes them to associate with younger children. Therefore, it is important to have children in the same age groups but with different physical abilities playing together to prevent additional lags in other types of development (Hahn, 2002). Interviewees feel all equipment should be

88

wheelchair accessible, so as to prevent exclusion and promote social interaction among children. Every piece of equipment can be modified to allow wheelchair users and children with varying abilities to play on them some examples are sand tables high enough for a wheelchair to sit at, and ramps to allow access to high pieces of equipment. Ramps are more desirable than wheelchair transfer stations, because they allow children to gain access to the equipment without the help of an adult caregiver. Playgrounds need to be designed to integrate as much of the equipment together as possible. This way, once a child is on a piece of equipment, he or she has easy access to others without needing to dismount and access it again. Accessibility promotes self-reliance and allows children to work on developing at their own pace (Clark, 2002). Accessibility to adults also needs to be considered. Equipment must be able to accommodate an adults size, in the event he or she needs to accompany a child on the equipment. Although modern playgrounds are more safety-conscious than playgrounds built in previous decades, safety is still a concern. Fences prevent children from wandering away and allow adult caregivers to rest their eyes or talk to other parents without having to corral their children back to the playground area (Richardson, 2002). Slides, monkey bars, and platforms that are too tall can present a safety hazard as well. Money noted that one school chose to add a small step in front of the top of its slides to prevent wheelchairs from accidentally rolling down them (Money, 2002). The sun is a hazard many people do not think of right away when evaluating playgrounds, yet the presence of shade is important in order to allow playground users the chance to take shelter from the sun. The sun can also have a deleterious effect on playground equipment; metal slides, platforms, and poles quickly heat up in direct sunlight, making them too hot to use.

89

Plastic equipment insulates against the heat better, and is also easier and less expensive to maintain than metal; however, plastic equipment is harmful to cochlear implants, and so signs warning users to remove their implants must be provided if plastic equipment is installed (Bishop, 2002). Ground covering is an important aspect of all playgrounds; falls from playground equipment can be very serious, so shock-absorbent material must be used beneath all equipment. Wood chips are considered to be safe, but poured rubber matting is rated by all of the experts as the best possible ground covering. Not only is it the safest ground covering, but also it allows, severely disabled kids to be able to crawl and sit. It is good for gait trainers and walkers because it allows them to grip the surface better (Ways, 2002). The interviewees were split as to where a universal playground would be best located. Constructing them at schools provide a guarantee of use, but school system laws are oftentimes more restrictive than federal and state regulations, limiting the types of structures that can be erected. Schools usually already have playgrounds, so local parks may have a greater need. Parks also offer access to a greater variety of people, increasing the chances of a universal playground benefiting someone.

Ratings
Overview

Twenty-three playgrounds were rated using the final rating system (Appendix F). The playgrounds were chosen at random and were from Maryland and Northern Virginia. Ten different individuals completed the ratings and then one individual checked and compiled the results to eliminate individual bias. The overall ratings showed significant deficiencies in landing surfacing material, type of access, integration levels between

90

children with and without disabilities, and different skill levels on the playground (Figure 5). Also, deficiencies in cooperative play activities and variety in sensory and intellectual activities were missing. After completing the overall ratings, the playgrounds were divided into regional parks, neighborhood parks, and elementary school playgrounds to try to elucidate differences between such playgrounds. Six regional parks, 10 neighborhood parks, and seven elementary schools were rated. Safety is one of the greatest concerns in playground design. As demonstrated by the number of injuries sustained on playgrounds nationally, playgrounds are a threat to a childs well being. This survey of playgrounds paralleled those findings. In 17 out of 23 playgrounds, the landing area surface could be improved. Large parks rated the best; four of six such playgrounds had rubber surfacing that rated as good. Elementary schools, on average, had a fair rating. Only one of seven elementary schools had rubber surfacing, five of seven had wood chips or other surfacing rated as fair, and one of seven had poorly rated concrete or dirt surfacing. Only one of the 23 playgrounds had poor equipment condition, while eight rated fair and 14 rated good. The poorly rated playground was a small neighborhood park. Five of the playgrounds were located near local dangers, such as a road or forest. Although there was one playground at an elementary school and one regional park located near the dangers, three were at neighborhood parks. Property condition did not seem to be a problem on most playgrounds in any of the categories. These results show a definite need of improvements in safety. Playground accessibility is the major concern for this project. The rating systems found equipment access to be limited on many of the playgrounds. Regional parks were the most accessible, with all regional parks evaluated having ramps, wide aisle access,

91

and high integration levels. Elementary schools rated fair on most accessibility categories. All except one elementary school had transfer stations. The aisle widths were smaller on four of the seven playgrounds. Potential integration between children with disabilities and non-disabled children was limited on four of the seven playgrounds. Neighborhood parks were the least accessible. Eight of the 10 neighborhood parks lacked ramps or transfer stations, had fair or poor aisle width, and lacked integration. Besides equipment being accessible, the facilities must also be accessible for the playground to be fully functional. Accessible facilities mirrored accessible equipment, with larger parks being most accessible and neighborhood parks the least accessible. Nine of the 23 playgrounds had obstacles in the pathways, five of which were neighborhood parks (rated poor), three of which were elementary schools (rated poor), and one of which was a regional park (rated fair). Parking location is another area for improvement. Five of the neighborhood parks rated poor, five elementary schools rated poor, and two regional parks rated fair. Elementary schools rated the most poorly on having tables, benches, and shaded areas. Bathrooms were another large problem; 10 playgrounds lacked facilities, and on those that did have facilities, many were unusable or far away. These findings on accessibility validate this projects goals of improving accessibility for children with disabilities. Age-appropriate play areas are a very important part of safety. This survey shows that most playgrounds are lacking defined separate areas for younger and older children. Seven neighborhood parks contain equipment for both small and big children in the same area. Two neighborhood parks, five elementary schools, and four large regional parks do not specifically separate the areas through signs, although they do contain semi-obvious

92

separations. As demonstrated in the methodology section, the crossover of children of different sizes/ages playing together presents a danger to children. As established in the psychological and social aspects of play section, playgrounds should foster social development. Eleven of the playgrounds evaluated lacked cooperative/goal-oriented play structures. Three of these playgrounds were found at elementary schools, and eight were at neighborhood parks. Two playgrounds at elementary schools lacked parallel activities. Quiet areas were absent on six playgrounds, four at elementary schools and two at neighborhood parks. The absence of these activities could limit a childs development. Physical development is an obvious benefit from playgrounds. The different sensations of rocking, sliding, climbing, swinging, and fine motor movements are instrumental in physical development. Five of the playgrounds did not have rocking equipment. Two of the playgrounds were at regional parks and three were at elementary schools. Every playground evaluated had a sliding and climbing component. Five playgrounds lacked swinging components; two were neighborhood parks and three were elementary schools. Eight of the neighborhood parks, four elementary schools, and one regional park lacked equipment for fine motor skills. An important part of the playground is to challenge every childs ability level and provide equipment that adapts to a childs abilities instead of forcing the child to adapt to the equipment. Installing equipment appropriate for children of different physical and mental development levels accomplish this; 11 playgrounds lacked any pieces of equipment that existed in multiple ability levels.

93

Playgrounds have the ability to stimulate imagination, exploration, problem solving, and academic learning in a fun way. However, only a little more than half of the playgrounds visited had any equipment for this purpose. All of the regional parks met the criteria in this area. Three of the seven elementary schools met the criteria while only two of the 10 playgrounds in neighborhood parks met the criteria. Sensory stimulation is also important in development. More than half of all playgrounds were deficient in auditory-, sensual-, and olfactory-stimulating activities. These deficiencies were in all three types of playgrounds; however, the deficiencies were more common in the neighborhood parks, followed by elementary schools, and finally by regional parks.
Case Studies

Provided below is an example of a large regional park, elementary school, and small neighborhood playground. A large park that received high ratings was Hadleys Park, located in Potomac, MD. This playground was built with the goals of accessibility and integration in mind, largely by the contributions of donors from the community. In terms of playground safety, Hadleys Park rated well. The entire ground surface of the play area is rubber, minimizing injuries due to falls and making travel easy for children with wheelchairs or other assistive devices. The equipment and property area are in excellent condition, perhaps due to the relative newness of this playground and the communitys commitment to keeping it a safe place to play. The only suggested area for improvement would be to install a fence or other barrier to prevent children from straying from the play area. The playground flanks a rather busy road, separated only by a short steep hill and a few bushes. While it would be difficult for a child, especially one with

94

disabilities, to climb this hill and push through the bushes escaping his or her guardians notice, there is still a slim possibility that would be made even slimmer by installation of a fence. The area between the playground and the parking lot is wide open, as is the space on the other side between the playground and a baseball field. With no boundaries, a child could run off in any direction, making the close attention of guardians necessary on this playground, especially since it tends to get very busy. The majority of the equipment in the play area is accessible for children with disabilities. One of the three central play structures is not accessible by ramp, but the equipment present on this structure is comparable to that found on the accessible structures. The children that were observed playing (all without any noticeable disabilities) used all areas indiscriminately, so children with disabilities would not be isolated only on the accessible equipment. The playground has its own parking lot, several benches and tables, and portable bathrooms, making it a convenient and accessible facility. There is however, a lack of shaded areas, which may be problematic during the summer months. The play equipment and surrounding area aim to incorporate all styles of play that are integral to social development. There are areas where a child can play by him or herself since the play area is spacious enough to accommodate large numbers of children without crowding. The idea of playgrounds is to foster social interaction with others, but it is important that these interactions occur naturally and are not forced, illustrating the importance of solitary play (Ivory et al., 1999). There are also ample opportunities for parallel activities and cooperative, goal oriented play. Spring rides and other various bars, swings, and slides are placed close to each other for children to play on in a parallel

95

fashion. There is a road painted onto the rubber surface that can be used for goaloriented activities such as racing. The central play structures are made to resemble ships, opening up doors for various cooperative games that children can create. Attention is given to all aspects of physical development as well. Each of the areas of physical movement has at least one, if not more, targeted play structures. These areas, as mentioned previously, are rocking, sliding, climbing, swinging, and fine motor coordination. There is a wide range of ability levels to accommodate children with varying levels of physical skills. The intellectual development areas of imagination/exploration, academic, and problem solving are not ignored either: Structures fit for these purposes are available. The entire playground is focused around a nautical theme, with the rubber painted in green and blue to resemble land and water, the ship-like central play structures, and a globe centered in the play area. This theme approach is good for fostering fantasy play. What we found lacking were activities geared toward sensory development. It can be argued that the visual and hearing needs are met indirectly, by the contrasting colors of the equipment and the sounds made by the turning cogs and other such play noises. However, there are no areas dedicated to exploring the senses of touch and smell. Again, this was a deficiency for all of our rated playgrounds. Overall, Hadleys Park received a good rating. The play area was deemed spacious and promoting efficient flow of children, despite the large numbers at play. On one visit, about 150 children were observed playing at once. The playground seems very cost efficient; funding was obviously given to important areas such as safety and accessibility of the equipment and the facility.

96

A playground that rated poorly in many areas was the Thurgood Marshall elementary school playground, located in Gaithersburg, MD. The school, and it is assumed, the playground, was built about 11 years ago when safety and accessibility for children with disabilities would not have received as much attention for a public school playground. It is important that an elementary rate high as this may be the only playtime for many children. For playground safety, Marshall rates as fair. The ground surface is woodchips, which is still deemed accessible, but ranks lower than rubber surfacing. The equipment condition was in need of some minor repairs, with paint on metal poles and railings chipping in some areas and some black skid marks on the plastic slides. Local dangers were minimal, due to the location of the playground behind the school. Baseball fields on one side and woods on the other are both fenced off. The road is some distance away in front of the school, and it is a neighborhood road. In terms of accessible equipment, there is a short woodchip ramp entering the play area, but a low wooden beam bordering the entire play area and cutting across the ramp would most likely disrupt the passage of a wheelchair. There are no ramps on any of the three play structures, and the aisles are too narrow for wheelchair accommodation, making the vast majority of the equipment inaccessible. For accessible facilities, Marshall ranks poorly. The wooden beam is a major pathway obstacle that can hinder a child with disabilities from entering the play area on his or her own. Parking is not convenient, since the lot is located in front of the school at the opposite corner. There is a blacktop behind the school, and then the playground,

97

making it about as far as possible from parking within the property. There are no tables or benches or shaded areas present. Marshall received a fair rating for age appropriateness. There is a smaller playground for kindergarten children located on the other side of the school. The play structures are smaller in size, but the level of accessibility is similar. This other play area is closer to parking and the school, but the property is not as well kept. Marshalls rating for social development was rather good, with equipment present for encouraging cooperative play, parallel activities, and solitary activities. The children could use the equipment as props for cooperative goal-oriented games they might come up with, such as various forms of tag or types of fantasy play. Monkey bars, various slides and a wobbly bridge serve as potential sites for parallel activities. Ladders, a fireman pole, and a spiral pole are appropriate for solitary activities. Due to the small size of this playground, it seems unlikely that a quiet area is available when children are playing. For physical development, Marshall does rather well again, with equipment targeting each of the categories of movement. One play structure with a balance beam and parallel bars is geared toward older and stronger children, but there did not appear to be any emphasis on lower ability levels, such as inclusion of ramps or low steps. There were no aspects of the playground geared toward imagination/exploration and academic development. The tic-tac-toe panel serves as a problem-solving component. Areas of sensory development on this playground were seriously lacking, with no emphasis on hearing, touch, or smell development. The only possible area for visual development is the contrasting colors of the play structures.

98

This playground was deemed rather small for accommodating an entire school. Even if only one or two grades were allowed out at a time, it seems as if the playground would be extremely crowded, unless a large majority of the children played on the blacktop area or the field. The flow efficiency of the playground is doubted, unless there are a minimal number of children playing. Based on our ratings, we are critical of the Thurgood Marshall elementary school playground meeting the needs of its users. The size is inappropriate for an entire school, and we feel that the budget of the school should be able to accommodate a larger more accessible playground. The playground was not visited during school hours, so the popularity of the play area with the children is not known. As an example of a neighborhood park, Belair Bath and Tennis, BB&T, playground in Prince Georges County rated poorly in many categories. The playground has one large play structure with slides and tunnels, a set of swings, and a set of spring riders. In the safety category, this playground rated poor for landing area surfacing and fair on equipment condition. Although there were woodchips under the central playstation, other areas, such as the swings, had grass surfacing. In addition, there was no age differentiation on the playgrounds. Since the playground was fenced in and the grounds were well kept, the playground rated well in these areas. Accessibility on this playground was lacking. There were no ramps or transfer stations, no path within the playground, and the path to the playground was a long, out of the way route. As there was no accessible way onto the playground, there were also no integrated activities. However, the playground did have accessible parking, table, benches, and shaded areas.

99

In social development, the BB&T playground lacked equipment to foster cooperative play. However, it did contain associative, parallel, and solitary equipment. The playground contained equipment for all the physical development aspects, except fine motor coordination. For intellectual development, the playground did not have any equipment to focus on imagination, problem solving, or academics. In addition, there was no sensory stimulation on the playground. This playground is a good example of how many playgrounds cater to physical development, but neglect the other types of development. By completing these ratings, deficiencies in playgrounds were elucidated. The sample we chose was too small to elucidate larger trends of all playgrounds, but we found no playground that rated well in every category. In addition, this survey of playgrounds showed that playgrounds at elementary schools and neighborhood parks were lacking in many areas. This result is worrisome because many children only play on these two types of playgrounds. It takes a greater amount of time and effort to take a child to a regional park. If these playgrounds were improved, perhaps there would be better play experiences for children.

A Novel Recommendation for Truly Boundless Play

Introduction
Designing a playground, while seemingly simple, is actually a complicated affair. Designing one that successfully achieves our goal of fostering interaction between children with disabilities and able-bodied children is even more difficult. In designing a playground for a local community, many factors must be taken into account, including available space, safety, size, cost, aesthetic appeal, and most importantly, accessibility

100

and play value.

Proposal
Available space

Our goal is to build a universally accessible playground in a community near College Park, MD. While the area is fairly urban, there are plenty of open spaces in which such a playground could be constructed, including Lake Artemesia, Greenbelt Park, and the University of Maryland. Ideally, the location of the playground would be readily accessible (i.e., near a major road and close to residential communities), relatively safe, and relatively flat. In the vicinity of College Park, safety from crime is the only one of these three specifications that might be a concern. For the universal playground we plan to build, half an acre is more than a sufficient amount of space. Though finding half an acre of flat public land in the College Park area should not be difficult, we must also consider accessibility to the public. In this respect, Greenbelt Park and Paint Branch Park are ideal. Both are located near major thoroughfares, and have pre-existing park facilities ideally nearby parking and restrooms in the midst of which a universal playground could be constructed.
Safety

Architect Richard Dattner gives the following advice on playground safety: It is obvious that from the parents point of view a good playground is one that meets their childrens needs by providing the greatest possible latitude for meaningful play. The factor of safety is actually more important to parents than any other. It has been the cause of their dissatisfaction with present facilities and has led them to encourage innovation in design. A safe playground frees parents from constant anxious attention to their childrens activities and allows them to relax and enjoy their time in the playground (Dattner, 1969).

101

The issue of safety on a playground is twofold. First, children and their guardians must be made safe from external threats such as criminals, traffic, etc. Second, the children who use the playground must be protected from injuries that might occur during play. Building the universal playground in a preexisting public recreation area should help circumvent the problem of crime. The playground will only be open to the public during daytime hours, and children will be required to be accompanied by an adult. Also, the playground will be placed a minimum of 100 feet away from the nearest road used by vehicular traffic, to prevent wayward children from wandering onto streets and giving adults time to catch them should they begin to head in that direction. A fence is one way to prevent children from leaving the supervised area. Many playgrounds do without fences, but one designed for children with disabilities may, ironically, have greater use for a fence or barrier. Autistic children, for example, often wander off without reason, potentially placing themselves in danger. Depending on the playgrounds location and its surroundings (i.e., proximity to roads, etc.), some sort of fence or barrier should be considered in the final design. Creating a safe environment is rather simple; creating a safe playground is more complicated. The first widespread guidelines on playground safety only appeared in 1981, when the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) published the first edition of its Handbook for Public Playground Safety (Brown, 2002). The handbook has gone through numerous revisions over the years, culminating in the latest edition, released in 1997. To ensure adequate safety for children using the playground, we will adhere to the CPSCs thorough guidelines in its design and construction. Some of the guidelines are

102

common sense sharp corners should be rounded off and metal edges should be rolled over, for example. Some, however, provide useful guidance in designing a safe playground. Protective surfacing, for example, must extend between 6 and 14 feet from a slide exit. Around swings it must extend two times the length of pivot point to occupied swing seat, front and back, six feet at either end (Brown, 2002). The level of safety also depends on the materials used to construct the playground, and the benefits and detriments of each type of material must be weighed. For example, metal components tend to heat up quickly in bright sunlight, leading to the danger of burns, but on the other hand, plastic material can be harmful to cochlear implants used by deaf children (Bishop, 2002). Most modern playgrounds use a combination of painted metal and plastic; painting the metal reduces its heat absorption rate; and for our playground, a warning of possible damage to cochlear implants may be posted so parents are aware of the danger. To prevent injuries from falls, a relatively soft base material must be used. Materials that are both sufficiently forgiving and hard enough to support wheelchair access are not common, but are readily available. Six inches of engineered wood fiber, for example, is enough to protect against injury in falls from up to six feet, but is still listed as a wheelchair-accessible surface by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (2000). Ideally, our playground will be staffed by one or more professional or volunteer play supervisors. This persons role would be to ensure safety, organize play activities, and to help foster positive interaction between disabled and non-disabled children. Even if our budget allows for a supervisor, it is inevitable that at times the playground will be

103

unsupervised. It will at those times be up to the parents to ensure the safety of their children, and as such, playground rules and regulations will need to be posted in a prominent location. This can be done with a sign at the entrance to the play area or with signs on each piece of equipment.
Size

Most Boundless Playgrounds are designed for use by a maximum of 30-40 children at one time (2001b). In a densely populated setting such as ours, we can anticipate our playground seeing similar numbers of users. A typical Boundless Playground has 15 or so play events such as slides, swings, tunnels and the like, and occupies at least 10,000 square feet (about acre) of space (2001b). Since we expect similar usage, we expect our playground to be of similar size to a Boundless Playground. As for the equipment itself, it needs to be size-friendly to children but also large enough that adults can physically assist children in using the equipment if necessary.
Aesthetic Appeal

While seemingly a secondary aspect of playground design, aesthetics are still quite important. Children and adults often have different aesthetic tastes children generally prefer gaudy, messy appearances while adults prefer cleaner, more organized structures (Mason, 1982). Striking a balance between the two is essential, because both children and parents ultimately decide how much the playground gets used. Aesthetic appeal of a color scheme, however, must come second to considerations of play value. Browns and greens blend with their surroundings, which adults find to be appealing, yet colors that blend with one another do not promote visual stimulation, which is important to childrens visual development. We have initially selected

104

Henderson Recreation Equipment Ltd.s Traditional color scheme, which consists of blue posts, yellow ladders and rails and red plastic panels for the playgrounds major structures. These bright, primary colors promote visual stimulation, and can be used to promote learning as well: color-coding the equipment, such as making all the slides throughout the structure the same color, introduces children to patterns (Money, 2002).
Accessibility

Playground accessibility includes both the approaches to the playground and accessibility of structures within the playground. Since the playground must be built at least 100 feet from any major roadway, adequate means of reaching the playground from the street and parking areas must be available. The simplest and most affordable way to do this is by creating a concrete or asphalt path leading to the main entrance of the playground. Since the play surface will be a few inches off the surface of the ground, the path will have to be slightly sloped (no more than 1:12 at any point, according to the ADA). This requirement also means that the ramp to reach the platform of the central play structure will need to be at least 24 feet in length. To conserve space, a ramp with switchbacks is probably the best option. Within the playground itself, a wheelchair-accessible surface must be used, allowing children with disabilities to reach every piece of equipment on the playground. As discussed above, engineered wood fiber is one option that combines fall safety with wheelchair accessibility. ADA guidelines specify that all newly built playgrounds must make at least half of their play components accessible to children in wheelchairs. Boundless Playgrounds aims for 75 percent (2001b). Our goal is to make every component of our playground

105

accessible to children in wheelchairs. This goal can be accomplished rather easily. By focusing on equipment that is accessible to both disabled and able-bodied children, such as accessible slides, swings, play tables and basketball hoops, we can create a playground that is truly accessible to all children.
Play Value

Play value afforded by the playground is the other central focus of this project; everything else besides accessibility and play value is largely secondary. To bring maximum play value and foster high amounts of social interaction both among disabled children and between disabled children and their able-bodied counterparts, we have chosen a design that integrates numerous forms of play using various pieces of equipment. For the overall layout of the playground, we have chosen a circular design centered on a large central play structure, with various stations located around the perimeter of the playground and a concrete path forming a ring around the stations for ease of travel. This layout serves dual purposes: First, it saves space over the haphazard, scattered play structure placement commonly found on existing playgrounds. Second, it creates a logical progression of stations children can visit during their playtime, creating an organized play environment. The exact layout of the playground, of course, would be dependent on the site, but since we would mainly use modular equipment, our concept is adaptable to most relatively flat, open locations.
Central Play Structure

The layout of our playground centers on a major central play structure that will

106

offer several unique play opportunities to children. We expect that about 70 percent of the material (and consequently, cost) of the playground, not including the base and border material, will be devoted to this central play structure. Outdoor play on a large structure or apparatus is a major component of play for most children, and it aids development in several areas: social development (waiting and taking turns, cooperating), perceptual-motor development (climbing, balancing, crawling), emotional development (contributing to self-esteem, meeting challenges), and intellectual development (learning to balance, planning movement sequences) (Macintyre, 2002). The central play structure, along with the other major elements of the playground, should be designed on a framework of sturdy painted metal for durability. Side panels should be made of sturdy but forgiving plastic to prevent injury in case of falls. Based on the results of our survey and selected texts on playground design, the central play structure of our playground will incorporate a number of play elements. On our survey of parents of school-age children, huts, towers, slides and tunnels were among the most popular playground items, and all can be incorporated into the central play structure to save space and construction materials. Other manipulable items such as gadget panels and music panels should also be installed to help promote hand-eye coordination and mental development. Gadget and music panels assist learning for all children, but especially for dyslexic children, who learn best through multisensory play that stimulates their visual, auditory and tactile senses (Macintyre, 2002). The entire central play structure will be raised about two feet above the play surface to create a challenge for children to get onto it. Naturally, this will require the

107

existence of a ramp or ramps (Figure 6) long enough to facilitate relatively easy wheelchair access to the main platform of the central play structure 24 feet, according to the 1:12 maximum gradient specified by the ADA. Wheelchair transfer stations (Figure 7) will be used for other

Figure 6. Wheelchair ramp to central play structure. (Figure from Playworld Systems, Inc.)

entrance points. Exits will be by way of slides and ladders. A dual slide (Figure 8) will be one of the primary features of the central play structure. A dual slide allows a disabled child to slide down with the accompaniment of a peer, fostering
Figure 7. Transfer station. (Figure from Playworld Systems, Inc.)

interaction and cooperation. A 1:1 gradient is ideal for the rather short slide (Aitken,

1972). In all, the structure will include 4 to 6 slides (Figures 9, 10, 11) of varying heights and lengths to provide a varied play experience. A tunnel that is accessible to wheelchairs is rather difficult to design. It must have a flat floor and also must be sufficiently high for the chair and its
Figure 8. Dual-wide slide (Figure from Playworld Systems, Inc.)

108

occupant to pass through. A tunnel could be implemented that leads from one portion of the central play structure to another, for example leading from the entrance platform to the slide platform.

Figure 9. Specialized wide slide. (Figure from Playworld Systems, Inc.)

Figure 10. Slide. (Figure from Playworld Systems, Inc.)

Figure 11. Spiral slide. (Figure from Playworld Systems, Inc.)

Overall, the central play structure should serve to form the focal point and the main attraction of the playground. Children with disabilities should be able to use all parts of it, and it should foster interaction between children with disabilities and their able-bodied peers by offering activities in which children with disabilities are not at an extreme disadvantage.
Other Equipment Swing

A swing was one of the most popular playground items on our survey of parents of school-age children, scoring a desirability rating of 4.06/5. Swings specialized for disabled children (Figure 12) usually have a barrier that
Figure 12. Specialized support swing. (Figure from Playworld Systems, Inc.)

109

fits over the waist, forming a sort of chair for the child to sit in as he or she rides in the swing. Our playground would include a rack of two or possibly three specialized swings with a seat height of about two feet and a pivot height of about eight feet. Some nonspecialized swings may be included as well, interspersed with the specialized swings.
Adjustable Basketball Hoop

Basketball hoops are staples of most playgrounds. The game of basketball provides many opportunities for both physical and mental development by fostering teamwork and cooperation, hand-eye coordination and

Figure 13. Adjustable basketball hoop. (Figure from Playworld Systems, Inc.)

especially arm strength. Basketball hoops specialized for use by disabled children are

often lower to the ground and have no backboard, so baskets can be shot from any direction. The ball return mechanism must also be set up in such a way that the ball does not roll a long distance away after going through the hoop. A specialized hoop (Figure 13) would appeal to both disabled and able-bodied children and their parents, and received a relatively high desirability rating of 3.94/5 in our survey of parents of school-age

Figure 14. Sand/water table. (Figure from Playworld Systems, Inc.)

110

children. Obviously, quadriplegic children or those with other upper-body disabilities would not use the basketball hoop, but children in wheelchairs would be able to use a low hoop.
Sand/Mud/Water Table

A water table (Figure 14) is a common item at modern playgrounds and offers many opportunities for social interaction and learning through play. It consists of a

Figure 15. Roundabout horizontal ladder. (Figure from Playworld Systems, Inc.)

table, surrounded by a barrier on the edges, with multiple stations at which children can sit or stand and play with sand, mud or water in a shallow basin on the tabletop. The

sand table was one of the most popular items on our survey of parents of school-age children, receiving an average desirability rating of 3.95/5. Sand/water tables provide opportunities for development in various areas. According to Christine Macintyre, the tables assist social development (talking with adults and peers, sharing tools and toys), perceptual-motor development (creating sand castles and structures, finger strengthening), emotional development (using suitable tools for jobs, satisfaction
Figure 16. Spring ride with sidecar attachment. (Figure from Playworld Systems, Inc.)

from cooperation), and intellectual development (measuring amounts of sand, learning properties of

wet vs. dry sand) (Macintyre, 2002).

111

Including a sand table as one of the outer-ring stations affords children using the playground the opportunity to express their creativity and have fun while learning and interacting with peers. It also services the multisensory approach that is useful for dyslexic children (Macintyre, 2002).
Horizontal Ladder

Brachiation, the physical activity children use when traversing a

Figure 17. Three-way spring ride. (Figure from Playworld Systems, Inc.)

horizontal ladder commonly known as monkey bars is especially ideal for

children with disabilities. It helps build arm strength, improves hand-eye coordination and does not require use of the legs. At least one horizontal ladder (Figure 15) should be installed, perhaps as an extension of the central play structure, radiating out from the main structure, or as a separate structure one of the outer-ring stations.
Spring Ride

Spring rides, in which a child sits on a seat of some sort and is bounced back and forth by a large spring, are staples of most playgrounds, and proved popular on our survey (3.94/5 desirability rating). Special spring rides (Figures 16, 17, 18) designed for children with disabilities are more enclosed, with side panels surrounding the seat. We would most likely include at least two of these rides as one of the outer-ring stations of the playground.
Figure 18. Specialized spring rides provide support on all sides to prevent falls. (Figure from Playworld Systems, Inc.)

112

Intercom

Intercom tubes (Figure 19) are a popular feature on most modern playgrounds and allow children to communicate with each other without necessarily being in sight of each other. They consist of an underground tube with an aboveground exit attached to a funnel at either end through which children can speak. On our playground, we would situate such a
Figure 19. Intercom. Design allows children to communicate over relatively long distance. (Figure from Playworld Systems, Inc.)

tube either within the central play structure or transiting between the central play structure and one of the outer-ring stations.
Other Structures

Parents and guardians need a place to sit and socialize while their children are using the playground. We would include at least 8-10 park-style benches (including 2-4 specifically built for children) and several garbage receptacles near the main play area. A sign listing the playgrounds rules and regulations will also need to be posted near the entrance to the play area.
Materials and Cost

Deciding which construction materials to use to provide a good balance of usefulness and thrift is one of the key aspects of any design project. Our playground will likely be on a rather tight budget and will largely be funded by donations from individuals and organizations. At the same time, we want our playground to be as educational and safe as other playgrounds, if not more so. By prudently choosing

113

materials and equipment for purchase and installation, and by choosing a site with some pre-existing facilities, including a parking lot, it is likely we can keep the total project budget under $50,000, as opposed to about $150,000 for a fully integrated Boundless Playground (2001b). The first part of the playground to be constructed is the base, which includes the surface of the play area, its border and any access ramps that are necessary. As discussed above, the ideal surface material that incorporates accessibility, safety and durability is processed wood fiber. Assuming a play surface area of about 10,000 square feet and a depth of 6 inches (3 inches below ground level and 3 above), we would require 5,000 cubic feet (or about 4 tons) of wood fiber at a cost of approximately $100/ton, not including delivery fees (Graham, 1996). The total cost would therefore be approximately $400. For safety and better accessibility, rubber base material should be placed beneath equipment from which there is a risk of fall, namely parts of the central play structure, swings and monkey bars. Rubber is also more desirable under the basketball hoop, for obvious reasons. We estimate a total of about 1,200 square feet of rubber material to be sufficient. At a cost of $2.50 per square foot of thick rubber, the total cost for the rubber would be $3,000. To maximize efficiency and shock absorption, all rubber must be placed on a base of either asphalt or concrete; cost to be determined (Henderson, 1997). Under the rubber and wood chips, a base of crushed stone is needed to ensure proper drainage and for durability. Assuming a depth of 2 inches, we would require about 1,600 cubic feet, or about 7 tons, of crushed stone at a cost, including delivery, ranging

114

from $7.50/ton for recycled concrete aggregate to $10.50/ton for natural aggregate (1998). Since the difference in total cost would only be about $20, we would most likely choose the longer-lasting natural aggregate, which would cost about $80 for the required amount. Some sort of border to the play area is required to keep the stone and wood fiber chips in and dirt and grass out. The most common border used on playgrounds is a low plastic barrier, which is durable yet forgiving and unlikely to cause injury. PlayDesigns Corp. offers six-foot border timbers made from recycled plastic at a cost of $50 apiece (2002c). Assuming a play area perimeter of about 400 feet, we would require about 65 timbers at a total cost of about $3,250. Most of the actual playground equipment is modular and can be priced exactly. Since our central play structure will be custom-made, however, its cost will be approximate. Based on the cost of similarly-sized modular play structures for sale through various distributors, we can estimate the cost of the central play structure at approximately $20,000. Accessible swings, are rather costly, so our playground would probably be limited to two or three of them. An 8-foot standard two-swing rack is available from PlayDesigns for $609, and accessible swing seats, which utilize a full seat with a back and leg restraints, are available for $334 each. The accessible seats would alternate with regular swing seats on each rack. Three two-swing racks or two three-swing racks would total about $2,500. For the basketball hoop, a system that returns the ball directly beneath the hoop is most desirable, to avoid balls bouncing out of the play area. PlayDesigns offers the

115

Triple Shootout hoop that has three adjustable-height baskets that empty directly below the hoop. There is no backboard, so children can shoot the balls from any direction. The listed price of the hoop is $1,695. Several different models of sand tables are available. The most desirable is a square table with a large basin in the middle for water, mud or sand, available from PlayDesigns for $719. It is easily accessible to standing children as well as those in wheelchairs. The horizontal ladder on our playground should be rather low to the ground to accommodate small children as well as those in wheelchairs. A length of 10 feet should provide adequate space for a child to face a challenge in getting from one side to the other. An ideal low horizontal ladder is available from Playworld Systems at a cost of $715. Another, larger set for older children should also be provided; they are available from $900. A multitude of spring rides are available for playground installation. Particularly attractive for the purposes of our playground was PlayDesigns Sidewinder spring ride, which consists of a motorcycle and a sidecar specially designed for disabled children. A unit such as this is ideal for fostering cooperation and interaction between disabled and able-bodied children. The unit costs $855, and we would probably install two, for a total cost of $1,710. Intercoms, as outlined above, consist of a long metal pipe with two above-ground outlets ringed by funnels into which children can communicate with each other. A 25foot intercom is available from Playworld Systems at a cost of $445. Park benches, picnic tables, trash receptacles and signs should be durable and

116

weatherproof. Playworld Systems offers perforated-steel six-foot benches for $259, accessible picnic tables for $525, trashcans with dome lids for about $240 and playground safety signs for approximately $50, for a total peripheral structure cost (assuming 10 benches, two tables, two trashcans and one sign) of about $4,000. Minus the cost of purchasing, mixing and pouring concrete, and equipment shipping costs, the total cost of the equipment for this playground comes out to about $40,000 (Table 13). Assuming construction can be done with volunteer labor and borrowed equipment, it appears our goal of $50,000 can very easily be met.

Community
Communication
Communication and collaboration with the government of College Park have played critical roles in bringing the teams playground plans into actualization. As a result of this exchange of ideas, suggestions, and concerns, as well as the development of a network of contacts, the team has gained a much more comprehensive understanding of the factors and steps involved in building a novel playground within a community. The team first contacted the College Park government on April 1, 2002 with an email to Mayor Steven Brayman and the eight city council members. An introduction was made of the group and the Gemstone Program, as well as an explanation of the teams interest in building a universal playground in the area. The team received favorable feedback from Mayor Brayman as well as the two council members representing District 3, Andrew Fellows and Eric Olson. Councilman Fellows suggested putting together a written proposal that could be used for further meetings, and Councilman Olson informed the group of interest in such an initiative in the College Park Estates neighborhood. He

117

suggested meeting with members of the Civic Association and provided references to individuals who had leadership roles within that community. It was also noted that finding the space for developing a playground would be a major issue and needed to be a consideration. Councilman Mark Schroder, of District 1, suggested contacting Terri Schum of the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) for further information. In an e-mail received on April 14, 2002, Councilman Fellows suggested that the proposal be placed on the agenda for an upcoming work session of the M-NCPPC and City Council, as any playground development in the target neighborhood would likely involve Park & Planning property. Mayor Brayman responded soon thereafter that the MNCPPC had recently given an unexpectedly negative reaction to a separate request, and he felt it would be best to meet and discuss the project with the team before bringing it to council. On April 29, 2002 the members of the Universal Playgrounds team met with the mayor at Lake Artemesia for a tour of the neighborhood and potential playground site. Also in attendance were Glenn Rahmoeller, Gemstone team mentor, Councilman Fellows, Ellen Fox Davis, resident and head of a previous neighborhood playground initiative, and Robert Day, president of the College Park Estates Civic Association. This meeting established the first direct interaction between the group and the local government and community we would work with to bring the playground designs into realization. It also served as an introduction to the target site and surrounding neighborhood.

118

On May 15, 2002 several members of the team attended a forum at Cherry Hill Park to discuss the future of an M-NCPPC park that was hit by the September 2001 tornado. The playground at this park had been destroyed by the storm and the M-NCPPC had made no commitment to replace it. Mayor Brayman informed the team of this meeting, with the suggestion that it could potentially serve as an alternate candidate for a playground site. Issues brought up at the meeting by area residents included a desire for a playground, not a tot lot, as the majority of the children in the neighborhood were age 8 and older. They specifically requested inclusion of a half-court basketball court, and a large spiral slide similar to the preexisting one. They opposed the construction of a parking lot, and also expressed fears that teenagers, undesirable crowds, and nonresidents would exploit the park. Neighborhood residents also made clear their desire for the reconstruction to occur as soon as possible, preferably within the near future. However, the primary goals of the M-NCPPC at the time were to remove all the trees and debris remaining from the tornado and then to re-level the ground. The timeline on this step was estimated to be one full year. The M-NCPPC earned $63,000 from selling the wood and most of this money was planned to pay for clearing and landscaping. Eileen Nivera and Noah Simon attended the meeting as representatives of the M-NCPPC and helped address some of the communitys concerns. In conversing with them, the team learned that the communitys goals and expectations may not always match the organizers, and that as a community-based and community-targeted endeavor, it was important to address resident concerns and adapt the playground to each areas particular needs.

119

In a May 17, 2002 e-mail, Mayor Brayman conveyed an informal discussion he had had with a senior official of the M-NCPPC regarding the Lake Artemesia site. The official indicated that he thought an agreement could be reached with respect to limiting facilities inside the fence to only a tot lot. Funding was the primary concern in discussions with other College Park council members; corporate funding was touted as the best option, as the citys own funds for recreation were relatively limited. Communication with the mayor and council members was paused for the summer, as several team members lived out of town and regular group meetings were precluded. With the teams return at the beginning of the new school year, weekly meetings resumed and progress continued. Team goals for the year were restructured so that the emphasis for the fall semester would be completion of the playground design and the team thesis, and work on approval as well as funding would be the focus of the spring semester. With the change in teams objectives came a requisite corresponding change in the nature of the teams communication with the city government. Whereas the group had previously taken a very proactive role in garnering cooperation and endorsement of our playground, it was decided that it would be best to have a completed proposal finished before submission and actualization. E-mails to the mayor and council members became predominantly team progress reports, with the goal of meeting and discussing the completed plans at the end of the semester.

Site
Site Selection

The teams interest in College Park as a potential site for a universal playground is quite relevant. As the home of the state's flagship university, and as a city that has

120

gained increasing attention and respect in recent years, College Park was determined to be an ideal location for a symbol of the communitys dedication to improving the future on all levels. The Maryland Boundless Playground Initiative has sponsored the construction of multiple parks within the state, including some in other parts of Prince Georges County, but the established need for more structures combined with the familyfriendly centrality and convenience of College Park made this region particularly advantageous. According to national census data collected for 1997, 7.8% of the children under age 15 in the United States have a disability (McNeil, 2001). The 6- to 15-year-old age group is three times larger than either of the two younger groups examined, suggesting that construction of a playground targeting school-aged children would have more applications than one for toddlers and preschool-aged children. Location near a school, established park or similarly child-friendly site would be ideal. As College Park data is consistent with the high numbers of children with disabilities revealed in national demographic studies, there is indeed impetus to build a playground in this region, regardless of the proximity of other parks. The need to make inclusive recreation a large-scale community effort is justified. The Maryland Boundless Playground Initiative provided monetary grants for the construction of 11 accessible playgrounds within the state. While the status of each proposed playground is promising and has led several communities to expand their plans, Prince Georges County has thus far lacked the resources and leadership to undertake such a project, despite its prominence as the home of the states flagship university and one of the largest suburbs of Washington, D.C. The conditions at the University of

121

Maryland at College Park and the areas surrounding it remain surprisingly outdated in terms of physical and architectural accommodations for adults and children with disabilities, and as such hold the disabled and non-disabled populations in a state of de facto separation. Emphasizing the University of Maryland and the city of College Parks dedication to both the quality of education as well as the equality of educational opportunity, University System President William Kirwan has reinforced the need for reasonable accommodations and open-mindedness for people with disabilities (2001d). In addition to modifying physical and structural obstacles on and around the campus, it is imperative to be conscientious in social and professional relationships and interactions with students and staff who have disabilities. In a pamphleted address to the campus, Kirwan noted that the issue of equal access is an increasingly relevant one in College Park, where the number of individuals identified with disabilities has been on a steady rise in recent decades and justifies a correspondingly growing need for action (2001e). In light of these circumstances, several resources have been created to be available to individuals on and around campus with disabilities. The Disability Support Services department serves as both lobbyist and liaison to help students ensure necessary arrangements with faculty and administrators, while the Adaptive Technology laboratory at McKeldin Library provides much of the technical and software assistance to make such accommodations possible. The Presidents Commission on Disability Issues, on the other hand, is devoted to disability causes on a larger scale and advises the president on the needs and concerns of the population with disabilities.

122

On the converse, there have also been a number of concerns and complaints raised regarding access and disability issues. Speak Out, a symposium held annually by the Presidents Commission on Disability Issues (PCDI), is a forum for student, faculty and professional discussion of campus disability and accessibility concerns. The most recent meeting took place on November 2, 2000, and raised both new and perennial criticisms as well as some commendations in respect to university compliance with protective federal legislation. Physical accommodation issues brought up at the symposium seemed familiar to many attendees; it is evident that complaints and requests for renovation have been longstanding, without needed corrective action. The Administration Building is completely inaccessible, and several plans to make it accessible have been proposed but none enacted. The Service Building is similarly unfriendly to those in need of accommodations, and also requires repair. It was recommended that the university take more responsibility in enforcing design standards and accommodations. Of particular note was the example given of the Health Center bathroom, which was reported to be minimally accessible in an environment that logically should be better prepared to handle diverse student populations. Overall, attitudes toward the campus and surrounding areas accessibility and accommodation initiatives indicate that although there has been much progress, significant improvements remain to be made in both physical and social arenas, and there has not been enough funding or attention directed towards these efforts. Obstacles manifest both relationally and physically, and there is a general sense that requests for assistance and change must be taken more seriously.

123

Area accessibility concerns demonstrate the need for continued improvements in multiple contexts, for people of all ability levels. The status of the University of Maryland campus, which enjoys the highest funding and is subject to the most stringent standards within its community, indicates that even the areas best efforts still have many improvements still to make. While city and university administrators have begun to take an interest in developing reasonable accommodations for adults, the children with disabilities of College Park remain largely underrepresented in their needs for accessibility and inclusion, and at a particularly critical developmental period. Studies of the therapeutic importance of play suggest that there is real value in maximizing developmental aids such as playgrounds from an early age, but many areas are unfortunately lacking in such structures. Children with disabilities, for whom such opportunities are especially critical, are often excluded from many opportunities of development because of social, physical, and architectural barriers.
Relevant Legislation

Two federal laws governing disability accommodations are applicable in a university framework, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of a disability by state and local governments and public accommodations, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination on the basis of a disability by programs receiving federal financial assistance. The Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, the Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1986, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1991, the Americans with Disabilities Act

124

of 1990 and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1994 as described earlier each contribute to efforts at early intervention and inclusion on a greater community level. For the purposes of student/employee recruitment, public regard, legal discretion and even potential funding resources, it is in both College Park and the universitys best interests to seek maximum compliance with federal protective legislations regarding disability issues.
Potential Concerns

There are, of course, limiting factors to the extent the city can adhere to the above legislation. As renovation can be a lengthy and costly process, both a communitys planning and financial resources must be sufficient. Administrators must try to comply with the law and provide reasonable accessibility, but within budgetary restraints and with fundraising considerations taken into account. As previously mentioned, the receptivity of a community toward change is also important. Successful passage of more than minimum corrections requires support from a variety of representative executive and financial leaders, who must be made to understand the need and priority for such measures. The neighborhood for which the playground is planned must also play a central role in its design and introduction. Overall, the major foreseeable problems are insufficient funding, the citys lack of space, lack of support from the community, obstacles meeting certification/licensing requirements, and the possibility that the timeline for the projects completion will surpass the team members remaining time at the university.

125

Although College Park has been the primary site under consideration for the teams playground, the group has been presented with several other opportunities and is in the process of investigating each for optimum suitability. The concerns presented here, however, are reflective of typical factors that must be taken into account in all new construction projects and in all locales.
Site Evaluation

The university campus and the surrounding College Park area have demonstrated a need for further accommodation and inclusion measures, one of which includes the construction of a playground to facilitate accessibility and social interaction between children of varied levels of ability. With sufficient funding, administrative support, and residential support, the Universal Playgrounds team feels that such an endeavor would be of great potential benefit and support to the community. Although the teams focus and initial research has primarily been on College Park, there exist several alternate options. Additional locations being evaluated for the teams playground prototype include: the Owings Mill Jewish Community Center in Baltimore County, a Prince Georges County public school, one of several community centers in Prince Georges County, or a site to be determined by a corporate sponsor. Each of these potential locations possesses similar qualifications with regard to population and demonstrated need. Assessments of which community provides the best solutions and circumventions for factors such as funding, support, timeline, and space are in process.

126

Support and Approval

Community Interest and Receptivity

Since the attitude of a projects target community is critical to its success, the Universal Playgrounds team designed a survey to assess local interest in playground design and inclusion efforts. Evaluating the regional climate towards change has been helpful in formulating a project plan, as well as momentum for action and possible resources to contact.
Development and Plan of Action

As the teams preliminary research is concluded and entry into the active design and fundraising stages begins, a clarification of anticipated progress is in order. What has been completed thus far is a comprehensive review of literature regarding playground design, child development and psychology, disability policy, pertinent legislation and demographic data. The team has developed a standardized playground rating system and evaluated many of the structures already in existence for weaknesses and potential improvements, and has also completed a survey of parents and teachers of school-aged children in Maryland on their attitudes toward play and playgrounds. The group has taken the input of parents, children and other community members on the features they would like their playground to have, and combined them with the teams own standards and recommendations for accessibility and inclusion properties. Through the research the team completed and consultation with related organizations for design and technical assistance, the team has developed a working design, including the equipment and structures the community would like to include, local and state policy on construction.

127

The next step entails consultation and collaboration with relevant government and community resources to select a site and target community. The target community must approve of the playground design, and there is room within the basic design to accommodate individual needs. Because money nearly always the limiting factor in such extensive undertakings, applications must be made for grants and donations from corporate funding resources, playground design industry members, and childrens and disability advocacy organizations. Recruitment of community volunteer involvement follows, as well as hiring a contractor for construction and installation. After the playground has been opened to the public, a follow-up evaluation of its effectiveness, as well as community usage and satisfaction, must be conducted in order determine the success of the playground.

Funding
Cost presents the largest area of concern and biggest obstacle in constructing universally accessible playgrounds. Requisite labor fees, site preparations, equipment purchases, structure installations and construction can make building a universal playground quite expensive. Thus, the greatest need for improvement in this area is in developing effective ways to minimize expenses while maximizing playground quality, while possibly developing a template for use by any group interested in constructing a universally accessible playground in their community. Because of the merit of the cause as well as the many potential benefits of community and industrial partnership, state and corporate funding resources have been receptive to similar endeavors. The Maryland Boundless Playground Initiative, spearheaded by Governor Parris Glendening and Delegate Mark Shriver and sponsored

128

by the Hasbro Corporation, has supported 10 projects within the state of Maryland with challenge grants ranging from $75,000 to $200,000. Typical costs of playground construction can vary from between $150,000 to $450,000 for site preparation, equipment purchases and installation. The Boundless Playgrounds organizational website estimates that building a full size Boundless Playground at an elementary school would typically require at least 10,000 square feet of area with a budget of $75,000 - $150,000. A fully integrated Boundless Playground designed for 2-5 year olds and 5-12 year olds would typically require at least 15,000 square feet of space with a minimum budget of $150,000. Costs can be partially defrayed depending on the extent to which community volunteers contribute their services, donate equipment, and outside companies and organizations match funding. Grants from outside organizations will also substantially defray construction costs, but must be applied for well in advance. From the teams interaction with the College Park city government much has been gained with regard to previous experience in related planning endeavors and site selection. During the spring of 2003, upon selection of the best site for construction, the group anticipates utilizing what they have learned to take a joint leadership role in garnering support and involvement from within the chosen community, and collaborate in applications for funding. In addition to applying for corporate sponsorship and funding, the team will seek the citys participation in navigating the appropriate contacts, permissive and licensing agencies, and community members and associations who can help the team achieve its goal of making the region the best place it can be for its children.

129

Benefits of Playground
The community recreation system for providing programming, support and enrichment opportunities to the public is a neither new nor unique idea. The value this nation places in unity and shared experience has shaped the modern American community to strive for ideals of cooperation and universal endeavor that transcend racial, ethnic or religious diversity. Neighborhood activities, clubs, facilities, and especially central playgrounds have been a common sight in numerous suburbs and cities since the latter half of the 20th century, and are still growing in popularity today. Only more recently, however, has the concept of inclusive recreation for people with disabilities and the instrumental use of these playgrounds come to the forefront as a largescale community effort. With the passage of the ADA in 1990 and the advent of the age of accessibility, attention has been increasingly shifted from mere arrangement of architectural or physical accommodations to more complex issues of social integration and cooperative facilitation (Beckwith, 1999). Why is community recreation important for individuals with disabilities, and particularly for children with disabilities? Recreational activities have a prominent role in promoting physical health and opportunities for developing social relationships as well as new skills, and the utility of play in early psychological development has become an increasingly popular topic of research. Schleien, Ray, and Green (1997) emphasize the role of recreational activities in helping people with disabilities develop collateral skills and reduce mal-adaptive behaviors. They also state that benefits to the community are both theoretical or abstract, such as social progress, and practical or concrete, such as increased deinstitutionalization (Schleien et al., 1997).

130

As demonstrated in earlier chapters, children with disabilities often lag behind non-disabled children in social and physical skills that are in large part learned on the playground. Deficits in these skills have long-term ramifications, often affecting social and vocational skills later in life. Incorporating children with disabilities into the play setting is a positive experience for all parties involved. Non-disabled children learn consideration and respect for differences, while children with disabilities are encouraged to explore and challenge themselves in multiple arenas. Children need age-appropriate and developmentally appropriate physical environments that support, promote and include child-directed and child-initiated play and learning. Active, creative play and exploration are central to normal child development. Playgrounds are relevant to these goals because they allow children to interact with one another and explore their world, encouraging imagination and creativity in a safe environment. Playgrounds also encourage physical challenges and pushing individual limits. Studies show that children develop much of their social maturity in this setting, through learning about cooperation, diversity and acceptable behavior in free play interactions. Play is integral in social/emotional development, intellectual development, sensory development, perceptual-motor development, and physical development. Schleien, Ray and Green (1997) are strong proponents of community-based integration programs, and believe that by including people with disabilities in mainstream recreation programs and environments, the entire community benefits. Children with disabilities develop more positive self-concepts and skills through successful experiences and interactions, and children without disabilities become more sensitive to individual

131

differences and develop more accepting attitudes through mutual friendships. For all the social and physical reasons above, children with disabilities benefit at least as much and quite possibly to a greater extent than non-disabled children from community play and playgrounds. Factors that have been reported to facilitate successful integration and recreation include federal legislation to remove architectural barriers, parental guidance, community education, community support, smaller groups of children, individual skill instruction, and elimination of segregated programs with the easing of potential social obstacles (Sailor, 2002). Schleien, Ray, and Green (1997) also describe a wide variety of risks and barriers to recreational participation. Inhibitors to successful recreation include physical and emotional obstacles, both actual and perceived by children with disabilities, also known as architectural and attitudinal barriers. In addition, the availability of transportation, access, and mobility in play areas, childrens communication problems and short attention spans, and lack of social acceptance as equal partners by peers develop more barriers (Schleien et al., 1997). A substantial barrier to mixed recreation continues to come from the teachers, administrators, and parents of children without disabilities, who are concerned that close interaction with children with disabilities will have a negative impact on the learning processes, motivation, and achievement of their own children (Wright, 2002). The researchers cite studies showing, however, that in mixed-educational settings cognitively immature or impaired students make significant gains in cognitive growth at no cost to the progress of more advanced children. The benefits and relevance of community recreation and integrated playgrounds to the modern neighborhood extends beyond social and individual developmental

132

progress. Until the last few decades, recreational programming had relatively low priority in programs for people with disabilities, and inclusive programming remained a novel concept in non-disabled circles. With the passage of the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, recreational facilities were required to be accessible and the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 identified recreation as a related service in public education and thus an entitlement for every child. The Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1986 mandated early access to intervention programs, including recreational programs, and the right to early individual and family-centered intervention services was further cemented with the passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1991. The purpose of these two laws was to provide early intervention that could meet the needs of each child in the context of their families and within their natural environments, which include home, day-care and general recreational settings. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1994 supported families in their promotion of inclusive services. Parameters for Play Area accessibility were defined by the Architectural and Transportation Barrier Compliance Board as a supplement to the Americans with Disabilities Act and last updated in May 2001. The implementation of these key legislations has helped to make playground and recreational program access a larger issue nationwide and the Maryland Boundless Playground Initiative in 2000 marked the introduction of tangible construction and progress within the state.

Conclusions
Although the playgrounds that are currently in existence are not generally flawed, they are not all well thought out, and there are not nearly enough of the ones that do exist.

133

In addition, the cost of construction and the large amounts of space that most designs require, make the process of implementing a comprehensive set of universal playgrounds nationwide a long and arduous one. Our hope is that anyone will be able to use this thesis as a guide to learning more about universal playgrounds and the steps necessary to construct one. Also, this thesis provides design, which carefully takes in to account all of the information we have gleaned from our library research, surveys, playground ratings, and interviews with experts in the field. Our playground goes above and beyond the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The 100% accessibility also surpasses that of other playgrounds. That accessibility is only one aspect of the strength of our design. Not only is all equipment accessible to all children, it is also designed and arranged to facilitate integrated play. That play, too, is as diverse as the children who will engage in it. The playground has been carefully designed to encourage children to learn and grow from their play physically, mentally, and emotionally. In order to satisfy ADA requirements, 50% of the play structures on a playground must be universally accessible. Boundless playgrounds boast 75% accessibility. Our design, however, is 100% accessible in order to promote the highest degree of integrated play. ADA guidelines were taken into careful considering in creating the design. All requirements, from the width of paths to what the ground covering can be made of, are met. Additionally, ADA-approved means of accessibility to playground equipment, including transfer stations and ramps, are used in the design provided in this thesis. By utilizing design components required by the ADA and ensuring 100% accessibility, we hope to decrease the exclusion of any child from any area of play.

134

The importance of all children having access to all the play equipment is especially key because each piece of equipment serves a specific purpose in helping children grow through play. Each piece of play equipment was chosen for a reason. On the playground, children will have the opportunity not only to exercise their body, but their minds as well. In some cases, such as having a child navigate onto a play structure to then use a gadget panel, the child has the opportunity to engage himself on several levels. In choosing the equipment for the playground, not only the desires of parents were taken in to consideration, but the advise of experts. The responses from both groups were taken into consideration from the survey and the expert interviews we conducted. The responses from all groups were integrated. Also, the existing playgrounds we examined and rated affected the playground design. In trying to learn from those designs, one of the things we took special note of was placement of equipment. The specific layout of the playground will attempt to promote integrative play throughout by making the playground a whole experience through the circular design, rather than fragmented through placement of equipment pieces distances from each other not conducive for interaction. The design of this playground creates many dimensions of play and integration to create a fully integrated play environment. However, much more goes into the implementation of a successful playground than just the design, although it is key to the future success of the park. Some other important aspects that need to be taken into consideration are: determining a location, determining the communities needs, how to get the community involved, ways to procure funding, construction and implementation, maintenance, and strategies to maintain community interest and usage.

135

Determining a good location and determining the communities needs go hand in hand. For example it is probably unnecessary to construct a playground in an area that already has existing parks or does not have a population that would support or use a playground. Some good ways to way to determine the level of interest in a given community is to bring up the matter at a county council meeting or to set up and publicize an open forum discussion concerning the possibility of pursuing a universal playground in the community of interest. It is best to have this type of a forum during the evening or night so that parents that work during the day can attend. Another option is to survey the community either door to door in person, through the mail, or over the phone. Additional considerations that must be taken into account in selecting a location is access to parking, bathroom facilities, drinking fountains, and possible landscaping potential, as trees and other natural elements can greatly enhance quality of play. The most important thing to remember about getting the community involved is to start early. People are more likely to get involved and stay involved if they feel that they are an integral part of the process from day one. They will provide more valuable assistance if they have input early, as their suggestions can be integrated into the design and construction. Community volunteers can be valuable assets in determining the communitys needs as well as offering their insight on the rest of the process. From the first community interest meeting a network should be set up to keep interested members of the community informed about any progress or news. Strong community involvement is a signature of most successful playground ventures. A key issue in the implementation, and sometimes a stumbling block, is the matter of funding. The easiest and most direct way to fund the construction of the

136

playground is through money from the local government; however this is not always an option, as local governments cannot usually provide sufficient funds. However, it is a good starting point and government officials may be able to offer other options. The government is also the best source for procuring the playground site, as they may be able to annex existing property. Other possible sources include community fundraisers, private donations, and corporate grants or donations. The majority of the work involved in the implementation of a universal playground lies in the planning. The construction and implementation is actually one of the simpler aspects as most of the play equipment can be ordered pre-made and can then be installed relatively quickly. A ceremony or celebration should be planned and publicized for after the construction is complete. This will raise awareness for the playground as well as give a chance for the organizers to meet with interested members of the community and make contacts for the future. Additionally, maintenance is important to a playground, as wear and tear is an inherent problem. Framework should be set up for maintaining the facilities in the years to come. Most playgrounds experience significant usage immediately following their construction. The difficult part is to maintain community interest and usage in the park for the future. One successful strategy that was discussed previously is to get the community involved from the ground floor so that there is a vested interest in the playground before it is even built. Another way to make the playground an appealing destination is to implement recreational programs at the playground. This can be done by hiring a play coordinator or more economically by recruiting interested members of the community to assist with planning, publicizing and running special events or more low

137

key play dates. Although a playground is appealing by itself people often need additional motivation to make the effort to come out to the park. The process should gain momentum as time goes by to the point were the programs can become self-perpetuating after a while and not require outside influence. A successful playground is should become more than simply a cold structure to be utilized, it should be a thriving part of the community where people meet to relax, play, and have fun with their family and friends.

138

Appendix A: Tables
Table 1: Relationship between the number of elevated and ground level components.
Elevated Components Provided 2-4 5-7 8 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 22 23 - 25 Over 25 Ground Level Components Required 1 2 (at least 2 types) 3 (at least 3 types) 4 (at least 3 types) 5 (at least 3 types) 6 (at least 3 types) 7 (at least 4 types) 8 (at least 4 types) 8 plus 1 for each additional 3 over 25, or fraction thereof (at least 5 types)

139

Table 2: Probability of Supporting Universal Playgrounds Given Position of Respondent POSITION

Teacher Special Education Teacher Parent of a child with disabilities Parent of a child without disabilities Parent of both a child with and a child without disabilities Therapist Other

PROBABILITY
6/7 = 85.7% 2/2 = 100% 8/9 = 88.8% 41/42 = 97.6% 10/11 = 90.9% 5/5 = 100% 8/8 = 100%

140

Table 3: Probability of Supporting Universal Playgrounds Given Need Category POSITION

None Social/Emotional Physical Perceptual/Motor Intellectual Other

PROBABILITY
41/42 = 97.6% 13/13 = 100% 9/10 = 90% 5/6 = 83.3% 3/3 = 100% 7/8 = 87.5%

141

Table 4: Probability of Perceived Benefit Given Need Category POSITION

None Social/Emotional Physical Perceptual/Motor Intellectual Other

PROBABILITY
31/42 = 73.8% 9/13 = 69.2% 9/10 = 90% 5/6 = 83.3% 3/3 = 100% 8/8 = 100%

142

Table 5: Chi-square Calculation for Position of Respondent versus Perceived Benefit

Would an accessible, universal playground benefit your child/student? Total No Response No Yes 5 1 2 8 .5 1.3 6.1 8.0 0 3 20 23 1.6 3.8 17.6 23.0 0 1 12 13 .9 2.1 10.0 13.0 0 2 29 31 2.1 5.1 23.8 31.0 3 25 66 94 15.5 72.0 94.0 6.4 0 3 26 29 2.0 4.8 22.2 29.0 9 4 17 30 2.1 5.0 23.0 30.0 0 2 18 20 1.4 3.3 15.3 20.0

No Response Which Category best describes your position?

Count Expected Count Teacher Count Expected Count Special Education Teacher Count Expected Count Parent of a child with Count disabilities Expected Count Parent of a child without a Count disability Expected Count Parent of both a child with and Count a child without a disability Expected Count Other Count Expected Count Therapist Count Expected Count

143

Table 6: Chi-square Calculation for Support versus Position of Respondent

Which Category best describes your position? Parent of both a child with Special Parent of a Parent of a and a child No Education child with child without without a Response Teacher Teacher disabilities a disability disability Other Therapist Total 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 .2 .5 .3 .6 1.9 .6 .6 .4 5.0 3 20 13 30 88 27 28 20 229 7.4 21.2 12.0 28.5 86.4 26.7 28.5 18.4 229.0 1 1 0 1 2 2 1 0 8 .3 .7 .4 1.0 3.0 .9 1.0 .6 8.0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 .1 .2 .1 .2 .8 .2 .2 .2 2.0 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 5 .2 .5 .3 .6 1.9 .6 .6 .4 5.0

Would you support the construction of a playground that integrates children with and without disabilities?

No Response

Count Expected Count Support integrated playground Count Expected Count Support disability-centered Count playground only Expected Count Do not support the building of Count universal playgrounds Expected Count Do not support the building of Count any playgrounds Expected Count

144

Table 7: Chi-square Calculation for Perceived Benefit versus Support for Universal Playgrounds
Would an accessible, universal playground benefit your child/student? Total No Response No Yes 5 0 0 5 .3 .8 3.8 5.0 12 35 181 228 15.6 37.7 174.7 228.0 0 2 6 8 .5 1.3 6.1 8.0 0 2 0 2 .1 .3 1.5 2.0 0 2 3 5 .3 .8 3.8 5.0

Would you support the construction of a playground that integrates children with and without disabilities?

No Response Support integrated playground Support disability-centered playground only Do not support the building of universal playgrounds Do not support the building of any playgrounds

Count Expected Count Count Expected Count Count Expected Count Count Expected Count Count Expected Count

145

Table 8: Chi-square Calculation for Perceived Benefit versus Need Category

Would an accessible, Total universal playground benefit your child/student? No Response No Yes Count 9 1 6 16 Expected Count 1.1 2.6 12.3 16.0 Count 6 30 66 102 Expected Count 7.0 16.9 78.1 102.0 Count 0 5 22 27 Expected Count 1.9 4.5 20.7 27.0 Count 1 2 31 34 Expected Count 2.3 5.6 26.0 34.0 Count 1 1 13 15 Expected Count 1.0 2.5 11.5 15.0 Count 0 1 9 10 Expected Count .7 1.7 7.7 10.0 Count 0 1 43 44 Expected Count 3.0 7.3 33.7 44.0

Which category best describes your child/student's special needs?

No Response None Social/Emotional Physical Perceptual/Motor Intellectual Other

146

Table 9: Chi-square Calculation for Position of Respondent versus Perceived Benefit

Would an accessible, universal playground benefit your child/student? No Response No Yes Total Count 5 1 2 8 Expected Count .5 1.3 6.1 8.0 Count 0 3 20 23 Expected Count 1.6 3.8 17.6 23.0 Count 0 1 12 13 Expected Count .9 2.1 10.0 13.0 Count 0 2 29 31 Expected Count 2.1 5.1 23.8 31.0 Count 3 25 66 94 Expected Count 6.4 15.5 72.0 94.0 Count 0 3 26 29 Expected Count 2.0 4.8 22.2 29.0 Count 9 4 17 30 Expected Count 2.1 5.0 23.0 30.0 Count 0 2 18 20 Expected Count 1.4 3.3 15.3 20.0

No Response Teacher Which Category best describes your position? Special Education Teacher Parent of a child with disabilities Parent of a child without a disability Parent of both a child with and a child without a disability Other Therapist

147

Table 10: Preferred Type of Equipment for All Survey Respondents, Ordered by Descending Mean Value
Slide Play Area (Hut or Tower) Sympathetic Swing Tunnels Tire/Crawl Bridge Adjustable Basketball Hoop Sand Box/Table Spring Ride Water Table Musician Panel Work/Play Tables Teeter Totter Ladders Monkey Bars Cargo/Chain/Tire Net Gadget Panel Production Stage Fireman Pole Parallel Bars Balance Beam Horticulture Area Chinning Bar N Mean Std. Dev. 220 4.41 .98 214 4.24 1.03 197 4.07 1.22 214 4.06 1.17 209 3.97 1.10 219 3.97 1.35 213 3.92 1.25 206 3.92 1.21 210 3.92 1.30 213 3.89 1.23 190 3.77 1.29 205 3.73 1.26 211 3.70 1.16 212 3.64 1.23 203 3.53 1.28 202 3.45 1.33 202 3.43 1.26 209 3.39 1.25 207 3.32 1.25 215 3.29 1.30 199 3.04 1.33 203 2.81 1.26

148

Table 11: Preferred Type of Equipment for All People with Disabilities, Ordered by Descending Mean Value
Slide Sympathetic Swing Play Area (Hut or Tower) Tunnels Spring Ride Water Table Sand Box/Table Tire/Crawl Bridge Musician Panel Work/Play Tables Adjustable Basketball Hoop Teeter Totter Ladders Gadget Panel Monkey Bars Cargo/Chain/Tire Net Production Stage Parallel Bars Balance Beam Fireman Pole Horticulture Area Chinning Bar N Mean Std. Dev. 109 4.44 .98 98 4.23 1.27 107 4.23 1.02 105 4.16 1.19 104 4.12 1.18 105 4.08 1.32 108 4.06 1.22 104 4.03 1.12 109 3.93 1.24 100 3.91 1.33 108 3.79 1.45 100 3.77 1.29 105 3.63 1.27 99 3.55 1.33 103 3.32 1.25 101 3.31 1.31 100 3.24 1.28 103 3.20 1.26 106 3.09 1.31 101 3.04 1.33 98 2.87 1.32 100 2.61 1.14

149

Table 12: Preferred Type of Equipment for People with Disabilities, Broken Down by Type of Disability
Social/Emotional N Mean Std. Dev. Adjustable Basketball Hoop 23 4.04 1.22 Balance Beam 22 3.27 1.24 Cargo/Chain/Tire Net 20 3.50 1.24 Chinning Bar 20 2.90 1.25 Fireman Pole 19 3.42 1.22 Gadget Panel 19 3.63 1.26 Horticulture Area 21 3.05 1.47 Ladders 22 3.95 1.00 Monkey Bars 19 3.68 1.00 Musician Panel 22 3.86 1.08 Parallel Bars 21 3.43 1.21 Play Area (Hut or Tower) 23 4.30 1.02 Production Stage 21 3.33 1.20 Sand Box/Table 19 3.95 1.31 Slide 20 4.20 1.06 Spring Ride 20 3.80 1.44 Sympathetic Swing 20 3.75 1.41 Teeter Totter 18 3.94 1.16 Tire/Crawl Bridge 22 4.14 0.99 Tunnels 22 4.23 1.11 Water Table 20 4.45 0.89 Work/Play Tables 19 4.00 1.15 Physical N Mean Std. Dev. 29 4.03 1.48 27 2.89 1.42 27 3.26 1.46 26 2.31 1.12 29 2.90 1.54 25 3.44 1.47 25 2.60 1.47 26 3.58 1.47 28 3.25 1.46 28 3.86 1.30 28 3.32 1.31 30 4.57 0.86 28 3.43 1.48 29 4.07 1.19 30 4.83 0.38 29 4.45 0.99 26 4.58 1.03 26 3.92 1.35 29 4.34 1.04 28 4.29 1.15 27 3.89 1.28 26 4.04 1.22 Perceptual/Motor N Mean Std. Dev. 14 3.07 1.27 14 2.93 1.54 13 3.08 1.32 13 2.23 1.24 13 2.69 1.32 14 3.21 1.63 13 2.46 1.27 13 3.23 1.30 13 3.00 1.22 13 4.15 1.21 13 2.92 1.38 13 4.31 0.75 12 2.83 1.19 13 4.23 1.30 13 4.69 0.48 13 4.46 0.66 11 3.82 1.54 13 3.38 1.26 13 3.85 1.14 13 4.00 1.29 13 4.31 1.25 13 3.92 1.44 Intellectual N Mean Std. Dev. 6 4.00 1.67 8 4.00 0.93 6 3.17 1.17 6 2.00 1.26 6 3.00 1.41 6 4.17 0.98 5 2.80 1.30 9 4.11 1.54 7 3.71 1.25 7 4.57 0.79 6 2.50 1.52 6 4.67 0.52 6 3.33 1.37 7 4.43 1.51 7 4.71 0.76 6 4.00 1.55 4 4.50 1.00 6 3.67 1.63 6 4.17 1.17 6 4.33 1.63 6 4.33 1.63 4 3.50 1.91

150

Table 13: Proposed Playground Equipment and Material Costs

Delivery, construction, concrete and fencing costs NOT included.
Item 1,200 sq. ft. rubber base 4 tons processed wood fiber 7 tons crushed stone 65 border timbers Central play structure (estimated) 6 swings (3 specialized) Basketball Hoop Sand table Horizontal ladder (2 sets) Spring ride (2) Intercom Benches (10) Picnic tables (2) Trashcans (2) Playground safety sign Total Cost $3,000 $400 $80 $3,250 $20,000 $2,554 $1,695 $719 $1,600 $1,710 $445 $2,590 $1,050 $480 $50 $39,623

151

Appendix B: Figures
Figure 1: Breakdown of Respondents by Position
40

30

20

10

Percent

er /o th w O nd /a w y ld lit hi bi C sa di /o w s ld ie hi ilit C ab is /d r w he ld hi ac C Te d. lE ia ec Sp

Which Category best describes your position?

N o R es po

Te ac he r e ns

Th er ap is t

152

Figure 2: Breakdown of Need Categories for People who Reported a Relationship to a Child with a Disability
50

40

30

20

Percent

10

0
Ph l ua ct lle te In or ot /M al tu ep rc Pe O So N o e ns po es R N e on er th al ic ys m /E al ci

Which category best describes your child/student's special needs?

153

l na io ot

Figure 3: Preferred Location of Playgrounds

.8

.6

.4

.2

Mean

0.0

ity un m om C o ho Sc l

ca Lo lP k ar

eg R na io lP ar k

ed M a ic en lC r te

O e th r

154

s gn Si as re tA es R ps

Figure 4: Adaptations Needed to Current Playgrounds

am R

ls ai dr an H p. ui eq n .o ss ce Ac de si ut .o ss ce Ac es c Ac s. in de si

.5

.4

.3

Mean

.2

155

Figure 5: Playground Rating Results

Major Findings From Ratings

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Landing Surface Type of Access Integration Multiple Ability Levels Number of Playgrounds

Poor Fair Good

Categories

156

Appendix C: Codebook for the Universal Playgrounds Survey 2002

Variables: The following is a list of variables. The data is based on the survey responses of 249 adults in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia, in 2002 taken by Gemstone students, for the their research into universal playgrounds. Variable name refers to the name of the variable in the data set. Label defines the variable. Type refers to the type of variable (i.e. numerical, ordinal, categorical, text) A list of the values a variable has in the data set follows the label. LIST OF VARIABLES:
Variable name: ID Label: Unique Identification Number Type: Numerical 1:249 Variable name: POSITION Label: Which category best describes your position? Type: Categorical -1 No Response 1 Teacher 2 Special Education Teacher 3 Parent of a child with disabilities 4 Parent of a child without a disability 5 Parent of both a child with and a child without a disability 6 Other 7 Therapist Variable name: AGEGRP1 Label: What age group are your children? Less than 2 years old? Type: Categorical -1 No Response 0 No 1 Yes Variable name: AGEGRP2 Label: What age group are your children? 2-5 years old? Type: Categorical -1 No Response 0 No 1 Yes Variable name: AGEGRP3 Label: What age group are your children? 6-11 years old? Type: Categorical -1 No Response 0 No 1 Yes Variable name: AGEGRP4 Label: What age group are your children? 12 years or older? Type: Categorical -1 No Response 0 No 1 Yes Variable name: NEEDCAT Label: Which category best describes your child/students special needs? Type: Categorical -1 No Response 0 None 1 Social/Emotional 2 Physical 3 Perceptual/Motor 4 Intellectual 5 Other Variable name: SUPPORT Label: Would you support the construction of a playground that integrates children with and without disabilities? Type: Categorical -1 No Response 1 Support integrated playground

157

2 3 4

Support disability-centered playground only Do not support the building of universal playgrounds Do not support the building of any playgrounds

Variable name: CITY Label: Where do you live? City Type: Text Variable name: STATE Label: Where do you live? State Type: Categorical -1 No Response 1 DC 2 MD 3 VA Variable name: ZIP Label: Where do you live? Zip Code Type: Text Variable name: DEVTYPE Label: What benefits would you look for from a universal playground? Type: Categorical -1 No Response 1 Physical development 2 Social development 3 Intellectual development Variable name: ADAPT1 Label: What type of adaptations does the playground you use now need? Accessibility inside the playground Type: Categorical -1 No Response 0 No 1 Yes Variable name: ADAPT2 Label: What type of adaptations does the playground you use now need? Accessibility outside the playground Type: Categorical -1 No Response 1 No 2 Yes Variable name: ADAPT3 Label: What type of adaptations does the playground you use now need? Accessibility on the equipment Type: Categorical -1 No Response 1 No 2 Yes Variable name: ADAPT4 Label: What type of adaptations does the playground you use now need? Handrails

Variable name: EVRHEARD Label: Have you ever heard of a universal playground? Type: Categorical -1 No Response 0 No 1 Yes Variable name: EVRBEEN Label: Have you ever been on a universal playground? Type: Categorical -1 No Response 0 No 1 Yes Variable name: BENEFIT Label: Would an accessible, universal playground benefit your child/student? Type: Categorical -1 No Response 0 No 1 Yes Variable name: BUILDLOC Label: Where would you like to have a universal playground built? Type: Categorical -1 No Response 1 Community school 2 Local park 3 Regional park 4 Medical center 5 Other Variable name: MAXDIST Label: What is the maximum distance you be willing to travel from your home to use a universal playground? Type: Ordinal -1 No Response 1 0-0.24 miles 2 0.25 - 0.49 miles 3 0.50- 1.0 miles 4 1-5 miles 5 5-10 miles 6 10-25 miles 7 25-40 miles 8 Greater than 40 miles

158

Type: Categorical -1 No Response 1 No 2 Yes Variable name: ADAPT5 Label: What type of adaptations does the playground you use now need? Ramps Type: Categorical -1 No Response 1 No 2 Yes Variable name: ADAPT6 Label: What type of adaptations does the playground you use now need? Rest Areas Type: Categorical -1 No Response 1 No 2 Yes Variable name: ADAPT7 Label: What type of adaptations does the playground you use now need? Signs Type: Categorical -1 No Response 1 No 2 Yes Variable name: EQUIP01 Label: Which pieces of equipment would you or your child/student most enjoy? Adjustable Basketball Hoop Type: Numerical 1:5 Variable name: EQUIP02 Label: Which pieces of equipment would you or your child/student most enjoy? Balance Beam Type: Numerical 1:5 Variable name: EQUIP03 Label: Which pieces of equipment would you or your child/student most enjoy? Cargo/Chain/Tire Net Type: Numerical 1:5 Variable name: EQUIP04 Label: Which pieces of equipment would you or your child/student most enjoy? Chinning Bar Type: Numerical 1:5 Variable name: EQUIP05

Label: Which pieces of equipment would you or your child/student most enjoy? Fireman Pole Type: Numerical 1:5 Variable name: EQUIP06 Label: Which pieces of equipment would you or your child/student most enjoy? Gadget Panel Type: Numerical 1:5 Variable name: EQUIP07 Label: Which pieces of equipment would you or your child/student most enjoy? Horticulture Area Type: Numerical 1:5 Variable name: EQUIP08 Label: Which pieces of equipment would you or your child/student most enjoy? Ladders Type: Numerical 1:5 Variable name: EQUIP09 Label: Which pieces of equipment would you or your child/student most enjoy? Monkey Bars Type: Numerical 1:5 Variable name: EQUIP10 Label: Which pieces of equipment would you or your child/student most enjoy? Musician Panel Type: Numerical 1:5 Variable name: EQUIP11 Label: Which pieces of equipment would you or your child/student most enjoy? Parallel Bars Type: Numerical 1:5 Variable name: EQUIP12 Label: Which pieces of equipment would you or your child/student most enjoy? Play Area (Hut or Tower) Type: Numerical 1:5 Variable name: EQUIP13 Label: Which pieces of equipment would you or your child/student most enjoy? Production Stage Type: Numerical 1:5 Variable name: EQUIP14

159

Label: Which pieces of equipment would you or your child/student most enjoy? Sand Box/Table Type: Numerical 1:5 Variable name: EQUIP15 Label: Which pieces of equipment would you or your child/student most enjoy? Slide Type: Numerical 1:5 Variable name: EQUIP16 Label: Which pieces of equipment would you or your child/student most enjoy? Spring Ride Type: Numerical 1:5 Variable name: EQUIP17 Label: Which pieces of equipment would you or your child/student most enjoy? Sympathetic Swing Type: Numerical 1:5 Variable name: EQUIP18 Label: Which pieces of equipment would you or your child/student most enjoy? Teeter Totter Type: Numerical 1:5 Variable name: EQUIP19 Label: Which pieces of equipment would you or your child/student most enjoy? Tire/Crawl Bridge Type: Numerical 1:5 Variable name: EQUIP20 Label: Which pieces of equipment would you or your child/student most enjoy? Tunnels Type: Numerical 1:5 Variable name: EQUIP21 Label: Which pieces of equipment would you or your child/student most enjoy? Water Table Type: Numerical 1:5 Variable name: EQUIP22 Label: Which pieces of equipment would you or your child/student most enjoy? Work/Play Tables Type: Numerical 1:5

Variable name: EQUIP23 Label: Which pieces of equipment would you or your child/student most enjoy? Other Type: Text Variable name: OTHNRNFO Label: Apart from playground equipment, what other facilities would make the playground more accessible? Type: Text Variable name: ADDTL Label: Additional comments Type: Text

160

Appendix D: Sample Survey

Thank you for taking the time to fill out this questionnaire. We are student at the University of Maryland researching different aspects of technology as it relates to people with disabilities. We are currently trying to determine the need for a universal playground in the Maryland-DC-Virginia area. A universal playground is one that has special features to make it accessible to people with disabilities, while still supporting the activities of people without disabilities. Your comments are very appreciated.
Survey for a Universal Playground 1. Which category best describes your position? Teacher Special Education Teacher Parent of a child with disabilities Parent of a child without a disability Parent of both a child with and a child without a disability Other, please specify,_______________ 2. What age group are your children? Circle as many that apply. Less than 2 years old 2-5 years old 6-11 years old 12 years or older 3. Which category best describes your child/students special needs? Social/Emotional Physical Perceptual/Motor Intellectual Other, please specify,________________ None 4. Would you support the construction of a playground that integrates children with and without disabilities? Support integrated playground Support disability-centered playground only Do not support the building of universal playgrounds Do not support the building of any playgrounds 5. Have you ever heard of a universal playground? Yes No 6. Have you ever been on a universal playground? Yes No 7. Would an accessible, universal playground benefit your child/student? Yes No 8. Where would you like to have a universal playground built? Community school Local park Regional park Medical center Other ___________ 9. What is the maximum distance you be willing to travel from your home to use a universal playground? 0-0.24 miles 0.25 - 0.49 miles 0.50- 1.0 miles 1-5 miles 5-10 miles 10-25 miles

161

25-40 miles Greater than 40 miles Where do you live? City, State and Zip Code _________________ 10. What benefits would you look for from a universal playground? Physical development Social development Intellectual development 11. What type of adaptations does the playground you use now need? Circle any that apply Accessibility inside the playground Accessibility outside the playground Accessibility on the equipment Handrails Ramps Rest Areas Signs 12. Which pieces of equipment would you or your child/student most enjoy? Number from 1-5; with five being the most enjoyable Adjustable Basketball Hoop 1 2 3 4 5 Balance Beam 1 2 3 4 5 Cargo/Chain/Tire Net 1 2 3 4 5 Chinning Bar 1 2 3 4 5 Fireman Pole 1 2 3 4 5 Gadget Panel 1 2 3 4 5 Horticulture Area 1 2 3 4 5 Ladders 1 2 3 4 5 Monkey Bars 1 2 3 4 5 Musician Panel 1 2 3 4 5 Parallel Bars 1 2 3 4 5 Play Area (Hut or Tower) 1 2 3 4 5 Production Stage 1 2 3 4 5 Sand Box/Table 1 2 3 4 5 Slide 1 2 3 4 5 Spring Ride 1 2 3 4 5 Sympathetic Swing 1 2 3 4 5 Teeter Totter 1 2 3 4 5 Tire/Crawl Bridge 1 2 3 4 5 Tunnels 1 2 3 4 5 Water Table 1 2 3 4 5 Work/Play Tables 1 2 3 4 5 Other____________ 13. Apart from playground equipment, what other facilities would make the playground more accessible? 14. Additional comments

162

Appendix E: Informed Consent Form and Survey Cover Letter

INFORMED CONSENT FORM
Technology for People with Disabilities Gemstone Program University of Maryland Statement of Age of Subject Purpose I state that I am over 18 years of age, in good physical health, and wish to participate in a program of research being conducted by Mr. Glenn Rahmoeller in the for the Gemstone Program at the University of Maryland, College Park. The purpose of this study is to determine the need for and preferred characteristics of universal playgrounds. A universal playground is a playground that incorporates special features to make it accessible to people with disabilities, while also supporting the activities of people without disabilities. The procedures involve my completing a short survey questionnaire. All information collected in this study is confidential and my name will not be identified at any time. The data I provide will be grouped with data others provide for reporting and presentation. The experiment is not designed to help me personally, but to help the investigator learn more about the need for and best design of universal playgrounds. I am free to ask questions or withdraw from participation at any time and without penalty. Mr. Glenn Rahmoeller Gemstone Program 0100 Ellicott Hall University of Maryland College Park, Maryland 20742 (301) 405-8383 rahmoell@concentric.net

Procedures Confidentiality

Benefits, Freedom to Withdraw, & Ability to Ask Questions Contact Information of Investigator

Name of Subject: Signature of Subject: Date:

163

September 11, 2003 Dear Parent, We are interested in hearing your opinions and thoughts relating to various aspects of childrens play and playgrounds. As members of an interdisciplinary research program at the University of Maryland, we are researching the technologies available to people with disabilities. We are focusing our efforts on researching playgrounds, especially those built to accommodate the needs of children with disabilities and their parents. At the moment, we are trying to determine the need for a universal playground in the Maryland-DC-Virginia area. A universal playground is one that has special features to make it accessible to all participants regardless of their individual, specific needs, while still supporting the activities of children without disabilities. Because play is such an important part of every childs growth and development, we are interested in the way children interact with each other, regardless of special need or disability. Please read and fill out the attached survey so that we may hear your thoughts on this subject. Before you fill out the survey, however, please complete the attached consent form, which states you are willing to let us use your responses for analysis in our research. Please return both the consent form and the survey in the enclosed envelope to your childs teacher by ____date_____. Thank you very much for your time and we look forward to reading your comments.

Sincerely,

Technology for People with Disabilities Gemstone Team

164

Appendix F: Sample Form for Playground Rating System

Playground Rating System Assess the playground in each category based on the explanation found on pages 54-76 in the thesis.

P o o rFair Safety Landing area surface Equipment Condition Local Dangers Property Condition Accessible Equipment Type of Access provided Aisle Width Integration Level Accessible Facilities Pathway Obstacles Parking Location Table and Benches Shaded Areas Age Appropriate

Good Social Development Cooperative/Goal oriented (3+) Associative (No actual rating) Parallel Activities Solitary Activities Quiet Area Physical Development Rocking Sliding Climbing Swinging Fine Motor Coordination Different Ability Levels Intellectual Imagination/Exploration Academic Problem Solving Sensory Visual Hearing Touch Smell Aesthetics Spacious Efficient Flow

None

Sufficient

Meets the Need (no actual ratings) Appropriate Size (no actual ratings) Cost Efficient (no actual ratings) Proper Use (no actual ratings) Programming (no actual ratings)

165

Appendix G: Sample Form for Development of Playground Rating System

For the Purpose of Our Group Ratings, I would like everyone to write out descriptions for each category, including the type of equipment that falls in a category or including a description of the playground. For the real ratings, there will be three categories as before that evaluates each section. Safety Landing area surface Equipment Condition Local Dangers (set apart, fenced, near street) Property Condition Accessible Equipment Type of Access provided (transfer station, ramps) Aisle Width Integration Level Accessible Facilities Pathway Obstacles Parking Location Table and Benches Shaded Areas Age Appropriate (one area, two areas, sign differentiating the two) Social Development Cooperative/Goal oriented (3+) Associative (No actual Rating) Parallel Activities Solitary Activities Quiet Area Physical Development Rocking (Balance) Sliding Climbing (Upper and Lower boddy) Spinning (Balance) Swinging (Upper and Lower body, balance) Fine Motor Coordination Different Ability Levels Intellectual Imagination/Exploration Academic Problem Solving Sensory Visual Hearing Touch Smell Aesthetics Spacious Efficient Flow Meets the Need Appropriate Size Cost Efficient Proper Use Programming

166

Appendix H: Sample ADA Accessible Checklist

ADA Accessible Checklist
Does the play area have an accessible route that enables a child to move from the edge of the play area to the equipment? (Unobstructed path, 60 inches wide, 1:16 slope) (Playgrounds under 1000 square feet may have a path 44 inches wide with a turning area every 30 feet) Unobstructed _________ Width __________ Slope ???? Does the accessible route have acceptable material for surfacing? Type of Material____________ Number of Ground Level Components (approach and exit is at ground level) ___________ Number of Types of Ground Level Components (ex: rocking, sliding, climbing, spinning, sliding) _________ List of Components and place a check next to pieces that are on an accessible route and accessible:

Number of Elevated Components (can be, but not necessarily always, approached or exited from above or below ground grade) List of Components and place a check next to pieces that are on an accessible route and accessible:

Is the ratio of ground to elevated in compliance? (I will check) Based on number of elevated pieces, are ramps a requirement? (More than 20 elevated pieces) Is a ramp provided? Is the ramp compliant? (12 inch maximum rise, 1:12 slope maximum, 36 inches wide) (Connects 25% of elevated components) Is the elevated access route compliant? (36 inches wide, 1:12 rise, railings between 20-28 inches high, rail width 95 inches to 1.55 inches) Is a transfer station present for elevated structures under 20 in number? Is at least 50% of elevated components connected and accessible (25% if ramp)? Are the steps accessible? (min 24 inches wide, min 14 inches deep, max 8 inches high) Is space for wheelchair maneuvering to and from the play component provided? Is there a parking space for a wheelchair at the play component? (48 inches x 24 inches) Is there sufficient height and clearance at play tables to accommodate wheelchairs? (24 inches high min, 30 inches wide min, 17inches deep min) Is there appropriate height of entry points and seats? (11 inch min 24-inch max) Are there provisions of transfer supports? (Handrails, handgrips, handholds)

167

Reference List
Concrete Aggregate-Houghton (1998). Concrete Aggregate-Houghton [On-line]. Available: http://www.metrokc.gov/procure/green/swhconag.htm U.S. Access Board (2000). Federal Register. Adaptive Access (2001a). Adaptive Access [On-line]. Available: http://www.adaptiveaccess.com/handicap_parking.php Boundless Playgrounds (2001b). Boundless Playgrounds Organization [On-line]. Available: www.boundlessplaygrounds.org
Guide to ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Play Areas (2001c). United States Architecture and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. President's Commission on Disability Issues - Reasonable Accommodations (2001d). College Park: University of Maryland Press. President's Commission on Disability Issues - Reasonable Accommodations (2001e). College Park: University of Maryland Press.

A Guide to the ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Play Areas (2002a). U.S.Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. [On-line]. Available: http://www.access-board.gov/play/guide/intro.htm Injury Fact Book - Playground Safety (2002b). Center for Disease Control [Online]. Available: http://cdc.gov/ncipc/fact_book/20_Playground_Safety.htm Play Designs (2002c). Play Designs, Inc. [On-line]. Available: www.playdesigns.com Playing it Safe (2002d). P.I.R.G. [On-line]. Available: http://www.pirg.org/consumer/playground/98.html The International Association for the Child's Right to Play (2002e). Internet [Online]. Available: www.ipausa.org Aitken, M. (1972). Play Enviornment For Children. Bellingham: Educational Designs and Consultants. Arnold, J. C. (2001). Childhood is for Children. USA Today Magazine, 130, 66. Ayres, A. J. (1979). Sensory Integration and the Child. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.

168

Bailey, D. B. (2002). Are critical periods critical for early childhood education? The role of timing in early childhood pedagogy. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 281-294. Beckwith, J. (1999). No More Cookie Cutter Parks. Berkeley: Berkeley Partners For Parks. Bengtsson, A. (1972). Adventure Playground. London: Crosby Lockwood. Bishop, C. (2002). Interview. Boundless Playgrounds (2003). Interview. Brett, A., Moore, R., & Provenzo, E. (1993). The Complete Playground Book. New York: Syracuse University Press. Brown, A. (2002). Handbook for Public Playground Safety. United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. Campbell, S. K. (1994). The child's development of functional movement. In S.K.Campbell (Ed.), Physical Therapy for Children (pp. 3-37). Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders. Christie, J. & Johnson, E. P. (1985). Questioning the Results of Play Training Research. Educational Psychologist, 20. Clark, J. E. (2002). Interview. Cole, W. (2001). What Ever Happened to Play? Time, 157, 56. Creasey, G. L., Jarvis, P. A., & Berk, L. E. (1998). Play and social competence. In J.L.Frost, S. Wortham, & S. Reifel (Eds.), Play and Child Development (pp. 181-182). Columbus: Merril Prentice Hall. Dattner, R. (1969). Design for Play. New York: Reinhold. Ensign, A. (1993). Universal Playground Design. PAM Repeater, 80. Eriksen, A. (1985). Playground design: Outdoor environments for learning and development. New York: Van Nostrant Reinhold. Feuer, J. (2001). Playground Injuries More Severe Than Motor Vehicle Accidents. Children's Hospital Medica Center in Cincinnati [On-line]. Available: http://www.cincinnatichildrens.org Field, T., Roopnarine, J., & Segal, M. (1984). Friendships in Normal and Handicapped Children. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

169

Frost, J. L. & Klein, B. L. (1979). Children's Play and Playgrounds. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. Frost, J. L., Wortham, S., & Reifel, S. (2001). Play and Child Development. Upper Saddle River: Merill Prentice Hall. Gallahue, D. L. (1976). Motor development and movement experiences for young children. New York. Gallahue, D. L. (1993). Motor development and movement skill acquisition in early childhood education. In B.Spodek (Ed.), Handbook of research on the education of young children (pp. 29-141). New York: Macmillan. Gardy, D. & Pledger, J. (2000). Boundless Playgrounds. AbleTV [On-line]. Available: http://www.abletv.net/boundless.asp Graham, R. L. (1996). The Effect of Location and Facility Demand on the Marginal Cost of Devlivered Wood Chips. Energy Crops [On-line]. Available: http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/bioam95/graham2.html Hahn, P. (2002). Interview. Haley, S. M., Coster, W. J., & Binda-Sumberg, K. (1994). Measuring physical disablement: The contextual challenge. Physical Therapy, 74, 443-451. Henderson, W. (1997). Catching kids when they fall. Parks and Recreation, 32, 84-92. Hendricks, B. E. (2001). Designing for Play. Aldershot: Ashgate. Hendy, T. (2001). The Americans with Disability Act Measures the Right for Every Child to Play. Parks and Recreation, 36. Heriza, C. B. (1991). Motor Development: Traditional and Contemporary Theories. In M.J.Lister (Ed.), Contemporary control of motor problems: Proceedings of Step II Conference (pp. 99-126). Alexandria: Foundations for Physical Therapy. Holmberg, M. C. (1980). The development of social exchange patters from 12 to 42 months. Child Development, 51, 618-626. Honig, A. S. (2000). A Passion for Play. Early Childhood Today, 15, 32. Howes, C. (1983). Patterns of friendship. Child Development, 54, 1041-1053. Hudson, S. D. and Thompson, D. (2001). Are Playgrounds Still Viable in the 21st Century? Parks and Recreation, 36. Ivory, J. & McCollum, J. (1999). Effects of Social and Isolate Toys on Social Play in an Inclusive Setting. Journal of Special Education, 32. 170

Johnson, J. E. (1998). Play development from ages four to eight. In D.Fromberg & D. Bergen (Eds.), Play from birth to twelve and beyond (pp. 146-153). New York: Garland. Jones, N. B. (1972). Categories of child-child interaction. In N.B.Jones (Ed.), Ethological studies of child behaviour (pp. 97-127). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kennedy, Smith, & Austin (1987). Special Recreation: Opportunities for People with Disabilities. Philadelphia: Saunders College Publishing. Kurtz, L. A. & Harryman, S. E. (1997). Rehabilitation Interventions: Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy. In M.L.Batshaw (Ed.), Children with Disabilities ( Baltimore: Paul H Brooks Company. Lane, S. J. & Mistrett, M. J. (1996). Play and Assistive Technology Issues for Infants and Young Children with Disabilities. Focus on Autism and OtherDevelopmental Disabilities, 11. Macintyre, C. (2002). Play for Childnren with Special Needs. London: Fulton. Mason, J. (1982). Environment for Play. West Point: Leisure. McNeil, J. (2001). Americans with disabilities, 1997: Table 5, disability status of children under 15 years old. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau. Money, L. (2002). Interview. Perry, B. D. (2001). The Importance of Pleasure in Play. Early Childhood Today,
15, 24.

Phillip, S. & Strain (1981). The utilization of classroom peers as behavior change agents. New York: Plenum Press. Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. New York: Norton. Richardson, A. (2002). Interview. Rubin, K. H., Watson, K. S., & Jambor, T. W. (1978). Free-play behaviors in preschool and kindergarten children. Child Development, 49, 534-536. Sailor, W. (2002). Whole-school success and inclusive education, building partnerships for learning, achievement, and accountability. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University. Schaffer, R., Law, M., & Polatajko, H. (1989). A study of children with learning disabilities and sensorimotor problems, or let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 9, 101-117.

171

Schleien, S. J., Ray, M. T., & Green, F. P. (1997). Community recreation and people with disabilities: Strategies for inclusion. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company. Seligman, J. and Cohen, A. (1993). New Ground for Child's Play. Newsweek. Shell, E. (1994). Kids Don't Need Equipment, They Need Opportunities. Smithsonian, 25, 78. Smilansky, S. (1968). The effects of sociodramatic play on disadvantaged preschool children. New York: Wiley. Smilansky, S. & Shefatya, L. (1990). Facilitating play: A medium for promoting cognitive, socioemotional, and academic developemnt in young children. In J.L.Frost, S. Wortham, & S. Reifel (Eds.), Play and Child Development (pp. 170-189). Columbus: Merrill Prentice Hall. Stoecklin, V. L. (2000). Creating Playgrounds Kids Love. White Hutchinson Leisure and Learning Group [On-line]. Available: www.whitehutchinson.com/articles/playgroundskidslove.html Sutton-Smith, B. (1976). Current research and theory on play, games, and sports. In J.L.Frost, S. Wortham, & S. Reifel (Eds.), Play and Child Development (pp. 182-183). Columbus: Merrill Prentice Hall. Takhvar, M. & Smith, P. K. (1990). A review and critique of Smilansky's classification scheme and the "nested hierarchy" of play categories. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 4, 112-122. Taub, D. E. & Greer, K. R. (2000). Physical activity as a normalizing experience for school-age children with physical disabilities. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 394. Thompson, D. (2002a). National Program for Playground Safety. National Program for Playground Safety [On-line]. Available: http://www.uni.edu/playground.html Thompson, K. (2002b). Interview. Vygotsky, L. S. (1976). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. In J.L.Frost, S. Wortham, & S. Reifel (Eds.), Play and Child Development (pp. 170-182). Columbus: Merrill Prentice Hall. Wade, B. (2002). Playground Design: it's more than child's play. American City and County, 114, 24-26. Ways, J. (2002). Interview.

172

Wilkinson, P. (1980). Innovation in Play Environments. New York: St. Martin's Press, Inc. Wright, K. (2002). Building school and community partnerships through parent involvement. (Second ed.) Paramus: Prentice Hall. Zwany, S. (2002). Interview.

173