Content uploaded by Victoria Carr
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Victoria Carr on Nov 06, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [Victoria Carr]
On: 04 March 2014, At: 07:15
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Play
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijp20
Playscapes: a pedagogical paradigm for
play and learning
Victoria Carra & Eleanor Lukenb
a Arlitt Child and Family Research and Education Center,
University of Cincinnati, 47 Corry Street, UC PO 210105,
Cincinnati, OH 45221-0105, USA
b Environmental Psychology, City University of New York, The
Graduate Center, CUNY, 365 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10016,
USA
Published online: 28 Feb 2014.
To cite this article: Victoria Carr & Eleanor Luken (2014): Playscapes: a pedagogical paradigm for
play and learning, International Journal of Play, DOI: 10.1080/21594937.2013.871965
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2013.871965
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Playscapes: a pedagogical paradigm for play and learning
Victoria Carr
a
*and Eleanor Luken
b
a
Arlitt Child and Family Research and Education Center, University of Cincinnati, 47 Corry Street,
UC PO 210105, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0105, USA;
b
Environmental Psychology, City University of
New York, The Graduate Center, CUNY, 365 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10016, USA
(Received November 2012; accepted November 2013)
Children’s playgrounds in the USA typically reflect an archaic view of children blowing off
steam or, in schools, as a place for teachers to get a break from children. Even so, children
are spending less and less time on playgrounds and even less time in play. A thoughtfully
designed playscape with a focus on nature is an alternative to traditional playgrounds, one
that is environmentally sound. Research indicates that children learn academic concepts,
engage in physical activities, investigate scientific principles, and enhance development in
all domains through nature play. Playscapes promote early science learning and demonstrate
sustainability principles. In essence, playscapes can sanction play and recess as an academic
learning venue while serving as an early educational model for the next wave of
environmentalism.
Keywords: playscapes; outdoor play; early childhood; STEM; nature education
Introduction
President Obama called for an investment in educational reform that inspires children to excel in
math and science and to turn around failing schools (Obama, 2010). This call aligned with the
National Science Board’s(2007) recommendations to strengthen the science, technology, engin-
eering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce, a core indicator of a nation’s ability to sustain itself.
It also flows on the third wave of environmentalism into a fourth, and yet to be realized, age
whereby children have better access to healthy playgrounds; where play is ‘earth-based’rather
than plastic and metal.
As Shabecoff (2001) explains, the first wave of environmentalism, led by pioneers such as
John Muir and Theodore Roosevelt, was about conserving land to serve the needs of future gen-
erations and save the earth for its own sake. The second wave, or golden age of environmentalism,
was ushered in on Earth Day in 1970 and squashed in 1980 when President Reagan charged his
appointees with reducing government, particularly limiting the impact of government agencies
such as the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency. In response,
environmentalists changed strategies; they used the power of economics, advocated for market
forces to speak out about the ills of untoward businesses and industries, and negotiated
settlements to pollution evils (Shabecoff, 2001). These strategies ushered in the third wave of
environmentalism, but caused a rift among environmentalists, mainly with regard to reducing
© 2014 Taylor & Francis
*Corresponding author. Email: victoria.carr@uc.edu
International Journal of Play, 2014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2013.871965
Downloaded by [Victoria Carr] at 07:16 04 March 2014
environmental progress to a crawl. Shabecoff (2001) asserts that if we do not address this slow
pace, the earth’s resources will be depleted to a point where children’s environs are unhealthy.
Therefore, the fourth wave of environmentalism must practice conservation of the environment
as envisioned by Muir –one that is
broader, more sophisticated, visionary, and aggressive and massive enough to stand against the tide of
human numbers and technology, of ignorance and greed and willfulness, that threatens to propel us
into an age of physical, biological, and cultural decline. (Shabecoff, 2001, p. 12)
In essence, we must build sustainable systems and communities for the future. Third wave enter-
prises acknowledged the social needs of inhabitants and focused on a solutions-oriented perspec-
tive toward addressing problems. Unfortunately, concurrent STEM and third wave initiatives
have only impacted early education in that teachers are doing more direct instruction because
of the focus on standards-based education. In addition, the stress on academic standards and
push toward more testing does not just ignore the social needs of children; it disregards the pos-
ition of the National Association for the Education of Young Children regarding the importance of
learning through play (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009; Miller & Almon, 2009). Consequently, play
is devalued and recess time in primary school is at a disheartening low even though educators
espouse the need for and benefits of recess (Patte, 2009). Furthermore, children are not playing
outdoors in natural settings like previous generations (Charles & Wheeler, 2012). Outdoor play
in schools is decreasing in part because educators value academic preparedness over play and
unstructured activities –even at the preschool level (Elkind, 2012; Ginsburg, 2007). More specifi-
cally, playgrounds are not deemed to be worthwhile pedagogic experiences even though the social
interactions that occur on the playground are often related to life’s lessons. In addition, contact
with nature during the school day supports healthy children who perform better in school
(Chawla, 2013; Kellert, 2005). A profound, philosophical change in the way playgrounds are
designed or transformed can address these matters and support learning through play.
There is a precedent in the USA of using playgrounds for pedagogical purposes, but that atti-
tude disappeared due to land use, public service, and societal changes in the last half of the twen-
tieth century. It is time politicians and educators recommence attitudes that value play as an
important contributor to children’s education. There is evidence that all-natural playgrounds
are useful for teaching classroom concepts that create a foundation for later STEM curriculum
while acknowledging the power of play in a child’s learning experience (Kochanowski & Carr,
in review). All natural playgrounds, or playscapes, a term coined by Frost (1992), are dedicated
spaces for children to play within an engaging outdoor environment that reflects the local land-
scape. They have become a topic of interest to many as evidenced by the number of nature edu-
cation books on the market and grass roots efforts such as Leave no child inside (Louv, 2007), but
these initiatives in the USA need to grow in proportion to the population of young children who
would benefit from access to natural playgrounds.
The advantages of building playscapes over traditional playgrounds are considerable. Children
have opportunities to learn about scientific inquiry, mathematics, and other embedded concepts as
required by curricular standards (Carr & Luken, 2011). These academic practices adhere to the
National Science Board’s(2007) recommendation for vertical alignment of STEM education
from preschool through higher education. In addition, development is supported and enhanced in
cognitive, physical, language, social, and emotional domains by immersing children in nature
(Chawla, 2013). So, not only does it engage children in STEM education at an early age, but it
also fosters future stewards for a sustainable environment while providing a developmentally appro-
priate play and learning venue for the twenty-first century, thus perpetuating a fourth wave of envir-
onmentalism by encouraging very young children to play in and connect with nature.
2V. Carr and E. Luken
Downloaded by [Victoria Carr] at 07:16 04 March 2014
A brief history of playgrounds
Historically, within the USA, play has served as a means to teach and socialize children. As evi-
denced during the first wave of environmentalism, the progressive era (1890s–1920s) was a
period of social activism to better society with a focus on education, public health, and the assim-
ilation of immigrant populations (Flanagan, 2006). Also, in the first half of the twentieth century,
the work of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Friedrich Froebel inspired educators and psychologists to
attend to the study of children. The work of Sigmund Freud and John Dewey set in motion an
exploration of the value of childhood, early learning, and the importance of play. This was
particularly noted in Dewey’s focus on experimental education and the notion of collective
problem-solving (Hickman & Alexander, 1998). This public interest translated into social con-
ditions that supported children and play throughout the city. Parks departments started a new pro-
fession of recreationists known as play leaders. These adults supervised children on playgrounds
to make sure their play was wholesome and educational. Philanthropists, and eventually govern-
ments, provided funding for early playgrounds because they believed in the potential of directed
play to properly socialize children and prepare them for professional, domestic, and civic life. In
1906, the nation codified these efforts with the Playground Association of America, a governmen-
tal body that put playgrounds and children high on the country’s social agenda (Chudacoff, 2007).
These initiatives gave adults the opportunity to intervene in children’s play for pedagogical pur-
poses. New playgrounds were opened in areas with high immigrant and lower class populations in
order to reach children believed to be at risk of deviancy. Play leaders encouraged organized
games to teach children about following rules and working with teammates. Children were
often required to maintain good hygiene and use correct grammar. On some sites, boys and
girls were segregated and adults led them in gender-specific activities (Chudacoff, 2007).
By overseeing, encouraging, and directing children’s play, adults were able to claim that play
was preparing children for education and adult life (Figures 1 and 2).
Public support for playgrounds and teaching children through play decreased over the century.
To meet the higher demand for playgrounds in expanding cities, parks departments were forced to
cut staffing. Without play leaders guiding children’s activities, play was no longer instrumental to
the social agenda and quickly lost financial support.
Even as early childhood curriculum and developmentally appropriate practices built on the
writings of theorists such as Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky who maintained that play is an impor-
tant medium through which to educate children (Nicolopoulou, 1993), the manufacturing of con-
vergent play materials became more prevalent, keeping children in the classroom to learn from
said materials. In addition, many citizens and politicians saw outdoor play and children’s work
in the classroom as dichotomous. Though the agenda of progressive era reformists who cham-
pioned early playgrounds may now be outmoded, today’s need for children to experience
nature in order to become future environmental stewards may appeal to politicians, parents,
and educators, giving them reason to support playscapes as a new paradigm for addressing chil-
dren and society’s need for an ethic that supports environmentalism, civility, and children’s
development.
Perhaps Americans can also learn from other countries that have already addressed the impor-
tance of learning through play in natural environments. Sweden and Australia, for example, have
taken progressive steps toward providing children with play areas that are connected to nature.
Swedish policies support the interconnectedness of humans and the environment, expanding
upon the belief of the importance of a good living environment and significance of contributing
to environmentally sustainable practices, evidenced by the establishment of a working group to
study environmental humanities (Mistra, 2013), an area of study that may result in new progress-
ive era-like education reforms. For example, Swedish researchers have found that playing in
International Journal of Play 3
Downloaded by [Victoria Carr] at 07:16 04 March 2014
Figure 2. Playground activities in a Chicago playground, 1902. Library of Congress.
Figure 1. Children using play equipment in public playground in Chicago, 1902. Library of Congress.
4V. Carr and E. Luken
Downloaded by [Victoria Carr] at 07:16 04 March 2014
natural environments makes children healthier, reduces symptoms of depression, and increases
attention and powers of concentration (Huttenmoser, 1995). Other studies found that children
who attend play-friendly schools spend more time outdoors which positively impacts their phys-
ical and mental development (Fjøtoft, 2001,2004; Grahn, Martensson, Llindblad, Nilsson, &
Ekman, 1997). For example, Mårtensson et al. (2009) used aerial photography and child assess-
ments to investigate challenging behaviors. They found that the children, regardless of
socio-economic status, who play in spaces with more vegetation, were less likely to have inatten-
tive behaviors. These findings are an academic and mental health boon to pedagogy. In response
to the research, Scandinavian countries have established nature nursery schools or, ‘Naturborne-
haver’, where children play in woodlands and meadows as often as possible in all kinds of
weather (Adhemar, 2000). In addition to Scandinavia where the concept of ‘forest schools’
was introduced in the 1950s, preschools where the majority of learning occurs outdoors have
become more popular in Germany and the UK, where organizations similar to the Alliance for
Childhood in the USA, advocate for the value of play.
Early childhood stakeholders in Australia and New Zealand have also embraced outdoor
initiatives. Their schools and early childhood centers have great diversity in types of playscapes,
but they all have a common focus on connections to nature, collective action, collaboration, and a
sense of ownership and identity (Elliott, 2008). Because research indicates that unstructured play
in nature increases self-esteem, resiliency, creativity, motor skills, fitness, self-regulation, and
even academic performance (Chawla, 2013; Faber Taylor, Kuo, & Sullivan, 2002; Korpela,
1992; Wells & Evans, 2003), the Australian government provides funds for Play Australia to
collect and disseminate information about play environments (Play Australia, 2012).
In summary, the outdoor nature play agenda is moving forward in the aforementioned
countries, but the environmental movement for young children in the USA is still in its
infancy. Frost (2010) proclaims that playgrounds in the aforementioned countries are more chal-
lenging and fun, but messy, and that, sadly, the USA citizens’propensity toward litigation limits
the risk children need to play. It is time for a playground paradigm shift in the USA.
The playscape paradigm
Playscapes can address our country’s interest in both STEM education and the next wave of envir-
onmentalism. Outdoor nature play provides rich opportunities for meaningful learning that
schools ought to integrate into more standard curriculum. It appeals to a child’s sense of being
in a special place, promotes curiosity, and demonstrates sustainable practices. Given that children
describe a space in terms of affordances and personal meaning versus an adult’s description of the
physical or cognitive parameters (Elliott, 2008), playscapes can be aesthetically pleasing to
adults, but must be built to let children develop a sense of identity without causing irrevocable
damage to the landscape elements. Elements of a well-designed playscape can be manipulated
by children, creating a sense of ownership. Elliot (2008) states that playscapes for young children
contain the following minimum features: (1) local landscape or a reconstruction of the indigenous
environment; (2) natural elements dominate –trees, shrubs, sand, rocks, soil, and flowers; (3)
loose natural materials and possibilities for open-ended interactions, explorations, and manipula-
tions; (4) opportunities for risk-taking, spontaneity and discovery, sensory in all aspects; (5)
accessibility; (6) a sense of place; (7) multiple spaces or mini-environments; and (8) a dynamic
environment. While these features are essential to building a playscape, Luken, Carr, and
Brown (2011) are a bit more explicit about playscapes for young children in describing details
for the principles and features to consider from the Cincinnati Nature Playscape Initiative:
Playscape principles are as follows:
International Journal of Play 5
Downloaded by [Victoria Carr] at 07:16 04 March 2014
(1) Playscapes elicit hands-on, multi-sensory, unique and personal experiences for children
where nature is the focus, not man-made materials.
(2) Areas within the playscape are designed to be open-ended with multiple and divergent
uses. Materials and spaces are not designed to be used in pre-determined ways.
(3) Selected playscape plants and materials are ones that can be found in nature, preferably
indigenous to the local landscape.
(4) Playscape materials provide opportunities to be touched, manipulated, dug, moved,
picked, dammed, climbed, built, and experienced by children as they choose to do so.
(5) Playscapes are built to encourage risk-taking, investigation, language, sensory experi-
ences, child-directed dramatic and themed play, and collaborative and active play
Within the scope of these principles, playscapes should also have the following features:
.Accessible water –streams, fountains, wading ponds
.Unlevel topography
.Gardens and/or edible landscape materials
.Sand, rocks, boulders
.Trees, grasses, shrubs, flowers, herbs, etc.
.Nature-themed art or some play equipment may be included, but do not intrude upon or
dominate the playscape
.Pathways and gathering spaces
.Hiding places, tunnels, felled logs, and digging pits
.Seating for adults to observe children’splay
.Storage for child-sized equipment (shovels, buckets, etc.). (pp. 30–31)
These elements will vary according to ecosystem, but all playscapes need a main circular path and
if space allows, secondary and tertiary paths, elements that orient children in the space and
enhance geographical referents (Carr, Maltbie, & Steedly, 2013; Moore, 1996). A final, but criti-
cal, element for a playscape that emerged from teacher and parent focus groups is a perimeter
fence with one entrance/exit (Carr et al., 2013). Adults were willing to negotiate the risks inherent
in natural settings, but were concerned about children wandering out of reach and the possibility
of child abduction even though the majority of child abductions in the USA (∼70%) are by adults
who have a relationship with the child they abduct, not by strangers (Douglas, 2011). A perimeter
fence or natural barrier can reduce these fears (Figure 3).
These essential elements are important because both qualitative and quantitative studies indi-
cate that natural settings with ample vegetation encourage more and longer play sessions (Hart,
1979; Moore & Cosco, 2000; Rivkin, 1997; Wilson, 1994; Taylor, Wiley, Kuo, & Sullivan, 1998).
Herrington and Studtmann (1998) also found that landscape-based designs stimulate more aspects
of human development than standard play equipment. For example, dramatic play props and con-
struction materials promote cooperative play and give children the chance to engage their inter-
personal skills (Barbour, 1999). Spaces for dramatic and construction play are typically infused
into the playscape environment using loose parts, such as rocks, sticks, leaves, etc., and vegetated
niches. Small, multi-use platforms also serve as backdrops for drama and construction of towers,
roads, or whatever the children create. Lastly and very importantly, the creative and inventive
benefits of loose parts for play increase with the variety of objects in the outdoor play space
(Nicholson, 1971).
Essentially, playscape features and materials are not designed to be used in pre-determined,
specific ways like those on a traditional playground. Natural materials are available for open-
ended, self-motivated play. Thus, although structures are often placed within playscapes,
6V. Carr and E. Luken
Downloaded by [Victoria Carr] at 07:16 04 March 2014
nature is the focus, not human-made elements. Plants, soil, and water are integrated into the plays-
cape and are available to be touched and manipulated, not just observed. The integration of natural
local flora is essential because the amount of vegetation in play areas makes a significant differ-
ence in the incidence of play and maintains sustainable practices (Moore, 1986; Taylor et al.,
1998).
Moore (1996) asserts that imaginative play, creativity, and social interactions can be supported
by a highly manipulative environment having plants as its primary play material. Therefore, the
extensive use of plant material in playscapes provides for the complexity children need for
sensory explorations and environmental education. In this way, a playscape serves as an environ-
ment that enhances a child’s creativity and development with compound flexibility –the flexible
and adaptable playscape environment’s interrelationship to a child’s gradual, flexible, and adapt-
able development (Brown, 2003). This means that the flexibility a child has to explore and play in
a rich, sensory environment directly affects the extent to which a child can explore and exper-
iment, making the most of what is available to them in the playscape.
Finally, creating plant-rich, aesthetically interesting outdoor play spaces supports learning,
allows for creative recesses from the classroom, and provides emotional respite which allows the
brain more capacity to focus and store information (Louv, 2005; Taylor & Kuo, 2008; Taylor,
Kuo, & Sullivan, 2001). Sutton-Smith (2008) states that the positive pleasure experienced
within play helps humans cope with the world. This is corroborated by Wells and Evans (2003)
who found that children use nature to buffer the stressors in their lives. In addition, the nature
and quality of children’s environments shape the brain-behavioral systems underlying complex
Figure 3. A playscape environment is dominated by natural materials, creates a sense of place, and includes
microhabitats that reflect local ecology.
International Journal of Play 7
Downloaded by [Victoria Carr] at 07:16 04 March 2014
human emotions (Fries, Ziegler, Kurian, Jacoris, & Pollak, 2005). Therefore, if play within natural
environments is pleasurable, children may begin to associate natural environments with pleasure,
fostering what Wilson (1984) calls biophilia, a deep connection with nature. This is critical to stew-
ardship of our environment because when children learn to live harmoniously and caringly with the
environment, they are learning an important part of living in harmony with other people (Rivkin,
1995). Furthermore, if children have early access to ludic play (free, unstructured, and self-directed
play) where the desires of their inner lives are supported, Sutton-Smith (2008) asserts that they are
more likely to be more sophisticated, diplomatic, and socially mature when adults.
Meaningful play in the twenty-first century
Today, theorists and early education researchers affirm much of what Dewey and Piaget espoused
about children constructing knowledge through play. While Piaget focused more on play as an
individual accomplishment versus Vygotsky’s view of play as a social activity (Nicolopoulou,
1993), constructivism, or social constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978), is still the foundational philos-
ophy for most early childhood education curricula and early childhood educators espouse the
benefits of children’s play. A comprehensive early education curriculum focuses on the interrelat-
edness of developmental domains and the learning of subject matter in play-based settings. Yet,
while a well-designed curriculum is very important, teacher interactions, or what teachers say and
do, or do not say and do, is paramount to sequencing ideas for deep understanding of concepts and
creating relationships among ideas and information. For this reason, the intentional teacher
creates or uses environments to make learning meaningful with a focus on supporting the
whole child (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009).
Since, children develop an awareness of their environments and the functional significance or
meaning contained in their various settings, teachers have endless opportunities to scaffold learning
through play in natural settings. Teachers canuse the environment as the ‘third teacher’(Carter, 2007),
whereby the complexities and affordances provided within a playscape allow numerous opportunities
to experience pleasure and connect with the environment. Children can be playful in a way that is
spontaneous and without any particular purpose, regulations, or imposed rituals. This is critical to
whole child development because research indicates that ludic play in nature increases self-esteem,
creativity, motor skills, fitness, and even academic performance (Louv, 2008). Playscapes, then,
are twenty-first century venues for meaningful learning through play (Figure 4).
Within playscape settings, play may often be ambiguous, but may have the voluntariness, via-
bility, and cultural framework traditionally associated with the defined tenets of play (Sutton-Smith,
1997,2008). Playscapes also encourage physical activity. In fact, the more diverse the landscape,
the more affordances for play and the greater the impact on children’s motor development. In
studies on nature play and motor development, young children who use the woods as a playscape
perform better in motor skills than those who play on a traditional playground (Fjørtoft, 2001;
Fjørtoft & Sageie, 2000). The movement playscapes elicit from children are important factors,
too, in combating the rising childhood obesity epidemic particularly since research indicates that
children who play outside engage in more vigorous activity (Ginsburg, 2007; Krisberg, 2007).
Romancing nature with young children
Current pedagogical practice in early childhood programs in the USA builds on the research and
theory that influenced early playgrounds. It is important to emphasize that the continuum of child
to teacher directed activities must begin with ludic play –even if it is aimless wandering. In this
way, knowledge is embedded in the constantly recurring cycle of learning according to Whitehead
(1929)–romance, precision, and generalization. Children ‘romance’nature by getting acquainted
8V. Carr and E. Luken
Downloaded by [Victoria Carr] at 07:16 04 March 2014
with the objects, phenomena, and ideas presented within a nature by playing with them, looking at
them, and thinking about them. Subsequently, learning is intuitive and self-initiated as children
move into precision, which is organizing, making rules, and clarifying to extend first-hand experi-
ences. Over time, sustained engagement in playscape environments allows for generalization of
concepts and ideas learned through romance and precision. Spending extended periods of time in
nature, then, is essential for learning and fostering biophilia and positive environmental attitudes.
Play and the romance of natural phenomena inspire children for future learning about
STEM disciplines and ethics. This premise maintains Dewey’s(1938/1997) notion of provid-
ing students with experiences that are immediately valuable and which better enable the stu-
dents to contribute to society and builds upon the work of early childhood pedagogues, such
as Pestalozzi and Froebel (Shapiro, 1983), who focused on the education of very young chil-
dren. For young children, play in nature is critical to later learning and important to sustain
because as Solomon (1997) points out, adolescents often lose their curiosity during the pre-
teen and teen years. To nurture curiosity, the locus of control must dwell in the learner. There-
fore, an effective, nurturing, and transformational teacher must not inhibit children’s thinking
Figure 4. This water feature was designed to promote open-ended, imaginative, and exploratory play at
Cincinnati Nature Center’s playscape, 2012. Photo by author.
International Journal of Play 9
Downloaded by [Victoria Carr] at 07:16 04 March 2014
and decision-making by attempting to directly teach concepts and skills. Teachers must let
children fully romance nature and experience ludic play before engaging them in precision-
oriented activities (Figure 5).
When it is appropriate to move from the romancing stage to the precision-stage, even very
young children can engage in scientific inquiry. Chalufour and Worth (2003) purport the scientific
inquiry process for young children follows these cyclic steps: (1) observe nature closely, (2) study
the characteristics of living things, (3) develop scientific inquiry skills (wondering, questioning,
exploring, investigating, discussing, reflecting, and formulating ideas and theories), and (4)
develop naturalist dispositions (curiosity, eagerness to discover, open-mindedness, and respect
for the natural world). Teachers, however, must understand that Chalufour & Worth’s early child-
hood education premise is not a foundational strategy for teaching about the environment or
STEM disciplines; children should be allowed to play in nature first to ensure that the eagerness,
open-mindedness and wonder about the natural world becomes an intrinsic value before engaging
in the precision strategies that the inquiry cycle requires.
Intrinsic motivation may be a positive outcome from playscape designs because natural
environments create rich contexts for inquiry and cognitive development through play
(Kellert, 2002; Luken et al., 2011). Through repeated experiences in playscapes and with unin-
terrupted time for play, children will begin to extend their play in creative ways. The playscape
environment will help children build and test mental models to enhance their knowledge acqui-
sition (De Young, 2013). For example, as children begin to categorize objects, observing their
characteristics and uses, or observe the life cycles of plants and animals, or notice changing
weather patterns, children get practice in interpreting empirical observations. Nature surpasses
man-made structures in variety and complexity needed to stimulate these learning experiences
(Figure 6).
Figure 5. A child manipulates loose parts in a designed ‘fort’at Cincinnati Nature Center’s playscape,
2012. Photo by author.
10 V. Carr and E. Luken
Downloaded by [Victoria Carr] at 07:16 04 March 2014
The importance of promoting outdoor nature play
If outdoor play was championed today with the same fervor as in the early twentieth-century pro-
gressive education era, playscapes might gain status, attention, and funding. This would be timely
because of negative trends in outdoor play in the USA. First, cities are denser and well-designed
playgrounds are not within walking distance of every child. This is problematic because children
today are rarely allowed out of the sight and direction of adults who keep children inside and close
to home. Well-designed community playscapes, however, can serve as models for sustainable
playgrounds and provide additional green space to urban neighborhoods. In addition, suburban
homeowners can ‘playscape’their yards.
Second, children’s free time is heavily adult-directed or media-saturated. Outdoor nature play
time that was common to previous generations has been replaced with enriching but strict pro-
gramming such as organized sports or music lessons. Thus, due to media, over-scheduling,
fear, and other factors, children are not playing outside (Louv, 2008). More disturbing, the preva-
lence of overweight children is increasing due to sedentary lifestyles (Ogden, Flegal, Carroll, &
Johnson, 2002). Playscapes offer vast opportunities for movement.
Third, playscapes convey the quintessence of the next wave of environmentalism. They
espouse an approach to environmentalism centering on young children’s hope to protect from
Figure 6. Children investigate a hole in the dirt, taking notes on their findings at the Arlitt playscape, 2012.
Photo by author.
International Journal of Play 11
Downloaded by [Victoria Carr] at 07:16 04 March 2014
the global ills of environmental degradation and abuse. Children’s ludic play in nature with
opportunities to use loose parts in creative ways fosters a connection to the space. Communities
can provide opportunities for problem-solving, critical thinking, and cooperation by creating
playscapes that will foster a personal connection to nature. This, in turn, may promote the
ethic necessary for children to embrace environmental stewardship as they grow older.
Clearly, traditional playgrounds no longer meet the needs of our society, but playscapes do as
evidenced by contemporary investigations into the benefits of nature play and a compelling need
for sustainability. To build sustainable systems and communities for the future, citizens must
adopt outlooks that embrace local action and involve the youngest generation. This includes creat-
ing alternatives to obsolete concrete, metal, and plastic playgrounds and securing public and
private funds to do so. These solutions go far beyond engendering future environmental stewards
because playscapes are venues for meaningful play in nature that support child development and
academic learning. As Copple and Bredekamp (2009) remind us, the achievement gap cannot be
eliminated within the schools, but may be closed by providing a wealth of experiences outside of
school. Playscapes are one venue for closing that gap –on school grounds, in child care centers,
and in communities.
Conclusion
The American Academy of Pediatrics supports what most early childhood educators believe to be
true by asserting that ludic play is essential for a child’s cognitive, physical, social, and emotional
well-being (Ginsburg, 2007). Unfortunately, children are spending less and less time in ludic play
(Ginsburg, 2007; Zaradic & Pergams, 2007) and even less time exploring nature and learning
about their environments (Louv, 2008; Rivkin, 1995). It is time to reverse this trend. Nature stimu-
lates play and learning by engaging all the senses (Cosco & Moore, 2009; Ginsburg, 2007). Chil-
dren need to play in nature to learn about the interconnectedness of their surroundings (Sobel,
2004; Suzuki, 1997) and explore their feelings for the environment (Orr, 2004). Since nature
serves as a healer for the mind and body (Logan & Selhub, 2012), playscapes also serve as a
natural venue for restoring a healthful balance to modern stress. Children’s playscapes, then,
are intentionally designed environments aimed at getting children outdoors and active. They
provide a sense of place that also addresses parental concerns about safety, create pleasant play
environments, support child development, and nurture nature exploration, setting the stage for
environmental stewardship.
Notes on contributors
Victoria Carr is Associate Professor in Early Childhood Education and Human Development at the Uni-
versity of Cincinnati and also is Director of the Arlitt Child and Family Research and Education Center
where she is Executive Director for the Head Start Delegate program. She is co-founder of the Nature
Playscape Initiative and Arlitt Instructional Media. She serves on local advisory boards for Cincinnati
Nature Center, 4C for Children, and Milestones Therapeutic Horseback Riding Program. Dr Carr’s
research is related to teacher efficacy, curriculum-based assessment, and natural environments for play
and learning. She has generated over $12M in funding related to early childhood education. Her
current research on informal science learning in playscapes is supported by the National Science
Foundation.
Eleanor Luken is currently a doctoral student in Environmental Psychology at the City University of
New York Graduate Center. She studies the material environment of preschool classrooms. Other research
studies focused on the design and practices within playscapes and implementation of principles from Reggio
Emilia pedagogy into a preschool art studio. Eleanor was a founding member of the Nature Playscape Initiat-
ive in Ohio and was formerly the coordinator of research for the University of Cincinnati’s Arlitt Child and
Family Research and Education Center.
12 V. Carr and E. Luken
Downloaded by [Victoria Carr] at 07:16 04 March 2014
References
Adnemar, A. (2000, March/April). Nature schools. Resurgence, vol. 199, p. 44.
Barbour, A. (1999). The impact of playground design on the play behaviors of children with differing levels
of physical competence. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,14(1), 75–98.
Brown, F. (2003). Complex flexibility: The role of playwork in child development. In F. Brown (Ed.),
Playwork: Theory and practice (pp. 51–65). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Carr, V., & Luken, E. (2011). Year two evaluation report to Cincinnati Nature Center on head start teacher
training. Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati.
Carr, V., Maltbie, C., & Steedly, K. (2013). Free play, learning, and playscapes. Manuscript in preparation.
Carter, M. (2007, July/August). Making your environment the ‘Third Teacher’.Exchange, pp. 22–26.
Chalufour, I., & Worth, K. (2003). Discovering nature with young children. St. Paul, MN: Readleaf Press.
Charles, C., & Wheeler, K. (2012). Children and nature worldwide: An exploration of children’s experiences
of the outdoors and nature with associated risks and benefits. Retrieved from http://www.
childrenandnature.org/documents/C118/
Chawla, L. (2013). Benefits of nature for children. Retrieved from http://www.childrenandnature.org/
downloads/chawla1_Benefitsofnature_6.13.pdf
Chudacoff, H. (2007). Children at play: An American history. New York: New York University Press.
Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (Eds.). (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood pro-
grams serving children from birth through age 8 (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for the
Education of Young Children.
Cosco, N., & Moore, R. (2009). Sensory integration and contact with nature: Designing outdoor inclusive
environments. North American Montessori Teachers’Association Journal,34(2), 159–176.
Dewey, J. (1938/1997). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.
De Young, R. (2013). Environmental psychology overview. In S. R. Klein & A. H. Huffman (Eds.), Green
organizations: Driving change with I-O psychology (pp. 22–45). New York, NY: Routledge Academic.
Dougles, A-J. (2011). Child abductions: Known relationships are the greater danger. FBI Law Enforcement
Bulletin. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/
august-2011/crimes-against-children-spotlight
Elkind, D. (2012). Knowing is ‘not’understanding: Fallacies and risks of early academic instruction. Young
Children,67(1), 84–87.
Elliott, S. (Ed.). (2008). The outdoor playspace naturally for children birth to five years. Castle Hill:
Pademelon Press.
Faber Taylor, A., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2002). Views of nature and self-discipline: Evidence from
inner city children. Journal of Environmental Psychology,22(1–2), 49–63.
Fjørtoft, I. (2001). The natural environment as a playground for children. Early Childhood Education
Journal,29(3), 11–117.
Fjørtoft, I. (2004). Landscape as playscape: The effects of natural environments on children’s motor devel-
opment. Children, Youth, & Environments,14(2), 21–44.
Fjørtoft, I., & Sageie, J. (2000). The natural environment as a playground for children. Landscape and Urban
Planning,48,83–97.
Flanagan, M. A. (2006). America reformed: Progressives and progressivisms, 1890s-1920s. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Fries, A. B. W., Ziegler, T. E., Kurian, J. R., Jacoris, S., & Pollak, S. D. (2005). Early experience in humans is
associated with changes in neuropeptides critical for regulating social behavior. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS),102(47), 17237–17240.
Frost, J. L. (1992). Play and playscapes. Clifton Park, NY: Delmar.
Frost, J. L. (2010). A history of children’s play and play environments: Toward a contemporary child-saving
movement. New York: Routledge.
Ginsburg, K. R. (2007). The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining
strong parent-child bonds. American Academy of Pediatrics,119 (1), 181–191.
Grahn, P., Martensson, F., Llindblad, B., Nilsson, P., & Ekman, A. (1997). UTE pa DAGIS, Stad & Land nr.
93/1991 Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet, Alnarp.
Hart, R. (1979). Children’s experience of place. New York, NY: Irvington.
Herrington, S., & Studtmann, K. (1998). Landscape interventions: New directions for the design of chil-
dren’s outdoor play environments. Landscape and Urban Planning,42, 191–205.
Hickman, L. A., & Alexander, T. M. (1998). The essential Dewey, volume I: Pragmatism, education, democ-
racy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
International Journal of Play 13
Downloaded by [Victoria Carr] at 07:16 04 March 2014
Huttenmoser, M. (1995). Children and their living surroundings: Empirical investigations in to the signifi-
cance of living surrounds for the everyday life and development of children. Children‘s
Environments Quarterly,4(12), 403–413.
Kellert, S. R (2002). Experiencing nature: Affective, cognitive, and evaluative development. In P. H. Kahn &
S. Kellert (Eds.), Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations
(pp. 117–152). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Kellert, S. R. (2005). Designing healthy schools: Enhancing contact with nature to foster children’s health
and performance. Independent School,65(1), 58–62.
Kochanowski, L., & Carr, V. (in review). Nature playscapes as contexts for fostering self-determination.
Children, Youth, and Environments.
Korpela, K. (1992) Adolescents’favorite places and environmental self-regulation. Journal of
Environmental Psychology,12, 249–258.
Krisberg, K. (2007, October 7). Movement to reconnect kids with nature growing nationwide: Working to
improve children’s health. The Nation’s Health.
Logan, A. C., & Selhub, E. M. (2012). Vis medicatrix naturae: Does nature ‘minister to the mind’?
Biopsychosocial Medicine, 6(11). Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC3353853/.doi:10.1186/1751-0759-6-11
Louv, R. (2005). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Chapel Hill, NC:
Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill. (his second ed was in 2008)
Louv, R. (2007, March/April). Leave no child inside. Orion Magazine, p. 42. Retrieved from http://www.
orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/240
Louv, R. (2008). Last child in the woods. Chapel Hill: Algonquin Books.
Luken, E., Carr, V., & Brown, R. (2011). Playscapes: Designs for play, exploration, and science inquiry.
Children, Youth, and Environments,21(2), 325–337.
Mårtensson, F., Boldemann, C., Söderström, M. Blennow, M., Englund, J. E., & Grahn, P. (2009). Outdoor
environmental assessment of attention promoting settings for preschool children. Health Place,15(4),
1149–1157.
Miller, E. & Almon, J. (2009). Crisis in the kindergarten. Retrieved from http://www.allianceforchildhood.
org/sites/allianceforchildhood.org/files/file/kindergarten_report.pdf
Mistra. (2013). Report 2013. Retrieved from http://www.mistra.org/en/mistra/publications/other-
publications/background-paper-%E2%80%93-the-emergence-of-the-enviromental-humanities.html
Moore, R. C. (1986). Childhood’s domain: Play and place in child development. London: Croom Helm.
Moore, R. C. (1996). Outdoor settings for playing and learning: Designing school grounds to meet the needs
of the whole child and whole curriculum. North American Montessori Teachers’Association Journal,21
(3), 97–121.
Moore, R. C., & Cosco, N. (2000). Developing an earth-bound culture through design of childhood habitats.
Proceedings of the Conference on People, Land and Sustainability, Nottingham.
National Science Board. (2007). National action plan for addressing the critical needs of the U.S. science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics education system. Arlington, VA: National Science
Foundation.
Nicholson, S. (1971). How not to cheat children: The theory of loose parts. Landscape Architecture
Quarterly,62(1), 30–34.
Nicolopoulou, A. (1993). Play, cognitive development, and the social world: Piaget, Vygotsky, and beyond.
Human Development,36,1–23.
Obama, B. (2010). State of the Union. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-
president-state-union-address
Ogden, C. L., Flegal, K. M., Carroll, M. D., & Johnson, C. L. (2002). Prevalence and trends in overweight
among US children and adolescents, 1999–2000. Journal of the American Medical Association,14
(288), 1728–1732.
Orr, D. (2004). Ecological design intelligence. Center for Ecoliteracy. Retrieved from http://www.
ecoliteracy.org/publications/ecodesign.html
Patte, M. M. (2009). The state of recess in Pennsylvania elementary schools: A continuing tradition or a
distant memory? In C. D. Clark (Ed.), Transactions at play –Play and cultural studies, volume 9
(pp. 147–169). Landham, MD: University Press of America.
Play Australia. (2012). 2012 Annual Report. Retrieved from http://www.playaustralia.org.au/sites/default/
files/The%20Annual%20Report%202011–2012.pdf
Rivkin, M. S. (1995). The great outdoors: Restoring children’s right to play outside. Washington, DC:
NAEYC.
14 V. Carr and E. Luken
Downloaded by [Victoria Carr] at 07:16 04 March 2014
Rivkin, M. (1997). The Schoolyard habitat movement: What It Is and why children need It. Early Childhood
Education Journal,25(1): 61–66.
Shabecoff, P. (2001). Earth rising: American environmentalism in the 21
st
century. Washington, DC: Island
Press.
Shapiro, M. S. (1983). Child’s garden: The kindergarten movement from Froebel to Dewey. University Park:
Pennsylvania State University Press.
Sobel, D. (2004). Place based education: Connecting classrooms and communities. London: Orion
Publishing.
Solomon, J. (1997). Is how we teach science more important than what we teach? Primary Science Review,
49,3–5.
Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). The ambiguity of play. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Sutton-Smith, B. (2008). Play theory. American Journal of Play,1(1), 80–123.
Suzuki, D. T. (1997). Barriers to perception: From a world of interconnection to fragmentation. In P. Raven
(Ed.), Nature and human society the quest for a sustainable world (pp. 9–114). Washington, DC:
National Research Council.
Taylor, A. F., & Kuo, F. E. (2009). Children with attention deficits concentrate better after a walk in the park.
The Journal of Attention Disorders,5(12), 402–409.
Taylor, A. F., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001). Coping with ADD: The surprising connection to green
play settings. Environment and Behavior,33(1), 54–77.
Taylor, A. F., Wiley, A., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (1998). Growing up in the inner city: Green spaces as
places to grow. Environment and Behavior,30(1), 3–27.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wells, N. M., & Evans, G. W. (2003). Nearby nature: A buffer of life stress among rural children.
Environment and Behavior,35(3), 311–330.
Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The function of reason. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wilson, R. A. (1994). Environmental education at the early childhood level. Early Childhood Education
Journal,22(2), 23–25.
Zaradic, P. A., & Pergams, O. R. W. (2007). Videophilia: Implications for childhood development and con-
servation. The Journal of Developmental Processes,2(1), 130–147.
International Journal of Play 15
Downloaded by [Victoria Carr] at 07:16 04 March 2014
