Content uploaded by Janet Loebach
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Janet Loebach on Mar 25, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
© 2018 Children, Youth and Environments
Children, Youth and Environment 28(2), 2018
Understanding the Nature Play Milieu:
Using Behavior Mapping to Investigate Children's
Activities in Outdoor Play Spaces
Adina Cox
University of Kentucky
Janet Loebach
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
London, Canada
Sarah Little
University of Oklahoma
Citation: Cox, A., Loebach, J., & Little, S. (2018). Understanding the nature play
milieu: Using behavior mapping to investigate children’s activities in outdoor
play spaces. Children, Youth and Environments, 28(2), 232-261. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=chilyoutenvi
Abstract
When children engage with the natural world, they experience myriad benefits to
their health and well-being. Play in outdoor and natural environments is critical for
children’s healthy social, emotional, physical, and cognitive development.
Developing high-quality, engaging natural play spaces may be one strategy to
afford children greater access to the outdoors and nature-based play. Additional
research on children’s play in nature is needed to inform the design of nature play
spaces. Behavior mapping is a flexible observational research method that can
effectively capture both children’s behavior as well as its social and environmental
context, or “milieu.” The authors outline a customized behavior mapping protocol
tailored to explore children’s play behaviors in outdoor play spaces and provide
examples of its value from a recent study in a naturalized play space.
Keywords: children, outdoor play, nature play spaces, behavior mapping, child-
friendly research methods
Understanding the Nature Play Milieu: Using Behavior Mapping to Investigate… 233
The Importance of Connecting Children to Nature in Outdoor Play
Spaces
When children engage with the natural world, they experience myriad benefits to
their health and well-being (e.g., Hordyk, Hanley, & Richard, 2015; Kuo, 2015;
McCormick, 2017). Experiences in nature can improve cognitive function (Kaplan &
Kaplan, 1989; Kuo & Taylor, 2004; Taylor & Kuo, 2009; Taylor, Kuo, & Sullivan,
2001), improve mood (Berman, Jonides, & Kaplan, 2008; Hartig, Evans, Jamner,
Davis, & Gärling, 2003; Park, Tsunetsugu, Kasetani, Kagawa, & Miyazaki, 2010;
Roe & Aspinall, 2011), potentially increase physical activity level (Gray et al., 2015;
Larouche, Garriguet, & Tremblay, 2016; Stone & Faulkner, 2014; Sallis, Prochaska,
& Taylor, 2000), improve academic performance (Matsuoka, 2010), relieve stress
(Chawla, Keena, Pevec, & Stanley, 2014; Thompson et al., 2012; Ulrich et al.,
1991), and help children to develop an affinity for the natural world which can lead
to pro-environmental behaviors in adulthood (Chawla, 2007). Many contemporary
children, however, spend significant out-of-school time engaged in structured
activities, or engaged with digital devices (Burdette & Whitaker, 2005; Rideout,
Foehr, & Roberts, 2010). Increased use of digital media as well as parental
concerns about neighborhood crime and safety may be contributing to the
significant reduction in the time contemporary children are spending outdoors
(Clements, 2004; Gray, 2011). Given the benefits of engagement with nature and
the growing trend of “indoor childhoods” (Karsten, 2005), providing children access
to and encouraging engagement with the natural world is critical.
Creating Diverse Play Spaces for Engaging Nature
Developing high-quality, engaging natural play spaces may be one strategy to
afford children greater access to the outdoors, and nature-based play. A typical
traditional playground consists primarily of manufactured play equipment
surrounded by hard surfaces with little to no nature or natural materials (Woolley,
2007). A natural play space may include manufactured play equipment but
vegetation and natural elements, such as water, dirt, mud, sticks, rocks and other
natural loose parts, are also available to support play. One key to planning and
designing successful, engaging outdoor and natural play spaces is understanding
which natural elements and conditions will spark children’s curiosity and support
their desire to explore, build and imagine. With new and expanding interest in the
value of nature-rich environments for children’s play (Frost, 2012), it is essential to
cultivate effective empirical methods for evaluating outdoor spaces in relation to
children’s preferences and their social, educational, emotional, and physical
developmental needs.
There is limited knowledge to date about children’s behavior in natural play spaces
(Luchs & Fikus, 2013). Luchs and Fikus (2013) examined differences between the
duration of play episodes on traditional and natural playgrounds, finding that play
episodes lasted longer in the natural play space. Fjørtoft (2014) concluded that
nature play supported an increase in motor fitness of 5- to 7-year-olds. Other
studies have concentrated on the level of moderate to vigorous physical activity
when children play in natural versus traditional play spaces (Coe, Flynn, Wolff,
Scott, & Durham, 2014; Dyment, Bell, & Lucas, 2009; Luchs & Fikus, 2018). These
studies form the base of an evolving body of scholarship on children’s outdoor play
Understanding the Nature Play Milieu: Using Behavior Mapping to Investigate… 234
and nature engagement behaviors. Continuing research on play in nature is needed
to inform the design of natural play spaces, including identifying the outdoor play
settings that attract the most use, understanding which play settings or features
children in different age groups prefer, and recognizing how different settings or
conditions can support engagement with nature.
Behavior mapping is a promising, yet underutilized, field observation tool that can
be effectively tailored to the study of children’s behavior outdoors and in nature.
This paper outlines a customized Behavior mapping protocol that can be used to
answer diverse research questions on children’s play behaviors in situ within natural
play spaces. Capturing, understanding and sharing this kind of empirical evidence
will benefit design professionals and play advocates looking to provide outdoor play
spaces that will support diverse, fun, and meaningful nature play opportunities for
children.
The Promise of Behavior Mapping
Behavior mapping was initially developed by environmental psychologists as a way
to relate “various aspects of behavior to the physical spaces in which they are
observed” (Ittelson, Rivlin, & Proshansky, 1970, p. 658). It was developed as a
way to study environmental influences on behavior and recognizes the reciprocity of
the environment and in situ behavior. Behavior mapping is one of the few tools
that allows researchers to investigate and document both behavior and the social
and environmental context, or the “milieu.” It relies on direct observation of
behavior coupled with a map of the geographical space on which the behaviors are
recorded, analyzed, and displayed. Observers first note the geographic location of
the observed participant on a map of the space. Data are then collected in relation
to the behavior observed in that location and can include participant demographics,
behavior, social interactions, and environmental conditions. The data are later
displayed and analyzed in an iterative manner that allows researchers to explore
relationships between the setting and the observed behavior. As an example,
behavior mapping was used to observe and map children’s science learning
behaviors at the Bay Area Discovery Museum in Sausalito, California, which in turn
allowed researchers to draw a number of conclusions about opportunities for
engagement with loose parts in support of science learning for young children
(Moore, Cosco, Kepez, & Demir, 2003).
One of the first uses of behavior mapping to explore children’s outdoor behaviors
was a study that examined outdoor play behavior in a residential setting (Sanoff &
Coates, 1971). That study examined children’s play as it related to spaces intended
for prescribed behaviors (such as horseshoes or basketball), as well as more
informal, ambiguous outdoor spaces, and found that the former were most popular,
but that children playing in informal environments exhibited more diverse play
behaviors (Sanoff & Coates, 1971). Other early work in the mapping of children’s
environmental behavior included examinations of children’s play in neighborhoods
and playgrounds (Nummenmaa & Syvänen, 1974; Björklid, 1982; van Andel, 1984;
Moore & Wong, 1997). A more recent study used behavior mapping to determine
that loose parts, a sense of enclosure, and natural settings support dramatic play
(Drown & Christensen, 2014), while Bozkurt & Woolley (2017) used this method to
Understanding the Nature Play Milieu: Using Behavior Mapping to Investigate… 235
study children’s behavior in urban water features. Cosco, Moore, and Islam (2010)
refined behavior mapping methods while focusing on physical activity levels of
preschoolers.
Behavior mapping can be particularly appropriate for studies involving children
when other research methods, such as interviews or questionnaires, may be less
effective (Sommer & Sommer, 2002). For instance, children do not necessarily
understand what is expected of them in an interview situation, and so may try to
guess at what the interviewer wishes them to say, or feel pressured to give a rapid
or brief answer (Fargas-Malet, McSherry, Larkin, & Robinson, 2010; Eindarsdottir,
2007; Clark, 2005). Their knowledge on the interview topic may also be implicit,
that is, not part of their conscious awareness, and therefore children may not be
able to fully articulate their experience or preferences (Graue & Walsh,
1998). Questionnaires require a certain level of literacy or understanding of the
language, and some children may respond to questions even when they do not
know or understand the answer (Fargas-Malet et al., 2010). Methods that do not
solely rely on children's understanding or communication skills can be more
effective for capturing their activities.
A Behavior Mapping Protocol for Investigating Outdoor Play
Environments
The aim of this paper is to illustrate how a customized behavior mapping protocol
can be an effective method for capturing children’s play activities in natural play
spaces, and for examining how specific environmental components can support
diverse play activities and social interactions. First, we provide a detailed outline of
our behavior mapping protocol, tailored to observe play in natural play spaces,
including discussion of data attributes highly useful for defining children’s outdoor
play behaviors and for evaluating the elements of natural play spaces. Following the
outline of the protocol, examples from a recent study by the authors will illustrate
the value of this behavior mapping approach for examining children’s behavior and
its context.
This behavior mapping protocol requires the following five core components: 1) a
base map of the observation site; 2) selection of data collection tools; 3)
establishment of a systematic protocol for collecting data, including among multiple
observers; 4) a set of observable data variables that address the objectives of the
research; and 5) a strategy for data analysis. These five components are described
in detail below.
1. A Base Map of the Observation Site
Base maps of the environment can reveal a great deal of information about the site
and are therefore key in the environment-behavior analysis. When evaluating
outdoor play spaces, a map allows researchers to record numerous physical
components of the site and document the layout of the environment. Maps can
store information such as the location, scale and layout of vegetation, play
structures, or pathways, as well as their proximity or adjacency to other objects in
the space. Relationships between activities and the environment may be difficult to
ascertain in the fluid, constantly changing outdoor play environment; base maps
Understanding the Nature Play Milieu: Using Behavior Mapping to Investigate… 236
can help to permanently capture conditions of the environment and preserve it for
later evaluation.
1.1 Using Geographic Information System (GIS) Technology for Behavior
Mapping
The use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) for behavior mapping allows for
more efficient, accurate, and complex data analysis and communication. A base
map created in GIS can include a variety of data, such as site boundaries, existing
vegetation, site structures, waterways, and pathways. Using GIS, information from
an observed play interaction can be directly tied to the precise location of the
observation; behavior data can then be stored and processed based on their
location. Prior to the use of GIS, behavior mapping analyses tended to include only
one or two data attributes such as gender differences in play, or the locations of
imaginative play; however, it was difficult to consider the interaction of the two.
Multiple play-related attributes such as child gender, activity intensity, and play
type can now be easily stored, sorted, and displayed together in a GIS, allowing for
the development of large data sets as well as faster and more complex analyses.
The use of GIS does require expert knowledge and experience, but this is becoming
more commonly available; those undertaking behavior mapping can often find GIS
specialists for partnerships at most universities or governmental agencies.
1.2 Creating Observation Zones within the Base Map
Prior to conducting observations in the field, researchers should divide their base
map into observation zones. Observation zones are created to divide large sites into
multiple, smaller zones that facilitate observation by a single observer (see Section
3 below). By systematically rotating through each observation zone, observers can
manage their time across the site and ensure that all zones are scanned equally
and thoroughly. The size and number of observation zones established will vary by
site, and depend on many factors, such as the number of observers, the visibility of
various play settings, and user density at the site. Ideally all areas within a zone
are visible from a single observation point. For high-density sites, each observation
zone may only include a single play setting, such as a large sandbox area; for
lower-density sites, the researcher may choose to include multiple play areas in a
single observation zone. Utilizing natural boundaries, such as pathways, borders,
and vegetation, is a good strategy for establishing the bounding edges of
observation zones.
2. Data Collection Tools: Paper-Based, Digital, and Hybrid Methods
To conduct behavior mapping in outdoor play spaces, field data collection will
include recording several elements of each play event being observed: its physical
location in the space, demographic data about the child observed (e.g., gender, age
group), data about the play interaction being observed (e.g., play type, physical
activity level, social interaction, environmental engagement), and environmental
data (e.g., ground surface, shade, or topography). The physical location of the play
event is recorded as a point on the map of the study area. Corresponding
demographic characteristics and behavioral or environmental data from the same
play event are recorded in a table or database. Each event location recorded on the
site map will be tied to a row, or record, of data in the table. For analyses and
Understanding the Nature Play Milieu: Using Behavior Mapping to Investigate… 237
display, these data will all need to be imported into a GIS, such as ESRI’s ArcGIS
(https://www.esri.com/en-us/arcgis/about-arcgis/overview).
There are three options currently available for collecting outdoor play behavior data
in the field: 1) a fully paper-based method, 2) a fully digital method, or 3) a paper-
digital hybrid. Each of these three field collection systems has advantages and
disadvantages. Selecting which system will work best for a given project depends
on the budget of the project, the degree of access to specialized equipment, the
expertise of data collectors, as well as access to appropriate software and
technicians.
2.1 Paper-Based Method
A strictly paper-based method, in which data collectors take both paper maps and
paper-based data collection tables into the field, is the most economical method
and requires the least amount of observer training. However, it requires that all
data collected in the field be eventually transcribed into a GIS. For a paper-based
protocol, each data collector will need a large clipboard and a pen to record
observations on the paper map and table. It is recommended that researchers use
large but manageable paper sheets; an 11” x 17” format is ideal. For each play
event observed, the observer locates the child being observed by placing a dot on
the paper map, and numbering the dot. That number is placed on a row in the
table, and attribute data for the play event is hand-written across that row for that
observation. Once field collection is complete, the data from the paper-based maps
and tables are entered into a GIS for analysis and display.
2.2 Digital Method
A second option is to develop a completely digital system for collecting field data in
outdoor play spaces. For this approach, observers take a computer tablet out to the
field and collect both the location and variable data directly into the tablet. The
equipment, software and additional training required for this option makes this the
most expensive approach. However, it generally results in less data entry and
processing, which has the advantage of saving time and minimizing the opportunity
for data entry errors. When selecting software for collecting field data, it is
important to consider how accurately the software records locations. With some
software the mapped location of the observation may be incorrect. Knowing the
location of an event accurate to within three meters may be appropriate for some
studies, but it is not accurate enough for behavior mapping of children’s play
behaviors. Researchers may need to know precise locations of children in their
study, such as whether they are near the play structure or on the play structure,
which may not be possible with some software. Also, it is important to select a
tablet that is appropriate for collecting data in the field; it is recommended that the
tablet is suitable for viewing in sunlight and resilient in damp or rugged conditions.
2.3 Hybrid Method
A hybrid system combines the use of a digital storage device, such as a tablet or
cell phone, to record behavioral and environmental attributes in a digital database,
with a paper-based map to record the locations of observed play events. This
approach can be faster than having to physically write down the attribute data on
Understanding the Nature Play Milieu: Using Behavior Mapping to Investigate… 238
paper, as the digitally collected data can be transferred directly to the GIS system.
Digital databases can also be pre-programmed with common variable options (e.g.,
through pre-selected codes or pull-down menus) to speed up data recording in the
field. Drawbacks to this system include the awkwardness of carrying two systems
out into the field, and the eventual need to transfer the paper-based map data to a
GIS.
3. Establishment of a Systematic Protocol for Collecting Field Data
A systematic protocol to collect field data using multiple observers needs to
establish: the number of researchers involved in the collection of field data, the
timing intervals of observation rounds, the scanning method to be used to
systematically observe play events, and the integration of reliability rounds.
3.1 Number of Observers Used to Collect Data at the Site
The number of observers engaged in data collection in an outdoor play space under
study should be based on the size of the site and the availability of trained data
collectors. This may ultimately be determined by the research budget. It is
convenient to have the same number of observers as observation zones (i.e., four
observation zones, four researchers). Often outdoor play spaces have a few peak
hours with high usage, so having enough observers available during these busy
times is invaluable for maximizing data collection. Proper training of data collectors
is critical, and ample time should be allowed to ensure observers are properly and
consistently recording data from play events before official data collection
commences.
3.2 Systematic Timing of Observation Rounds
To ensure that the process of data collection using behavior mapping is systematic
and repeatable, an observation protocol must be agreed upon and strictly followed.
For outdoor play spaces, designating a 15-minute period to perform scans in a
single observation zone is a useful place to start. This time period may be
shortened or lengthened based on activity at the site and size of the observation
zone. If the research team has multiple observers on a single site, simultaneous
scanning of zones should take place, with all observers completing scans within the
same designated time period. This time block is then broken up into three 5-
minute periods. At the beginning of each 5-minute period, the observer begins
scanning for observable play events from the designated starting point (see Section
3.3). Observers will continue scanning and recording play events until the 5-
minute period is over. Note that observers may be finished recording all play events
in that zone before the 5-minute period is up, but they must wait until the next 5-
minute block begins before continuing with their observations at the beginning of
the zone. However, if the observer does not finish the scan within the 5 minutes,
then observation continues until the zone is completely scanned, but the clock
resets; in other words, the scan extends into the next time block. In this situation,
once scanning of the zone has been completed, the observer immediately starts
over scanning the zone from the designated starting point. Once the 15-minute
period is up, observers will move to their next designated observation zone and
begin the process again. A “round” is a full rotation by a single observer through all
the observation zones. When multiple observers are available, they should be
Understanding the Nature Play Milieu: Using Behavior Mapping to Investigate… 239
spread out as evenly as possible between the observation zones to start, and then
rotate through zones in the same order until they have completed a full round.
3.3 Scanning the Observation Zone
Each zone needs to be systematically “scanned” by the designated observer. An
observer will start to visually scan the zone (see below for different approaches to
scanning a site), until a child is observed; after observing them for 10-15 seconds,
the observer then records data about that event. Shorter observation periods may
be used for data collection that is easily observable, such as physical activity,
however, the recommended 10-15 second interval allows the data collectors to
observe other cues in the child’s behavior (e.g., vocal information, peer
interactions), which allows for more nuanced information to be gathered. Once the
encounter is recorded, the observer moves along in their scanning pattern until the
next child is encountered. A child moving quickly through the site may be missed
by the observer, or a child may be encountered several times in an observation
interval; this is an inherent issue in a behavior mapping approach. However, as the
goal of the data collection is to evaluate the environment-behavior relationship in
the play space and not an individual’s behavior, this does not compromise the
results. It is assumed that enough data will be collected during the field
observations that anomalies will be minimized.
3.3.1 Scanning method A: Zone
For observation zones that are not linear trails or pathways, zone-based scanning is
an effective approach. The observer stands in the pre-designated location within
the observation zone and begins visually scanning the space. The zone is then
scanned in either a clockwise or counterclockwise pattern; observers agree on a
common scanning pattern before beginning. Once the observation has been
recorded, the observer looks to the location of the last observation and continues
scanning in the same direction until they encounter the next child engaged in play
(Figure 1).
Understanding the Nature Play Milieu: Using Behavior Mapping to Investigate… 240
Figure 1. Example of a zone scan
Note: During a zone scan, the observer stands in the center and rotates around the site,
recording any child when observed along scan lines.
3.3.2 Scanning method B: Trail
A “trail” method of scanning was developed for observation of linear areas such as
trails, greenways, and pathways (Cox, 2013). This method is similar to the “zone”
scanning method above, however the observer does not remain stationary. Instead,
the observer walks along the pathway from a designated starting point and
determines an imaginary line at some pre-determined distance in front of the
observer (e.g., 20 feet). When a child is detected along that line, the observer
stops and records the location and behavior. The observer walks along the path at a
steady but relatively slow pace to continue observing until reaching the end of the
linear zone (Figure 2).
Understanding the Nature Play Milieu: Using Behavior Mapping to Investigate… 241
Figure 2. Example of a trail scan
Note: In the trail scan method, the observer walks along the pathway and scans with an
imaginary line (shown in purple), recording the children observed as they are scanned along
the path. Trees can often serve as natural boundaries.
3.3.3 Scanning method C: Zone and trail hybrid
Some outdoor play spaces may have a layout that requires a combination of zone
and trail scanning methods. Usually, this would be a very large site that contains
play opportunity zones connected by pathways. It is beneficial to scan the entire
site equally to observe the broadest range of activities at the site. Figure 3 depicts
an example of a large site that required a mix of these scanning methods.
Understanding the Nature Play Milieu: Using Behavior Mapping to Investigate… 242
Figure 3. Example of a large outdoor site that included both zone scanning
areas and trail scanning areas
Note: Observers scanned in zone areas where appropriate (areas shown in pink) and
scanned pathways between zones using the trail method (areas outlined in red).
3.4 Reliability Rounds
A reliability round should be regularly integrated into the data collection schedule to
ensure inter-rater reliability, i.e., a high degree of consistency in the way each
observer is recording the play events. During reliability round observations, all
observers code a single play event together at the same time. Typically, one
observer identifies a child to observe and then indicates the exact time when the
observation will begin, so that all observers are capturing exactly the same play
event. Observers code a series of play events independently and then compare
records for consistency. In addition to comparing records informally in the field to
identify and correct any common inconsistencies, reliability of observations between
coders can be formally analyzed using the kappa coefficient (k) (Cohen, 1960).
Typically, a k value between 0.61 and 0.80 is considered substantial agreement and
a k value between 0.81 and 1.00 is considered almost perfect agreement (Landis &
Koch, 1977).
Understanding the Nature Play Milieu: Using Behavior Mapping to Investigate… 243
4. Establishing a Set of Observable Variables to Be Collected
It is important to carefully consider the set of attributes or variables (such as user
demographics, behaviors, environmental interactions, environmental conditions)
that will be collected in the field. It is important to note that the more data
variables collected, the more time required for each observation, and therefore
fewer total observations are possible within the data collection period. Once data
are loaded into a GIS, each point on the map will have a row containing all the data
collected for that point. Based on the authors’ experience conducting behavior
mapping of children’s play in outdoor or nature play spaces, we recommend
collecting the following core set of attributes for each observed play event: 1) basic
demographic information about the observed child, such as gender and age group;
2) primary play types; 3) peer interaction; 4) activity intensity; 5) wildlife
interaction; and 6) environmental interaction.
However, it is important to note that each of these attributes is an example of static
coding—that is, the team will collect data by choosing from a pre-selected set of
options. It is also valuable to include a column that allows for “open coding,”
particularly to capture the nuances of playful interactions with the outdoor
environment; this is an unstructured attribute which allows the observer to freely
(but briefly) describe the observed play event, such as “2 boys climbing tree,
pretending to be monkeys, vocalizing.” This can help to both animate the data
collected and provide a valuable source for confirming that other data has been
coded correctly.
4.1 Child Demographics
Gender and age are the typical child demographic variables that are assessed
during behavior mapping; other child demographic information can be difficult to
observe.
Gender can be coded as “male,” “female,” or “unknown.” Having gender
information may be useful to ensure balanced play opportunities for all children.
Information on the age of the observed child is also valuable, though a child’s age
can be difficult to estimate; the observable difference between a 7- and 8-year-old
is unlikely be detectable. Instead, observing a child’s age in age range groups (e.g.,
0-3 years, 4-8 years, 9-12 years, and 13-18 years) is more feasible, and has
resulted in higher data reliability for the authors.
4.2 Primary Play Types
Categorizing the type of play being observed in the field is a difficult but useful
process. Play type categories generally describe the character of the play being
observed (e.g., imaginative play), which then allows for a comparison of play
behaviors within and across outdoor play spaces. There are many benefits to using
a pre-defined set of play types when observing children’s outdoor behaviors,
including faster field recording of behaviors, which enables observers to collect
more data. Another advantage of using an established set of play types is the
ability to systematically compare behaviors across studies and sites. Examining the
frequency and diversity of play types allows researchers and designers to
understand the play affordances children perceive within the outdoor play
Understanding the Nature Play Milieu: Using Behavior Mapping to Investigate… 244
environment; play spaces can then be tweaked or redesigned if the space is not
supporting a broad range of activities.
The “play type” scale most frequently used to date for recording observed play
behaviors is the Play Observation Scale (POS) developed by Rubin (2001). It is
primarily based on the cognitive classification of Piaget’s stages of development,
Smilansky’s elaboration of that classification, and Parten’s social hierarchies
(Piaget, 1962; Smilansky, 1968; Parten, 1932; Rubin, 2008), and consists of four
cognitive play types: Functional, Constructive, Dramatic, and Games-with-Rules. It
also includes “Exploratory” behavior as one of eight non-play behaviors, many of
which are not applicable to the examination of children’s outdoor play
environments. The scale is widely used in children’s play-based research, and by
researchers working in the domain of child psychology who focus on children’s
normative development. It is important to note, however, that this scale was
developed to gauge children’s play in an indoors setting with the researcher sitting
close to the child and observing them for timed intervals, recording the
predominant play activities observed (Rubin, 2008).
Observing play activities in outdoor settings, however, presents different challenges
to the observer. For example, listening to vocal cues from children to help
understand the play being observed can be more difficult outside, as the observer
needs to be at some distance if they wish to remain unnoticed by the child so as
not to influence their behavior. While the POS was a useful starting point, its focus
on indoor, child-centered studies makes it less useful for a place-centered
evaluation of outdoor play. The authors therefore recommend utilizing the
adaptation of Rubin’s scale shown in Table1 to capture play types while using
behavior mapping in outdoor or natural environments.
Table 1. Play types scale
Note: adapted from Rubin (2008)
Play Category
Brief Summary
1. Locomotor or Functional
Play
The child is using their body as the primary form of play,
such as climbing a tree or running across a field
2. Play with Rules
The child is engaged with others in a game or
competition, such as organized soccer
3. Imaginative
The child is engaging in dramatic or imaginative play
4. Constructive
The child is building or making something, such as forts,
dams, or mud pies
5. Exploratory
The child is engaged with an object or objects in the
environment and receiving information through contact or
exploration with the objects, such as holding and
examining a pinecone
6. Restorative
The child is engaged in quieter, restorative activities such
as resting, reading, or writing
7. Non-play
The primary activity is not considered play, such as eating
or self-care
Understanding the Nature Play Milieu: Using Behavior Mapping to Investigate… 245
4.3 Activity Intensity
Collecting information on the physical intensity of children’s activity during play can
be advantageous. One of the advantages of outdoor activities is the opportunity for
increased physical activity levels (Gray et al., 2015; Larouche, Garriguet, &
Tremblay, 2016; Stone & Faulkner, 2014). Knowing which outside play areas and
components provide opportunities for varied levels of activity intensity can aid in
developing sites that promote physically active play. One of the statistically valid
instruments utilized to observe physically active play behaviors is the Children’s
Activity Rating Scale (CARS) (Puhl, Greaves, Hoyt, & Baranowski, 1990). The CARS
tool assesses the intensity of physical activity during an observed play event
through a 5-point scale: a score of 1 means the child is stationary or motionless; a
score of 5 is recorded when the child’s movement is very fast or hard (Puhl et al.,
1990). Thus, as the physical exertion required for the activity increases, the CARS
score increases. This scale can be easily integrated within a behavior mapping
protocol to capture the physical intensity level of children’s outdoor play.
4.4 Wildlife Interactions
Humans seem to have an affinity towards wildlife, and often express fascination
while observing animals (Schänzel & McIntosh, 2000). Potential encounters with
wildlife are a particularly unique aspect of children’s play in outdoor spaces.
Children’s wildlife encounters can include, for example, digging for grubs, capturing
caterpillars, poking sticks at polliwogs, listening to birds, and/or viewing turtles,
birds and mammals.
In a recent study that examined children’s connection to nature, concern for living
creatures, together with personal enjoyment of nature and a positive attitude
toward human-nature interdependence, explained 50 percent of the variance in
children’s perceived connection to nature (Cheng & Monroe, 2012). This is
significant, as the connection to nature can strongly influence pro-environmental
behaviors (Chawla, 2007). Studies on adults indicate possible psychological and
spiritual benefits from connecting with wildlife (Curtin, 2009; Folmer, Haartsen &
Huigen, 2018).
Children’s wildlife interactions during play or in outdoor play spaces have been
rarely researched (Ernst & Theimer, 2011; Kellert & Westervelt, 1984). In a
previous behavior mapping study, children were primarily observed in areas with
play equipment, as well as places with benches and bridges (Cox, 2013). However,
an anomaly resulted when children encountered wildlife; they would intentionally
stop in other areas to observe and interact with turtles, caterpillars, and polliwogs.
In order to document children’s exposure to and interaction with wildlife in outdoor
play spaces, the authors created a preliminary scale of wildlife interactions that can
occur outdoors and in nature. The scale is currently being refined; additional details
on this scale will be published elsewhere, but the categories shown in Table 2
provide a core set of potential wildlife interactions that can be recorded during
behavior mapping exercises.
Understanding the Nature Play Milieu: Using Behavior Mapping to Investigate… 246
Table 2. Preliminary scale for observing children’s wildlife interactions
Behavior Mapping Code
Details
1. No wildlife interaction
No wildlife interaction observed
2. Observing
The child is observing:
a. Captive wildlife
b. Non-captive wildlife
3. Handling
The child is handling:
a. Captive wildlife
b. Non-captive wildlife
4. Searching for
The child may be digging in mulch, looking under a
rock, etc. Verbal cues or the use of butterfly nets or
collecting jars may indicate searching to an observer
5. Rescuing/Caring for
The child may be attempting to “rescue” or “care
for” wildlife such as moving an animal off the trail,
out of the water, or “feeding” it
6. Harming
The child may be trying to harm (or kill) wildlife—
usually wildlife the child fears or dislikes such as
bugs or snakes
7. Talking About
When talking about wildlife, the child appears:
a. Interested
b. Excited
c. Averse
8. Other
An open category can be included for interactions
that do not fall into another category
Note: This scale is under development by the authors.
4.5 Peer Interaction
A key element to consider when observing children’s outdoor activities is how the
children may be interacting or engaging with their peers through play. Young
children acquire and practice social skills through play activities, including learning
to cooperate and share, as well as how to negotiate or consider the opinions of
others (Parten, 1932; de Valk, Bekker & Eggen, 2015). Observing how and where
children interact with their peers during play can help us to understand both these
developmental interactions and the environmental features or conditions that can
support various types of social play.
The work of numerous scholars around social participation provides a number of
scales that can be integrated within a behavior mapping framework to record
observed peer interactions during outdoor play. Parten (1932) set out categories of
“social participation” for pre-school children, dividing social interactions into
unoccupied play, onlooker behavior, solitary play, parallel play, associative play and
cooperative play. Coding in terms of this diverse set of interactions allows an
observer to not only capture nuances in the types of solo play (solitary and parallel
play) and group play (associative and cooperative play) in which children engage,
but also to identify when a child is not actively focused on a particular play activity
(unoccupied play) or when they are observing others playing without actively
engaging in the play activity themselves (onlooking). These distinctions can help
Understanding the Nature Play Milieu: Using Behavior Mapping to Investigate… 247
observers to evaluate the broad range of social play opportunities afforded by a
given environment, across a diverse group of child users.
While various peer interaction scales could be used as part of a behavior mapping
approach to record social engagement occurring during outdoor play, the authors
have generally used an adapted version of Parten’s scale, categorizing children’s
outdoor play into solitary, onlooking, parallel, cooperative, and conflict (Table 3).
The largest difference is the collapse of Parten’s associative and cooperative play
categories, as the distinction can sometimes be hard to observe in the field. The
authors have also added the category of “conflict” so as to be able to record the
play activities or environments that may lead to unnecessary conflict between
children and their social peers. While some conflict may be beneficial for children’s
development of negotiation skills, site managers may wish to re-evaluate
environmental conflict zones.
Table 3. Adapted Parten Scale (1932) for observing peer interactions
Behavior Mapping Code
Details
1. Solitary Play
The child is playing on their own, either at a distance
from other children or occupied in play that is
distinct from nearby children
2. Parallel Play
The child is playing on their own, but in close
proximity to other children engaged in similar play
activities
3. Cooperative Play
The child is engaged in a common play activity with
one or more children
4. Onlooking
The child is actively observing the play of others
(often from a distance) but not actively engaging in
the play activity themselves
5. Unoccupied Play
The child is not actively focused on a particular play
activity
6. Conflict
The child is involved in some type of conflict with
one or more other children
4.6 Environmental Interaction
As discussed earlier, one of the great advantages of behavior mapping is the ability
to record not only children’s play behaviors, but also how specific affordances in the
play environment are involved in or support the observed play event. It is
therefore extremely valuable to collect data on environmental elements that may
be integral to the play (e.g., a child is using a found stick as a “wand” in a Harry
Potter-inspired game), as well as specific environmental conditions (e.g., shade or
topography) at the time and location of the observed event.
Understanding how children may be using the features available in that
environment (e.g., loose, found objects or fixed elements such as trees or benches)
to inspire or support their play activities is also critical information for those
involved in the design or provision of outdoor play spaces. A simple set of
Understanding the Nature Play Milieu: Using Behavior Mapping to Investigate… 248
“environmental interaction” data to collect, such as the coding suggested in Table
4, would take note of whether the child used any fixed features or loose parts in the
observed play event. This set of codes could also be expanded to note whether
these fixed or loose features are natural (e.g., sticks, sand, tree stumps) or
manufactured (e.g., sand shovel, bucket, toy car).
Table 4. Sample set for coding environmental interactions
Behavior Mapping Code
Details
FM - Fixed Manufactured
The play activity directly involves a fixed manufactured
element (e.g., play structure, fence)
FN - Fixed Natural
The play activity directly involves a fixed natural element
(e.g., tree, boulder)
LM - Loose Manufactured
The play activity directly involves a loose manufactured
element (e.g., shovel, toy car)
LN - Loose Natural
The play activity directly involves a loose natural element
(e.g., stick, sand, water)
Open
Specific details of the elements involved and/or
interaction are recorded (e.g., using shovel to put sand
into a pail)
An even more detailed environmental interaction scale can be utilized if a research
team is trying to capture very specific data around the use of the environment for
play. For environmental interactions, an associated open-coded attribute that
records the specific fixed or loose elements involved (e.g. bucket, spoon, sand, or
pinecone) can be extremely helpful to analyses.
Beyond the environmental elements that may be involved in a play event, it may
also be helpful to record information about the environmental context or conditions
at the time of and in the specific location of observed play, such as:
• Shade conditions: full shade, partial shade, no shade, not applicable
• Topography: flat, rolling, slope, uneven, other
• Ground surface type: asphalt/concrete, rubber, gravel/stone, grass, mulch,
sand, other
5. Strategies for Analyzing Data from Behavior Mapping
Using a GIS to display field data on a site map is instrumental to data analysis and
our understanding of the patterns of children’s outdoor play. Data can be visually
analyzed to examine site usage levels and to look for patterns in behavior within
individual play settings; for example, behavioral data points can easily be sorted by
gender and displayed accordingly on the site map. Patterns that are not identifiable
in situ can also be more easily noticed when projected on a site map. Many
analyses will be based on specific research questions, but interesting insights can
also be revealed through an iterative, visual exploration of data maps.
Understanding the Nature Play Milieu: Using Behavior Mapping to Investigate… 249
Pilot studies are a helpful and efficient way to evaluate and refine research tools
and action plans (van Teijlingen & Hundley, 2001). The authors recommend that
researchers spend time collecting pilot data at the study site and practicing
observing children playing in situ before official behavior mapping data is collected.
This strategy allows researchers to refine base maps, confirm observation zones,
and refine the data collection protocol.
Behavior Mapping Case Study: The “Backyard” at the Santa Barbara
Natural History Museum
This case study is meant to provide a glimpse into the rich data that can be
captured in outdoor or nature play spaces through this customized behavior
mapping protocol. The authors utilized this framework to study the outdoor nature
play area (the “Backyard”) at the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. Data
were collected by three observers over a seven-day period in the summer of 2017.
The facility was interested in capturing both the behavior of children playing in the
outdoor space, as well as the activities and locations of adults such as parents and
staff. A total of 826 observations of children and 317 observations of adults were
collected during play activities on five weekdays and two weekend days, for a total
of 1143 data points.
A look at a general map of all observations illustrates which areas are the most
popular in the play space (Figure 4). The map shows children’s activities heavily
concentrated in the mud kitchen and along the water-fed creek area. Conversely,
adults are most concentrated in areas where there are seating opportunities (i.e.,
benches, a log in the mud kitchen, and the stump circle).
Understanding the Nature Play Milieu: Using Behavior Mapping to Investigate… 250
Figure 4. Map showing the overall layout of the Museum Backyard and the
locations of all observations
Note: Benches were located on the stage and at the back of the mulch pile, which increased
the concentration of adult observations at those locations. Observations of children were
heavily concentrated along the creek, in the build area, and in the mud kitchen.
Figure 5 maps the children’s play activities in the space according to the recorded
level of physical activity. The highest levels of physical activity (moderate and
vigorous, corresponding to a CARS score of 4 or 5, designated by red dots) are not
clustered in a single area, but spread throughout the site (Figure 5). Mapping
revealed there is a higher proportion of moderate and vigorous play activity along
the gravel entryway, where a somewhat steep slope invites children to run down
the hill as they enter the site. The boulders along the upper creek and lower creek
and the trees in the rock and trees area encouraged climbing. Behavior mapping
helped us to confirm that the environmental features in these areas supported
opportunities for more physically active play.
Understanding the Nature Play Milieu: Using Behavior Mapping to Investigate… 251
Figure 5. Map showing physical activity levels at the site
Note: The red dots indicate the highest levels of physical activity observed at the site. The
boulders, frequently used for climbing, as well as the pathways supported the highest levels
of physical activity.
Play types at the site were also recorded and mapped (Figure 6). Exploratory play
was the most frequently observed play activity, accounting for 44 percent of the
primary play activities, followed by locomotor play (27 percent). The vast majority
(82 percent) of observations of exploratory play involved interaction with loose
parts (see Figure 7). In contrast, locomotor play (see Figure 8) only involved loose
part interaction in 37 percent of the observations. This suggests that the availability
of loose parts may be particularly valuable for supporting imaginative play in
outdoor play spaces.
Understanding the Nature Play Milieu: Using Behavior Mapping to Investigate… 252
Figure 6. Play types observed at the site
Note: The new play type scale the authors are developing has eight hierarchical types, with
27 sub-types. This map is limited to the top eight types in the hierarchy for ease of display.
Understanding the Nature Play Milieu: Using Behavior Mapping to Investigate… 253
Figure 7. Exploratory Play behaviors were associated with loose parts in 82
percent of observations, indicating that exploratory play may rely
heavily on the availability of moveable loose parts in the
environment
Understanding the Nature Play Milieu: Using Behavior Mapping to Investigate… 254
Figure 8. Locomotor activity was combined with loose parts in only 37
percent of observations, as compared to 82 percent of
observations of exploratory play
As part of an effort to increase accessibility, the museum is undertaking a
renovation of the Backyard play and learning space. This behavior mapping project
is part of an ongoing study to help the museum understand how children and
families are accessing and utilizing the site for nature play and exploration, to
inform changes to the Backyard’s design and programming. The data presented
here are only a sample of the analyses being utilized by the museum, but provide
an idea of the types of investigations in outdoor and natural play spaces that can be
supported by this behavior mapping protocol.
Conclusion
Behavior mapping is a valuable approach for capturing children’s play behaviors
and environmental interactions in outdoor or natural play spaces. Although
behavior mapping as a tool for recording environment-behavior interactions has
existed for a number of decades, the framework outlined in this paper has been
specifically tailored to address the unique conditions and challenges of capturing
children’s play behaviors in outdoor play spaces. Our recommended protocol
Understanding the Nature Play Milieu: Using Behavior Mapping to Investigate… 255
provides a flexible method that can be adapted to document children’s diverse play
activities in a wide range of outdoor spaces and accommodate a diverse set of
inquiries. This method is also useful for collecting the rich details inherent in the
nature play milieu.
Outdoor free play in natural environments has the potential to positively impact the
healthy development of children. With an increase in the number of children living
in urban areas, and decreasing opportunities for children to experience nature,
well-designed nature play spaces can afford children opportunities that support
their health and facilitate their development across a range of domains, as well as
build positive relationships with nature.
Consistent use of this customized behavior mapping protocol across a broad range
of outdoor play environments will allow researchers to compare and contrast
children’s outdoor play behaviors across differing environmental conditions.
Understanding the components and conditions that create safe and challenging
nature play spaces can help inform recommendations for the design and
programming of outdoor play spaces for children to grow and thrive. Additional
behavior mapping studies that address changes in children’s behavior in outdoor
play environments by season or over time would also be valuable contributions to
this growing body of research.
Adina Cox currently works at the University of Kentucky as a post-doctoral scholar
in the Department of Landscape Architecture. She earned her Ph.D. in Design under
the direction of Robin Moore at North Carolina State University (NCSU). She holds a
master’s in Natural Resource Management and GIS from NCSU and a bachelor’s in
Landscape Architecture from Cal Poly Pomona. Her research interests include
children’s outdoor play environments, independent mobility, children’s wildlife
encounters, pedestrian environments, and greenways. She emphatically believes it
is important to find ways to increase children’s daily exposure to outdoor natural
environments and opportunities for play.
Dr. Janet Loebach is an environmental design researcher and consultant based in
Ontario, Canada, and the principal consultant for Thrive Design Consulting. She
currently holds a post-doctoral fellowship at the CAMH Institute for Mental Health
Policy Research. Her research and practice focus on children’s perception and use of
their everyday environments, and the socio-environmental factors that influence
children’s behavior and well-being. Her areas of expertise include assessment and
design of natural and built play and learning environments for children, as well as
participatory, child-led and community-based planning processes. Dr. Loebach
currently serves as Vice President of the International Play Association (Canada)
and as co-chair of the Children & Youth Environments Network of the Environmental
Design Research Association (EDRA).
Sarah Little is an Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture at the University of
Oklahoma and a registered landscape architect in the state of North Carolina where
she practiced for 12 years. Her professional practice primarily consisted of high-end
Understanding the Nature Play Milieu: Using Behavior Mapping to Investigate… 256
residential, children’s environments, and park master plans. As a researcher, Dr.
Little works to understand the influence of the physical environment on human
development. Her current interests involve the relationship between children and
nature, autonomous exploration of the physical environment, behavior mapping,
and evidence-based design.
References
Berman, M.G., Jonides, J., & Kaplan, S. (2008). The cognitive benefits of interacting
with nature. Psychological Science 19, 1207-1212.
Björklid, P. (1982). Children's outdoor environment: A study of children's outdoor
activities on two housing estates from the perspective of environmental and
developmental psychology (Vol. 11). CWK Gleerup.
Bozkurt, M. & Woolley, H. (2017). An ecological approach to behaviour mapping:
Developing new behaviour mapping tool to understand children’s experiences
of urban water features. In Koleva, I., Duman Yuksel, U., & Benaabidate, L.
(Eds.), Ecology, Planning & Design (237-244). Sofia, Bulgaria: St. Kliment
Ohridski University Press.
Burdette, H., & Whitaker, R. (2005). Resurrecting free play in young children:
Looking beyond fitness and fatness to attention, affiliation, and affect.
Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 159, 5.
Chawla, L. (2007). Childhood experiences associated with care for the natural
world: A theoretical framework for empirical results. Children, Youth and
Environments, 17(4), 144-170. doi:10.7721/chilyoutenvi.17.4.0144
Chawla, L., Keena, K., Pevec, I., & Stanley, E. (2014). Green schoolyards as havens
from stress and resources for resilience in childhood and adolescence. Health
& Place, 28, 1-13.
Clark, A. (2005). Listening to and involving young children: A review of research
and practice. Early Child Development and Care, 175(6), 489–505. doi:
10.1080/03004430500131288
Clements, R. (2004). An investigation of the status of outdoor play. Contemporary
Issues in Early Childhood, 5, 68-80.
Cheng, J. C. H., & Monroe, M. C. (2012). Connection to nature: Children’s affective
attitude toward nature. Environment and Behavior, 44(1), 31-49.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37-46.
Understanding the Nature Play Milieu: Using Behavior Mapping to Investigate… 257
Coe, D. P., Flynn, J. I., Wolff, D. L., Scott, S. N., & Durham, S. (2014). Children's
physical activity levels and utilization of a traditional versus natural
playground. Children Youth and Environments, 24(3), 1-15. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=chilyoutenvi
Cosco, N. G., Moore, R. C., & Islam, M. Z. (2010). Behavior mapping: A method for
linking preschool physical activity and outdoor design. Medicine & Science in
Sports & Exercise, 42(3), 513-519.
Cox, A. J. (2013). Shared-use pathways located in natural settings within the urban
context: A multiple case study exploring how design affects use by children
(Doctoral dissertation). North Carolina State University.
Curtin, S. (2009). Wildlife tourism: The intangible, psychological benefits of human-
wildlife encounters. Current Issues in Tourism, 12(5), 451-474.
DOI:10.1080/13683500903042857
de Valk, L., Bekker, T., and Eggen, B. (2015). Designing for social interaction in
open-ended play environments. International Journal of Design, 9(1), 107-
120.
Drown, K. K. C., & Christensen, K. M. (2014). Dramatic play affordances of natural
and manufactured outdoor settings for preschool-aged children. Children
Youth and Environments, 24(2), 53-77. Children, Youth and Environments,
17(4), 144-170. doi:10.7721/chilyoutenvi.17.4.0144
Dyment, J. E., Bell, A. C., & Lucas, A. J. (2009). The relationship between school
ground design and intensity of physical activity. Children's
Geographies, 7(3), 261-276.
Einarsdóttir, J. (2007). Research with children: Ethical and methodological issues.
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 15(2), 197-211. doi:
10.1080/13502930701321477
Ernst, J. & Theimer, S. (2011). Evaluating the effects of environmental education
programming on connectedness to nature. Environmental Education
Research, 17(5), 577-598. DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2011.565119
Fargas-Malet, M., McSherry, D. Larkin, E. & Robinson, C. (2010). Research with
children: Methodological issues and innovative techniques. Journal of Early
Childhood Research, 8(2), 175-192. doi: 10.1177/1476718X09345412
Fjørtoft, I. (2004). Landscape as playscape: The effects of natural environments on
children's play and motor development. Children Youth and Environments,
14(2), 21-44. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=chilyoutenvi
Understanding the Nature Play Milieu: Using Behavior Mapping to Investigate… 258
Folmer, A., Haartsen, T. & Huigen, P. P. P (2018). How ordinary wildlife makes local
green places special. Landscape Research, 6, 1-11.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2018.1457142
Frost, J., (2012). Evolution of American playgrounds. Scholarpedia, 7(12), 3023.
doi:10.4249/scholarpedia.30423.
Graue, E. M. & Walsh, D. J. (1998). Studying children in context: Theories,
methods and ethics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gray, C., Gibbons, R., Larouche, R., Sandseter, E. B. H., Bienenstock, A., Brussoni,
M., . . . Tremblay, M. S. (2015). What is the relationship between outdoor
time and physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and physical fitness in
children? A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 12(6), 6455–6474.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120606455
Gray, P. (2011). The decline of play and the rise of psychopathology in children and
adolescents. American Journal of Play, 3(4), 443-463.
Hartig, T., Evans, G. W., Jamner, L. D., Davis, D. S., & Gärling, T. (2003). Tracking
restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 23(2), 109-123.
Hordyk, S. R., Hanley, J., & Richard, É. (2015). “Nature is there; its free”: Urban
greenspace and the social determinants of health of immigrant families.
Health & Place, 34, 74-82.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2015.03.016
Ittelson, W. H., Rivlin, L. G., & Proshansky, H. (1970). The use of behavioral maps
in environmental psychology. In H. Proshansky, W. H. Ittelson, & L. G. Rivlin
(Eds.), Environmental psychology: Man and his physical setting (pp. 658-
668). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.
Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological
perspective. Cambridge University Press.
Karsten, L. (2005). It all used to be better? Different generations on continuity and
change in urban children’s daily use of space. Children’s Geographies, 3(3),
275-290.
Kellert, S. & Westervelt, M. (1984). Children’s attitudes, knowledge and behaviors
towards animals. Children’s Environments Quarterly, 1(3), 8-11. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=chilyoutenvi
Kuo, M. (2015). How might contact with nature promote human health? Promising
mechanisms and a possible central pathway. Frontiers in Psychology,
6(1093), 5. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01093
Understanding the Nature Play Milieu: Using Behavior Mapping to Investigate… 259
Kuo, M. & Taylor, A. F. (2004). A potential natural treatment for attention-
deficit/hyperactivity disorder: evidence from a national study. American
Journal of Public Health, 94(9), 1580-1586.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for
categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1) 159-174.
Larouche, R., Garriguet, D., & Tremblay, M. S. (2016). Outdoor time, physical
activity and sedentary time among young children: The 2012–2013 Canadian
Health Measures Survey. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 107(6), e500–
e506. https://doi.org/10.17269/CJPH.107.5700
Luchs, A., & Fikus, M. (2013). A comparative study of active play on differently
designed playgrounds. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning,
13(3), 206-222.
Luchs, A., & Fikus, M. (2018). Differently designed playgrounds and preschooler’s
physical activity play. Early Child Development and Care, 188(3), 281-295.
Matsuoka, R. H. (2010). Student performance and high school landscapes:
Examining the links. Landscape and Urban Planning, 97, 273-282.
McCormick, R. (2017). Does access to green space impact the mental well-being of
children: A systematic review. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 37, 3-7.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2017.08.027
Moore, R. C., & Wong, H. H. (1997). Natural learning: The life of an environmental
schoolyard. Creating environments for rediscovering nature's way of
teaching. Berkeley, CA: MIG Communications.
Moore, R. C., Cosco, N., Kepez, O., & Demir, E. (2003). My place by the bay:
Prepared environments for early science learning. Retrieved from:
https://naturalearning.org/nli-projects/my-place-by-the-bay-prepared-
environments-for-early-science-learning/https://perma.cc/76NR-CNBT
Nummenmaa, T., & Syvänen, M. (1974). Teaching road safety to children in the
age range 5-7 years. Paedagogica Europaea, 151-161.
Park, B. J., Tsunetsugu, Y., Kasetani, T., Kagawa, T., & Miyazaki, Y. (2010). The
physiological effects of Shinrin-yoku (taking in the forest atmosphere or
forest bathing): Evidence from field experiments in 24 forests across Japan.
Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine 15(1), 18-26.
Parten, M. (1932). Social participation among pre-school children. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 27(3), 243-269. Doi: 10.1037/h0074524
Understanding the Nature Play Milieu: Using Behavior Mapping to Investigate… 260
Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. New York: The Norton
Library.
Puhl, J., Greaves, K., Hoyt, M., & Baranowski, T. (1990). Children's activity rating
scale (CARS): Description and calibration. Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sport, 61(1), 26-36.
Rideout, V., Foehr, U., & Roberts, D. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the Lives of
8- to 18- Year-Olds. Retrieved from
http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/8010.pdf
Roe, J. & Aspinall, P. (2011). The emotional affordances of forest settings: An
investigation in boys with extreme behavioural problems. Landscape
Research, 36, 535-552.
Rubin, K. H. (2001). The Play Observation Scale (POS). Center for Children,
Relationships, and Culture: University of Maryland.
Sallis, J. F., Prochaska, J. J. & Taylor, W. C. (2000). A review of correlates of
physical activity of children and adolescents. Medicine and Science in Sports
and Exercise, 32, 963-975.
Sanoff, H., & Coates, G. (1971). Behavioral mapping: An ecological analysis of
activities in a residential setting. International Journal of Environmental
Studies, 2(1-4), 227-235.
Schänzel, H. A., & McIntosh, A. J. (2000). An insight into the personal and emotive
context of wildlife viewing at the Penguin Place, Otago Peninsula, New
Zealand. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8(1), 36-52.
Smilansky, S. (1968). The effects of sociodramatic play on disadvantaged preschool
children. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Sommer, R., & Sommer, B. (2002). Mapping and trace measures. In R. Sommer &
B. Sommer (Eds.), A practical guide to behavioural research: Tools and
techniques (5th ed.) (pp. 63–79). New York: Oxford University Press.
Stone, M. R., & Faulkner, G. E. J. (2014). Outdoor play in children: Associations
with objectively-measured physical activity, sedentary behavior and weight
status. Preventive Medicine, 65, 122–127.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.05.008
Taylor, A. F., & Kuo, F. E. (2009). Children with attention deficits concentrate better
after walk in the park. Journal of Attention Disorders, 12(5), 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.
doi:10.1177/00139160121972864
Understanding the Nature Play Milieu: Using Behavior Mapping to Investigate… 261
Thompson, C. W., Roe, J., Aspinall, P., Mitchell, R., Clow, A., & Miller D.(2012).
More green space is linked to less stress in deprived communities: Evidence
from salivary cortisol patterns. Landscape and Urban Planning, 105(3), 221-
229.
Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A., & Zelson, M.
(1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 201-230.
van Andel, J. (1984). Effects on children's behavior of physical changes in a Leiden
neighborhood. Children's Environments Quarterly, 1(4), 46-54. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=chilyoutenvi
van Teijlingen, E. R. & Hundley, V. (2001). The importance of pilot studies. Social
Research Update, 35, 1-4. http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU35.html
Woolley, H. E. (2007). Where do the children play? In Proceedings of the Institution
of Civil Engineers-Municipal Engineer (Vol. 160, No. 2, pp. 89-95). Thomas
Telford.