Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation: James, M.E.; Jianopoulos,
E.; Ross, T.; Buliung, R.; Arbour-
Nicitopoulos, K.P. Children’s Usage
of Inclusive Playgrounds: A
Naturalistic Observation Study of
Play. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health
2022,19, 13648. https://doi.org/
10.3390/ijerph192013648
Academic Editors: Rachel A. Jones,
Anne Martin and Paul Mccrorie
Received: 24 August 2022
Accepted: 13 October 2022
Published: 21 October 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
International Journal of
Environmental Research
and Public Health
Article
Children’s Usage of Inclusive Playgrounds: A Naturalistic
Observation Study of Play
Maeghan E. James 1, Emma Jianopoulos 1, Timothy Ross 2,3,4 , Ron Buliung 5
and Kelly P. Arbour-Nicitopoulos 1,*
1Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education, Mental Health and Physical Activity Research Centre,
University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A4, Canada
2Bloorview Research Institute, Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital,
Toronto, ON M4G 1R8, Canada
3Department of Geography and Planning, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A4, Canada
4Rehabilitation Sciences Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A4, Canada
5Department of Geography, Geomatics and Environment, University of Toronto Mississauga,
Mississauga, ON L5L 1C6, Canada
*Correspondence: kelly.arbour@utoronto.ca
Abstract:
Inclusive playgrounds that are designed to be physically accessible and welcoming to
children with disabilities may provide equal and equitable access to play for all children. Using a
naturalistic observational design, this study examines children’s use of a playground designed to be
accessible and inclusive for all ages and abilities. A modified version of the System for Observing
Play and Recreation in Communities was used to collect child data on observed gender, age, play
behaviour types, social interactions, and activity levels. A relatively equal number of female (52%)
and male (48%) observations was made, and the majority (96%) of children observed appeared
to be under 12 years of age. Most children (71%) were observed to be engaging in active play.
Functional play (e.g., climbing, swinging, running) was the predominant play behaviour observed on
the playground (88%), and the majority of social interactions were with peers (48%) or an adult (26%).
These findings provide information on how children use a playground designed to be inclusive for
children of all ages and abilities. This information can be used to help inform the design of inclusive
play spaces as well as types of programming that may occur within such settings.
Keywords: play; inclusion; inclusive playground; social development; play behaviours
1. Introduction
Engaging in play is understood to be an important contributor to child health and
development [
1
] and a fundamental right for all children [
2
]. Despite the lack of consensus
on how play is defined, it is understood to involve activities that are freely chosen, child-led,
opportunistic, fun, and can be experienced independently as well as with others [
3
,
4
]. Play
provides opportunities for children to develop social, cognitive, and physical skills, and
these are further enhanced with opportunities for interactive play [
5
–
10
]. While play can
occur both indoors and outdoors, engaging in outdoor play has additional benefits to child
development. Outdoor play has been shown to increase learning opportunities [
11
,
12
],
enhance cooperation and decrease conflict between peers [
13
], and may increase physical
activity and reduce sedentary behaviours [
14
]. Recognizing the importance of outdoor play,
organizations such as Outdoor Play Canada [
15
] have released positional statements that
recommend children have equal and equitable access to active play opportunities outdoors
and in nature.
Most playgrounds serve as community spaces that offer children opportunities to
engage in outdoor, unstructured play with limited supervision from adults. Opportunities
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 13648. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013648 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 13648 2 of 16
to engage in unstructured play have been shown to be positively associated with improve-
ments in social skills and reductions in stress and anxiety [
5
,
6
,
16
,
17
]. In some instances,
playgrounds also provide increased opportunities for risky play which is associated with
further physical and social benefits [
18
,
19
]. Moreover, playgrounds offer a space for families
to gather together which allows for children to engage in social play and interact with
peers, further contributing to social and cognitive development [
7
–
10
]. In addition to social
benefits, playgrounds can provide children with physical benefits. Research shows that
children who have access to playgrounds engage in more physical activity [
20
,
21
] and
display an increase in gross motor skills [22]. Both physical activity and motor skills have
been linked to improved fitness, reduced risk for disease, and improved mental health in
children [23,24].
Research on traditional playgrounds suggest that the selection and layout of play
equipment may influence how children play on the playground. For example, boys have
been shown to prefer playgrounds that offer sport courts and traditional ball games whereas
girls prefer activities that engage their imagination, involve creating things, and activities
like climbing and sliding [
25
]. With regard to activity level, Dowda et al. [
21
] found
that children on playgrounds with unfixed play equipment (e.g., tricycles, balls) were
significantly more active than children on playgrounds with only fixed play equipment (e.g.,
monkey bars, slides). Moreover, studies have shown that children tend to engage in a larger
variety of play behaviours (e.g., gross motor skill activities, dramatic play) on playgrounds
that include natural elements (e.g., tree stumps, boulders, logs) compared to playgrounds
with traditional features (e.g., fixed play structures consisting of a combination of slides,
climbing structures, and swings) [
26
–
28
]. Importantly, research on traditional playgrounds
highlight that the design and layout of a playground also influences who can play. For
example, traditional playgrounds can present physical barriers to play, often resulting
in children with disabilities experiencing marginalization as part of their playground
experiences. In some cases, children with disabilities may be excluded entirely as a result
of playground design (e.g., when a child who uses a wheelchair comes across a playground
with a sand or pea gravel surface) [
29
–
31
]. Recognizing the importance of offering equal
and equitable play opportunities for all children, regardless of age, gender or ability level,
communities continue to advocate for the construction of inclusive playgrounds.
Inclusive playground design goes beyond accessible design (i.e., enabling users to
access and travel through their play spaces freely [
32
]) by ensuring that playgrounds
offer physical accessibility and rich play opportunities that meet the physical, social and
cognitive needs of all children [
30
,
31
]. An inclusive playground has been defined as a
space that allows children of all ages and genders, both with and without disabilities, to
access the playground and play together, and allows families to engage in play with their
children [
32
–
34
]. Inclusive playgrounds should support and welcome diverse bodies and
play opportunities. Providing a variety of play equipment that facilitates challenging play
and the opportunity to engage in various play behaviours may be one way of facilitating
inclusion on playgrounds [
32
,
35
]. For example, in addition to the more common play
structures found on traditional playgrounds (e.g., slides, swings, monkey bars), inclusive
playgrounds may also include elements of sensory play (e.g., music elements, visual and
tactile stimuli) to engage children with high sensory needs and recognizable objects to
encourage imaginative play [
32
]. Inclusive play opportunities should allow for children
to play with adults and peers but should also support solitary play for a child who,
for example, is experiencing over-stimulation or is seeking a place to retreat [
32
,
34
]. By
including a variety of play elements that cater to different age groups, play preferences and
abilities, inclusive playgrounds can provide a welcoming space that facilitates equal and
equitable play opportunities for all children.
To date, only one study to our knowledge has examined children’s experiences on
inclusive playgrounds located in Switzerland [
36
]. This study indicated that while children
with and without disabilities perceived the playground as ‘fun’ and ‘cool’, invisible social
barriers still existed and inclusion on playgrounds remains complex [
36
]. In Canada, the
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 13648 3 of 16
number of inclusive playgrounds built in communities has increased, but there remains
a notable gap in the literature regarding who is utilizing these play spaces and if they
are adequately supporting inclusive play (e.g., if they provide various play opportunities,
promote and enable play for children of all abilities, age groups and genders). Without a
rich understanding of how inclusive playgrounds are used, it is difficult for municipalities
to obtain funding for building new inclusive playgrounds or modifying existing traditional
playgrounds to enhance inclusion. Understanding how inclusive playgrounds are being
used by children can provide valuable insight into how these playgrounds support (or,
are not supporting) different types of play behaviours and social interactions to facilitate
meaningful play experiences for all children. Addressing this research gap is important for
understanding how inclusive playgrounds are utilized within communities and for deter-
mining best practices for playground designers and recreation staff to ensure playgrounds
are both accessible and inclusive play spaces for all children. In doing so, playgrounds can
appeal to the needs, capabilities, and interests of all children, and inevitably provide all
children, regardless of age, gender and ability, the opportunity to play.
The purpose of this study was to examine how a newly built playground intentionally
designed to be accessible and inclusive of children of all ages, genders and abilities is being
used by the community and by whom. We sought to describe the usage of this inclusive
playground in terms of observed gender, age group and use of a wheelchair, mobility
aid and/or visual aid. The types of play behaviour and social interactions, as well as
activity levels of children using the playground were also examined to further understand
children’s usage of inclusive playgrounds.
2. Methods
2.1. Study Design and Setting
2.1.1. Study Design
This study was a naturalistic observational study whereby observations were made of
children’s naturally occurring play on an accessible and inclusive playground. All children
using the playground during the observation periods were included in this study.
2.1.2. Setting
Observations took place at a playground specifically designed to be accessible and
inclusive for children of varying abilities and developmental stages. This playground was
approximately 15,000 square feet and opened to the public in Fall 2018. The playground
was situated within a larger recreational park that consists of walking trails, open fields, a
community centre, and designated picnic areas. Paved pathways provided access to the
park and playground, and on-site parking was available.
The playground was designed and built around four thematic sections: music/sensory,
early childhood, freestanding equipment, and the main structure (see Figures 1–4, respectively).
The music/sensory section allowed families and children to explore music and sensory
play. It consisted of drums, chimes, and a xylophone, as well as a freestanding structure
with different wheels, mirrors, and gears that serve as a tactile and sensory play centre. The
early childhood section was designed for preschool-aged children and included a smaller
scale play structure with a slide and climbers. The section also included a “cozy dome”—a
dome-like structure that could be used for climbing, playing inside, or, for children with
sensory needs, it could serve as a welcoming space with reduced sensory stimulation. The
freestanding equipment section was intentionally designed as a space for children to play
in pairs or small groups. It consisted of the playground’s freestanding structures, including
three types of swings (i.e., a friendship swing, a belt seat swing, and a moulded bucket seat
swing with harness), a large rotating globe-like structure that supports climbing, and “see-
saw” structures. The main structure was the largest section. It included several different
types of monkey bars, ladders, and slides, all of which are accessible via double-wide ramps
and connected by a double-wide elevated pathway loop. The double-wide ramps and
pathway loop allowed children using mobility devices to access and comfortably navigate
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 13648 4 of 16
the elevated play structure. In addition, the main structure included several interactive
game panels (e.g., seek and find games, X’s and O’s) as well as sensory panels. Further
details on the playground’s components can be provided by the corresponding author.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 16
The double-wide ramps and pathway loop allowed children using mobility devices to
access and comfortably navigate the elevated play structure. In addition, the main struc-
ture included several interactive game panels (e.g., seek and find games, X’s and O’s) as
well as sensory panels. Further details on the playground’s components can be provided
by the corresponding author.
Figure 1. Image depicting part of the music/sensory section of the observed playground.
Figure 2. Image depicting part of the early childhood section of the observed playground.
Figure 1. Image depicting part of the music/sensory section of the observed playground.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 16
The double-wide ramps and pathway loop allowed children using mobility devices to
access and comfortably navigate the elevated play structure. In addition, the main struc-
ture included several interactive game panels (e.g., seek and find games, X’s and O’s) as
well as sensory panels. Further details on the playground’s components can be provided
by the corresponding author.
Figure 1. Image depicting part of the music/sensory section of the observed playground.
Figure 2. Image depicting part of the early childhood section of the observed playground.
Figure 2. Image depicting part of the early childhood section of the observed playground.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 13648 5 of 16
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 16
Figure 3. Image depicting part of the freestanding equipment section of the observed playground.
Figure 4. Image depicting part of the main structure section of the observed playground.
2.2. Observation Tool and Protocols
2.2.1. Observation Tool
Observations were carried out using a modified version of the System for Observing
Play and Recreation in Children (SOPARC) tool that was designed for use on an iPad.
SOPARC has been deemed both a reliable and valid measure of children’s play [37].
SOPARC uses momentary time sampling techniques through periodic scans of pre-deter-
mined target areas to gain information regarding perceived gender, race/ethnicity, age,
and activity levels [38]. Perceived gender (male, female), age (i.e., 0–5 years, 6–12 years,
Figure 3. Image depicting part of the freestanding equipment section of the observed playground.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 16
Figure 3. Image depicting part of the freestanding equipment section of the observed playground.
Figure 4. Image depicting part of the main structure section of the observed playground.
2.2. Observation Tool and Protocols
2.2.1. Observation Tool
Observations were carried out using a modified version of the System for Observing
Play and Recreation in Children (SOPARC) tool that was designed for use on an iPad.
SOPARC has been deemed both a reliable and valid measure of children’s play [37].
SOPARC uses momentary time sampling techniques through periodic scans of pre-deter-
mined target areas to gain information regarding perceived gender, race/ethnicity, age,
and activity levels [38]. Perceived gender (male, female), age (i.e., 0–5 years, 6–12 years,
Figure 4. Image depicting part of the main structure section of the observed playground.
2.2. Observation Tool and Protocols
2.2.1. Observation Tool
Observations were carried out using a modified version of the System for Observing Play
and Recreation in Children (SOPARC) tool that was designed for use on an iPad. SOPARC
has been deemed both a reliable and valid measure of children’s play [
37
]. SOPARC uses
momentary time sampling techniques through periodic scans of pre-determined target areas
to gain information regarding perceived gender, race/ethnicity, age, and activity levels [
38
].
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 13648 6 of 16
Perceived gender (male, female), age (i.e., 0–5 years, 6–12 years, 13 years and older),
and activity level (i.e., non-active, active, very active) were ascribed to children using the
playground in the current study using the original SOPARC tool. The original race/ethnicity
variable of SOPARC was not used due to the research team’s concerns with assigning a
race/ethnicity to a child based solely on observation, without being able to ask them how
they identify [
39
,
40
]. Given our focus on inclusive playgrounds, a variable was added to
the observational tool that coded for a child using a wheelchair, mobility aid (e.g., a walker)
or visual aid (e.g., a white cane). If the child being observed did not appear to use any of
these devices, they were coded as ‘none’. While we recognize the value and importance of
understanding how playgrounds are being used by children who may have an invisible
disability (i.e., an impairment or medical condition that is not readily observable, such as
autism spectrum disorder), this was a naturalistic study whereby we did not ask children
or parents for any type of demographic information. As such, we were limited to only code
for features that could be observed.
Social interaction type and play behaviour type were also incorporated as variables
into this study’s modified version of the SOPARC tool. Social interactions were coded based
on previous research examining play behaviours and social interactions on playgrounds
and included peer play, play with an adult, solitary play, and parallel play [
41
]. Drawing
on definitions used by Maxwell et al. [
41
], we divided play behaviour into six types:
(1) constructive, (2) dramatic/fantasy, (3) functional, (4) games with rules, (5) non-play, and
(6) waiting. Table 1provides a summary of the observation variables and coding definitions
for observed assistive device/aid, activity level, social interactions, and play behaviours
that were incorporated into the modified SOPARC tool.
Table 1. Definitions of Codes Added to the Modified SOPARC Tool.
Code Definition
Assistive Device/Aid
Wheelchair Any seated device utilized by a person with a mobility disability for the purpose of locomotion [42].
Mobility Aid Any non-seated locomotion aid including, but not limited to, braces, crutches, canes, and walkers [42].
Visual Aid Use of a device, or animal for the purpose of visual guidance (e.g., white cane, guide-dog, peer).
None No visible use of a wheelchair, mobility or visual aid.
Activity Level a
Non-Active Activities that require little physical effort (e.g., lying down, sitting, standing).
Active Activities that require a moderate amount of physical effort (e.g., walking, wheeling).
Very Active Activities that require a great deal of physical effort (e.g., running, jumping, racing).
Play Behaviour b
Constructive Child’s activity is goal-oriented and thoughtful. They are using materials to create something (e.g., using
rocks to make a structure).
Dramatic/Fantasy Child takes on imaginary roles or uses objects to represent something imaginary (e.g., children playing
“house” or pretending to be animals).
Functional
Play activities involving repetitive muscle movements (e.g., running, walking), vestibular stimulation (e.g.,
rocking back-and-forth, swinging, jumping, spinning, rolling on the ground), or proprioceptive stimulation
(e.g., climbing, pushing, pulling, carrying heavy objects).
Games with Rules Games with universal rules such as tag, dodgeball, hide- and-go-seek.
Non-play Child is not involved in any of the above play behaviours. Examples of non-play behaviours include
unoccupied/onlooker play (i.e., watching others), being between activities, and sitting.
Waiting Child is not engaged in play because they are waiting to use equipment (e.g., waiting to use the swing).
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 13648 7 of 16
Table 1. Cont.
Code Definition
Social Interaction b
Peer Play
Instances when two or more children are playing in an activity-oriented way and mutually acknowledging
the other(s). The children’s actions are complementary with those of another/others, and/or the children are
engaged in conversation about a common activity.
Play with an Adult Instances where a child is engaging in play with an adult (e.g., parent, caretaker).
Solitary Instances where a child plays alone or independently, makes no reference to others and makes no effort to
include other children in his or her play.
Parallel Instances where a child plays independently beside, but not with, another child. Child does not try to
influence others in play.
a
Definitions of activity level based on McKenzie and Cohen [
38
],
b
Definitions of play behaviours and social
interactions based on Maxwell et al. [41].
2.2.2. Systematic Observation Protocol
Two researchers were trained to systematically apply the modified SOPARC tool
across nine playground zones that the study team identified a priori. These zones were
created to assist with observations and were sorted into their corresponding playground
section during data analysis. SOPARC guidelines recommend dividing larger zones into
3–4 smaller subzones to make observations easier [
37
]. Therefore, each of the nine zones
were split into 3–4 subzones based on the types and groupings of equipment pieces. Before
systematic observations commenced, the two researchers completed two reliability sessions.
This involved simultaneously conducting observations across the pre-determined zones and
subzones. After each session, the researchers met to discuss any discrepancies to improve
consistency of coding. Intra-class coefficients (ICC) were used to assess reliability and
interpreted as follows: poor reliability (ICC < 0.50), moderate reliability (ICC = 0.50 < 0.75),
good reliability (ICC = 0.75 to 0.90), and excellent reliability (ICC > 0.90) [
43
]. An inter-rater
reliability of 0.75 (i.e., good reliability) or above on each item of the tool was achieved prior
to commencing study observations. ICC values ranged from 0.88 to 1.00 across items.
The two researchers conducting the observations began each playground observation
in zone 1 and then moved in order through the remaining eight zones. Observations were
conducted at a designated location per zone to ensure both researchers were observing
children using the playground from the same viewpoint. Each researcher scanned the
target zone for a total of three to five minutes, depending on how busy the playground
was, before moving on to the next target zone. The researcher conducted observations from
left to right continuously for the duration of the three to five minutes. One entire scan of
the playground took approximately 45 min to complete.
Institutional research ethics board approval was obtained for this study. The munici-
pality in which the playground was located also granted the research team permission to
undertake observations. During each observational session, the researchers had a one-page
information letter describing the details of the research, information on the institutional
research ethics board approval, and the contact information of the primary investigator. A
verbal explanation of the study’s purpose and methods was also provided by the researcher
onsite to any interested community members.
2.2.3. Observation Schedule
All observations took place prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic between
October 2019 and November 2019 (average temperature of 12 degrees Celsius). An obser-
vation schedule was used based on Cohen et al.’s [
44
] guidelines for administering the
SOPARC tool. According to these guidelines, a five-day schedule (used in the present
study) should include observations at least twice a day: once in the morning (between
6:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m.) and once in the afternoon (between 1:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m.).
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 13648 8 of 16
2.3. Statistical Analysis
Observations from each zone were grouped into their respective playground section
(i.e., music/sensory, early childhood, freestanding, and main structure). Total counts of
child observations from each of the four playground sections were then used for the final
analysis. Descriptive statistics (frequency and proportions) were computed in R for gender
(male and female), age group (ages 0–5 and ages 6–12, ages 13+), use (or not) of a wheelchair,
mobility and/or visual aid, play behaviours (constructive, dramatic/fantasy, functional,
games with rules, non-play, waiting) and social interaction types (peer play, play with an
adult, solitary and parallel) observed across the overall playground as well as within each
of the four playground sections.
3. Results
3.1. Observations
A total of 1332 child observations were made over the study period. Observations were
conducted on eight different days for a total of 28 playground scans. Of the 28 total scans, 20
were completed in the afternoon and eight were conducted in the morning. Morning visits
were conducted between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. and afternoon visits were conducted
between 12:30 p.m and 5:00 p.m. Nine scans were completed on the weekend and five
scans were conducted on a Professional Activity (PA) day whereby children had the day
off of school. The remaining 14 scans were conducted on a regular weekday.
3.2. Description of Playground Usage by Use of a Wheelchair, Mobility or Visual Aid, Gender
and Age Group
Table 2presents a complete description of playground usage by gender, age group,
activity level, play behaviours and social interaction types. Of the 1332 child observations,
one observation was made of a child who used a mobility aid (observed engaging in
functional play with an adult within the main structure region). In terms of observed gender,
there was a relatively equal number of female (51.82%) and male (48.20%) observations
made on the playground. When broken down by playground section, there were more
females observed in both the music/sensory and freestanding play elements sections
than males.
When examining the age group of the children using the playground, most children
observed were coded as being between the ages of 0–5 years (44.14%) and 6–12 years
(51.80%). The greatest percentage of children aged 0–5 years was observed within the early
childhood section. Most children aged 6–12 years were observed within the main structure
section and children 13 years and older were mainly observed in the freestanding play
equipment section.
3.3. Activity Level
Active play accounted for the majority of observations in all playground sections
except for the freestanding play equipment section where the greatest percentage of play
was non-active. The highest amount of very active play was observed on the main structure
section. For a complete breakdown of activity levels across the playground and within each
section, see Table 2.
3.4. Playground Behaviour Types
Across the four playground sections, functional play occurred most often, accounting
for 80–88% of the observed play behaviours (Table 2). Dramatic/fantasy play accounted
for less than 10% of play behaviours observed in each of the four sections, with the highest
percentage of dramatic/fantasy play observed in the early childhood section (7.8% of play
behaviour in this section). Constructive play was only observed in the music/sensory
section (2.6% of observed play behaviours in this section). Waiting was only observed in
the freestanding play equipment and main structure sections and accounted for less than
1% of behaviours observed in these two sections.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 13648 9 of 16
Table 2. Description of playground usage by observed gender, age group, interaction type and play
behaviour type across the full playground and within each playground section.
Playground Sections
Full Playground
(n= 1332)
Music/Sensory
(n= 116)
Early Childhood
(n= 205)
Freestanding Play
Equipment
(n= 214)
Main Structure
(n= 797)
Gender *
Male 642 (48.2) 40 (34.5) 104 (50.7) 88 (41.1) 410 (51.4)
Female 690 (51.8) 76 (65.5) 101 (49.3) 126 (58.9) 387 (48.6)
Age Group
0–5 588 (44.1) 65 (56.0) 119 (58.1) 93 (43.5) 311 (39.0)
6–12 690 (51.8) 48 (41.4) 78 (38.1) 97 (45.3) 467 (58.6)
13+ 54 (4.1) 3 (2.6) 8 (3.9) 24 (11.2) 19 (2.4)
Activity Level
Non-Active 273 (20.5) 41 (35.3) 63 (30.7) 106 (49.5) 63 (7.9)
Active 941 (70.7) 71 (61.2) 127 (62.0) 91 (42.5) 652 (81.8)
Very Active 118 (8.9) 4 (3.5) 15 (7.3) 17 (7.9) 82 (10.3)
Play Behaviour Type
Functional 1175 (88.2) 102 (87.9) 172 (83.9) 190 (88.8) 711 (89.2)
Dramatic/Fantasy 35 (2.6) 2 (1.7) 16 (7.8) 0 (0) 17 (2.1)
Games with Rules 44 (3.3) 2 (1.7) 4 (2.0) 2 (0.9) 36 (4.5)
Constructive 3 (0.2) 3 (2.6) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Non-Play 71 (5.3) 7 (6.0) 13 (6.3) 21 (9.8) 30 (3.8)
Waiting 4 (0.3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0.5) 3 (0.4)
Interaction Type
Peer Play 636 (47.7) 47 (40.5) 108 (52.7) 129 (60.3) 352 (44.2)
Play with an Adult 352 (26.4) 42 (36.2) 62 (30.2) 49 (22.9) 199 (25.0)
Solitary 292 (21.9) 27 (23.3) 25 (12.2) 26 (12.1) 214 (26.9)
Parallel 52 (3.9) 0 (0) 10 (4.9) 10 (4.7) 32 (4.0)
Note. Results presented as the proportion of observations on the full playground and within each section;
count (%). * While we have coded gender using the terminology from the original SOPARC tool, we recognize
that gender is a social construct that exists on spectrum and thus we use these terms with caution.
3.5. Social Interaction Types
The most common social interaction type across all four playground sections involved
peer (child/child) play (Table 2). Most of the peer play was observed within the freestanding
play equipment section (60.3% of all observations). At 36.2% of all observations, the
music/sensory section elicited the most interactive play between children and adults (e.g.,
parent, caregiver). The main structure section was observed to produce the most solitary
play (26.9%) while most instances of parallel play were observed primarily in the early
childhood section (4.9%).
4. Discussion
To our knowledge, this is the first study to involve naturalistic observations of chil-
dren’s usage and types of play on a playground designed to be accessible and inclusive.
While only one child was observed to use a wheelchair, mobility aid or visual aid, the results
of this study provide important information on how children use a playground designed
to be accessible and inclusive for children of all genders, ages and abilities. Our results
demonstrate that this inclusive playground is highly utilized by both males and females of
various ages. Results show that this playground supports interactive and individual play,
as well as some play behaviours beyond functional play. These results also demonstrate
that most children on the playground engage in either active or very active play.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 13648 10 of 16
4.1. Demographics and Activity Levels of Children Using the Playground
Outdoor play and physical activity have both been shown to enhance several aspects
of child health including physical fitness, motor development, cognition and mental health
outcomes [
11
,
13
,
14
,
23
,
45
]. Currently, only 28% of Canadian children and youth are reaching
the recommended levels of physical activity [
46
], and girls are consistently shown to engage
in less physical activity compared to boys [
47
–
49
]. Thus, it is important to continue to
determine strategies to encourage and enhance play, and to make play, particularly outdoor
play, accessible for all children [
47
,
50
]. Our results demonstrate that a playground designed
to be accessible and inclusive for all ages and abilities affords children the opportunity to
play and be active outdoors. Across the eight study observation periods, 1332 instances of
play were captured. Of the total child observations made, an approximately equal number
of observations were made of males and females across the full playground, and 80%
of children observed were engaging in active or very active play. These findings align
with previous studies showing that in recent years, boys and girls are participating and
being active on playgrounds at a near-equal level [
51
,
52
]. Interestingly, the music/sensory
section of the playground elicited the greatest percentage of observations made of females,
accounting for nearly 70% of all child observations made in this section. To date, most
playground research has identified features of playgrounds that deter girls from partici-
pating (e.g., ball games, large paved areas) [
51
,
52
]. The findings from this study build on
previous literature by identifying aspects of playgrounds that may be of particular interest
to females (i.e., music and sensory elements). Thus, not only do these results provide
evidence that an inclusive playground is generally supporting active play for males and
females equally, but music and sensory elements may be particularly good at enhancing
outdoor play among females.
In addition to supporting outdoor play among males and females, our findings also
suggest that the playground was attracting children across different age groups. Most
children appeared to be under the age of 12, however, there were several instances where
children may have been between 13 to 17 years old. The freestanding play equipment
section was highly used by older children, with 12% of the observations in this section
being children aged 13 and older. Within the literature, a design recommendation for
inclusive playgrounds is to ensure an appropriate level of challenge to engage children of
all abilities [
32
]. Our study observations included children in the preschool years, school-
aged children, and even children in early adolescence. Thus, observing children from all
age groups may suggest that this inclusive playground facilitates play among various age
groups. That is, thinking developmentally, children of different ages will possess different
abilities, and this playground space appears to offer opportunities for play that were of
interest to all children we observed.
The playground observed in this study was physically accessible and aligned with
many of the design recommendations for inclusive playgrounds [
32
,
53
] and universal
design [
33
]. In terms of its physical accessibility, the playground included a rubberized
surface, double-wide ramps that led onto the main playground section from multiple
access points and various adapted pieces of equipment including adapted swings and
slides with transfer benches. Further, the playground included elements of sensory play
within a section devoted to sensory and music elements and included features such as the
‘cozy dome’ to provide a retreat from overstimulation. Scholars have previously noted
that inclusive playgrounds are often segregated spaces and may not necessarily produce
opportunities for integrated play between children with and without disabilities [
54
].
Consistent with the goals of universal design [
55
], an important finding from the current
study is that this inclusive playground appeared to attract a large number of children
who did not use a wheelchair, mobility or visual aid, and/or children who may live with
impairment or disability in a way that is not immediately observable or visible. While only
one child was observed to use a mobility aid, findings show promise that a playground built
in accordance with the universal design principles is supporting various play opportunities
among males and females of all ages. Accessibility and inclusion on playgrounds to date
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 13648 11 of 16
has largely focused on the physical accessibility of playgrounds [
33
]. From a universal
design perspective, playgrounds must be designed to go beyond physical accessibility and
offer children of different ages, genders and abilities opportunities to engage in various
types of play behaviours and social interactions [
33
]. Designing playground spaces that
meet the universal design principles is imperative to ensuring inclusion and protecting all
children’s right to play [
2
]. However, universal design may not be a sufficient approach
for encouraging playground play among children who use wheelchairs, mobility devices,
and/or visual aids. More empirical work is needed to better understand how children with
disabilities engage with playgrounds designed to be inclusive and accessible.
4.2. Play Behaviours
Similar to previous research on traditional and contemporary playgrounds [
56
,
57
],
we found that functional play accounted for a greater percentage of all play, across all
playground sections, when compared with dramatic/fantasy and constructive play, as
well as waiting and non-play. Functional play includes activities like running, wheeling,
jumping, swinging and climbing, all of which promote children’s physical development [
58
].
Our findings suggest that the playground observed in this study is particularly good at
promoting functional play in children, which aligns with the higher activity levels that were
observed among children on the playground. These findings may relate to the size of the
playground observed in this study and the variety of equipment available. Additionally,
this playground consisted of open spaces for children to walk, run and wheel around the
playground all of which are associated with greater activity levels in children.
While the playground was observed to support functional play, few obvious markers
of dramatic/fantasy or constructive play were observed. This finding aligns with previous
research on playgrounds that reported little dramatic/fantasy and constructive play in
relation to total playground behaviours [
41
,
56
,
57
]. The incorporation of play components
that offer manipulation and differential feedback (e.g., sand and water play components,
loose play pieces) could help to produce more constructive play opportunities [
59
]. Further,
incorporating loose parts pieces (such as sand toys, and sport balls), musical instrument
equipment, or playground features shaped in recognizable designs (e.g., a house or boat)
could support more imaginative play [
32
,
41
,
60
–
62
]. The playground did include a variety of
musical instrument equipment, yet there were still very few instances of dramatic/fantasy
play and constructive play observed. This finding is contrary to previous research suggest-
ing that music equipment may increase dramatic and constructive play in children [
41
]. It
is possible that including fixed musical equipment may not be enough to encourage other
types of play behaviours beyond functional play without the incorporation of other loose
parts play equipment. The music/sensory section was also located on the periphery of the
playground which could be beneficial to reduce noise and sensory stimulation. However,
the location may have resulted in this section being less ‘seen’ by children as they were lo-
cated on the perimeter of the playground which could have impacted children’s awareness
of what this section had to offer. Future research may consider the impact of raising users’
awareness, such as through informational materials (e.g., brochures, way-finding signage)
of what is available within inclusive playground spaces.
Loose parts play pieces or sand/water play components were not available at this
playground; rather, it was comprised of fixed play structures that primarily supported
gross motor skill activities (e.g., climbing, swinging, sliding). The lack of loose parts on
this playground is likely attributable to the fact that implementing play equipment with
loose parts can be difficult. Key challenges include the risk of losing equipment and having
adequate equipment storage space [
62
]. To support loose parts play on or nearby inclusive
playgrounds in the future, it may be useful to consider providing locked storage spaces
(i.e., for loose parts play components) that could be accessed by playground staff and/or
local community organizations that use the playground for play programming. Ensuring
that any loose parts play options are accessible also requires attention. For example,
raised sand tables are becoming increasingly more common structures within playgrounds
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 13648 12 of 16
because they allow children using wheelchairs (or other mobility devices) to access sand
play [
63
]. When designing and locating such raised sand tables, attention should be given
to preventing the sand from spilling onto and causing damage to playground surfaces
(e.g., by spacing a raised sand table from the main playground surface and/or using an
alternative playground surface around the raised sand table).
4.3. Social Interactions
Play with peers and adults are associated with positive developmental trajectories [
8
,
10
].
Our finding that the majority of children were observed interacting with either peers or
an adult highlights the opportunity the inclusive playground may provide for supporting
child development through interactive play [
7
,
8
]. Peer play in particular has been shown
to provide additional benefits for social development and school readiness [
9
,
10
]. We
observed greater peer play occurring within the freestanding play equipment section, with
peer play accounting for nearly 60% of all observations within this section. This finding may
be attributable to the play equipment within the freestanding section being intentionally
designed to promote play among pairs of children or small groups. For example, the swings
structure included a ‘friendship’ swing that allows for two children to swing together while
facing one another, a rotating climbing globe structure that can be used by many children at
the same time and see-saws that support four users rather than two. Our findings suggest
that including play equipment pieces designed for partner play or small groups within
playgrounds could enhance opportunities for development through peer play.
In addition to peer play, it is important that playgrounds provide opportunities for
children to engage in solitary and/or parallel play [
32
]. Playgrounds including elements
that support solitary play have been shown to help children avoid and cope with over-
stimulation [
63
,
64
]. These opportunities of solitary play are of particular importance to
children who may prefer playing in spaces that are quieter and more private [
63
,
64
]. Within
the current study, instances of solitary play accounted for 22% of observations made with
parallel play accounting for 4%. These findings provide some evidence that this playground
is supporting inclusion through providing opportunities for both solitary and parallel play.
4.4. Limitations and Future Directions
While this study’s naturalistic observational approach offers valuable information,
it has some limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. First,
although the inter-rater reliability for all variables coded were considered good or excellent
as per Koo and Li’s guidelines [
43
], some information coded may not have reflected the
true nature of the child’s intended play behaviour. For example, it is possible that children
engaging in dramatic/fantasy play while running around the playground may have been
coded as ‘functional’ play if the researcher did not hear the imaginative dialogue occurring
between the children. Future research should obtain more nuanced and contextual infor-
mation regarding play instances by performing in-depth analyses of play (e.g., via analysis
of video recordings of playground play, and/or analysis of qualitative data focused on how
children use playgrounds). Our findings are also based on singular observations made
by one researcher at a time. As such, it is possible that instances of play may have been
missed or went unaccounted for as a child transitioned between play types. To address
this limitation, future research could consider having multiple observers present and/or
video-record playground play.
Our research design did not allow for certain demographic information to be collected
(e.g., impairment type). While a new code was added to the SOPARC tool to allow for
observations of children’s use of a wheelchair, mobility and/or visual aid, we acknowledge
that this coding does not capture the full extent of childhood disability. Specifically, the
observational nature of our study did not allow for children who live with other types
of disabilities that are not observable to be coded. Future research should consider ways
to observe play among children with a wide range of disabilities including those that are
visible and invisible.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 13648 13 of 16
Further, while we only observed one child who used a mobility device (i.e., lower leg
prosthetics), there were likely some children with other types of disabilities (e.g., invisible
disabilities) who went unaccounted for given the limitations of the coding tool. Within
Canada, 3.6% of children ages 0–14 years-old experience disability [
63
], suggesting that
there would be fewer children on any one playground observed to have a disability [
65
].
This statistic, combined with our coding of disability within the SOPARC tool may explain
why few children were observed to use a wheelchair, mobility device or visual aid. Future
research is needed to confirm these results as well as to develop appropriate codingmethods
to account for children’s range of abilities.
The playground was also fairly new, opening just one year prior to our study. The
‘grand opening’ event occurred only a few months before the observations occurred. As
a result of its relatively recent installation, it is possible that families of children with
disabilities were unaware of the new playground or were not familiar with its intentional
inclusive design. Observing few children who used a wheelchair, mobility and/or visual
aid on this fairly new inclusive playground highlights the importance of municipalities
communicating the development of accessible and inclusive playgrounds and perhaps
creating and/or promoting programming options to help ensure that the community is
aware of its presence and the intent of its design. Municipalities might consider having
playground staff on-site at inclusive playgrounds during scheduled hours to support
different play programs, aid caregivers with lifts and transfers, and/or to offer parents
information about the playground’s various inclusive design elements [31,66]. This could
make the playgrounds more inclusive for children with disabilities and their families and,
in turn, may increase their usage of inclusive playgrounds.
5. Conclusions
In order for all children, regardless of gender, age and ability, to access and engage
in play on community playgrounds, they must be designed with inclusion in mind. This
means that in addition to physical accessibility, playgrounds should include play equipment
that is intentionally selected and positioned to provide a variety of play opportunities for
children with different play preferences and abilities. Our findings demonstrate that
the observed accessible and inclusive playground was supporting play among males
and females, of which the majority were 12 years old or under. The study findings also
demonstrate that the observed playground supported opportunities for a variety of social
interactions and, to some extent, play behaviours beyond functional play. More research is
needed to better understand the lack of children with a visible disability observed within
the playground. These findings highlight that playgrounds that are intentionally designed
for accessibility and inclusion are being utilized within communities. Future research
is warranted on how play leaders, recreational programmers, and educators can utilize
the design features of accessible and inclusive playgrounds to support equitable play
experiences for children of all ages, genders and abilities.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, K.P.A.-N., M.E.J., E.J., T.R.; methodology, M.E.J., E.J., T.R.,
K.P.A.-N.; data collection, M.E.J., E.J.; formal analysis, M.E.J., E.J.; writing—original draft preparation,
M.E.J.; writing—review and editing, M.E.J., E.J., T.R., R.B., K.P.A.-N.; supervision, K.P.A.-N.; project
administration, K.P.A.-N.; funding acquisition, K.P.A.-N. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was supported by Canadian Tire Jumpstart Charities.
Institutional Review Board Statement:
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration
of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of University of
Toronto (protocol # 36836).
Informed Consent Statement:
Participant consent was waived (as per REB approval) given that this
was a naturalistic study and any child engaging on the playground during observation times were
included in the study.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 13648 14 of 16
Data Availability Statement:
For more information regarding data availability, please email K.P.A.-N.,
kelly.arbour@utoronto.ca.
Acknowledgments:
We wish to thank the municipality this work was conducted within for their
support and guidance on this study.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Brussoni, M.; Gibbons, R.; Gray, C.; Ishikawa, T.; Sandseter, E.; Bienenstock, A.; Chabot, G.; Fuselli, P.; Herrington, S.;
Janssen, I.; et al. What Is the Relationship between Risky Outdoor Play and Health in Children? A Systematic Review.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015,12, 6423–6454. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. United Nations. Convention on the Rights of the Child; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2013.
3.
Sturgess, J. A Model Describing Play as a Child-Chosen Activity—Is This Still Valid in Contemporary Australia? Aust. Occup.
Ther. J. 2003,50, 104–108. [CrossRef]
4.
Ashiabi, G.S. Play in the Preschool Classroom: Its Socioemotional Significance and the Teacher’s Role in Play. Early Child. Educ. J.
2007,35, 199–207. [CrossRef]
5.
Lee, R.L.T.; Lane, S.; Brown, G.; Leung, C.; Kwok, S.W.H.; Chan, S.W.C. Systematic Review of the Impact of Unstructured Play
Interventions to Improve Young Children’s Physical, Social, and Emotional Wellbeing. Nurs. Health Sci.
2020
,22, 184–196.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Murray, R.; Ramstetter, C. The Crucial Role of Recess in School. Pediatrics 2013,131, 183–188. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7.
Parker, J.G.; Rubin, K.H.; Erath, S.A.; Bowker, J.C. Peer Relationships and Developmental Psychopathology. In Peer Relationships,
Child Development, and Adjustment: A Developmental Psychopathology Perspective; Wiley Online Library: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006;
pp. 421–477.
8.
Tamis-LeMonda, C.S.; Shannon, J.D.; Cabrera, N.J.; Lamb, M.E. Fathers and Mothers at Play with Their 2- and 3-Year-Olds:
Contributions to Language and Cognitive Development. Child Dev. 2004,75, 1806–1820. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9.
Coplan, R.; Arbeau, K. Peer Interactions and Play in Early Childhood. In Social, Emotional and Personality Development in Context.
Handbook of Peer Interactions, Relationships and Groups; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 143–161.
10.
Eggum-Wilkens, N.D.; Fabes, R.A.; Castle, S.; Zhang, L.; Hanish, L.D.; Martin, C.L. Playing with Others: Head Start Children’s
Peer Play and Relations with Kindergarten School Competence. Early Child. Res. Q. 2014,29, 345–356. [CrossRef]
11.
Sumpter, L.; Hedefalk, M. Preschool Children’s Collective Mathematical Reasoning during Free Outdoor Play. J. Math. Behav.
2015,39, 1–10. [CrossRef]
12.
White, J. Playing and Learning Outdoors: Making Provision for High Quality Experiences in the Outdoor Environment with Children 3–7;
Routledge: Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, 2013; ISBN 9780415412117.
13.
Bilton, H.; Bento, G.; Dias, G. Taking the First Steps Outside: Under Threes Learning and Developing in the Natural Environment; Taylor
& Francis: Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, 2016.
14.
Stone, M.R.; Faulkner, G.E.J. Outdoor Play in Children: Associations with Objectively-Measured Physical Activity, Sedentary
Behavior and Weight Status. Prev. Med. 2014,65, 122–127. [CrossRef]
15.
Outdoor Play Canada Position Statement on Active Outdoor Play. 2021. Available online: https://www.outdoorplaycanada.ca/
wp-content/uploads/2019/07/position-statement-on-active- outdoor-play-en.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2022).
16.
Raney, M.A.; Hendry, C.F.; Yee, S.A. Physical Activity and Social Behaviors of Urban Children in Green Playgrounds. Am. J. Prev.
Med. 2019,56, 522–529. [CrossRef]
17.
Yuill, N.; Strieth, S.; Roake, C.; Aspden, R.; Todd, B. Brief Report: Designing a Playground for Children with Autistic Spectrum
Disorders - Effects on Playful Peer Interactions. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 2007,37, 1192–1196. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18.
Banko, C.; Akdemir, K.; Kosar, M.G.; Celik, S.S. The Investigation of Outdoor Playgrounds in Terms of Supporting Risky Play.
Inonu Univ. J. Fac. Educ. 2018,19, 406–417. [CrossRef]
19.
Brussoni, M.; Olsen, L.L.; Pike, I.; Sleet, D.A. Risky Play and Children’s Safety: Balancing Priorities for Optimal Child Development.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2012,9, 3134–3148. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20.
Taylor, R.W.; Farmer, V.L.; Cameron, S.L.; Meredith-Jones, K.; Williams, S.M.; Mann, J.I. School Playgrounds and Physical Activity
Policies as Predictors of School and Home Time Activity. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2011,8, 1–7. [CrossRef]
21.
Dowda, M.; Brown, W.H.; Mclver, K.L.; Pfeiffer, K.A.; O’Neill, J.R.; Addy, C.L.; Pate, R.R. Policies and Characteristics of the
Preschool Environment and Physical Activity of Young Children. Pediatrics 2009,123, e261. [CrossRef]
22.
Tortella, P.; Haga, M.; Loras, H.; Sigmundsson, H.; Fumagalli, G. Motor Skill Development in Italian Pre-School Children Induced
by Structured Activities in a Specific Playground. PLoS ONE 2016,11, e0160244. [CrossRef]
23.
Carson, V.; Lee, E.Y.; Hewitt, L.; Jennings, C.; Hunter, S.; Kuzik, N.; Stearns, J.A.; Unrau, S.P.; Poitras, V.J.; Gray, C.; et al. Systematic
Review of the Relationships between Physical Activity and Health Indicators in the Early Years (0–4 Years). BMC Public Health
2017,17, 33–63. [CrossRef]
24.
Biddle, S.J.H.; Ciaccioni, S.; Thomas, G.; Vergeer, I. Physical Activity and Mental Health in Children and Adolescents: An Updated
Review of Reviews and an Analysis of Causality. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2019,42, 146–155. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 13648 15 of 16
25.
Hyndman, B.P.; Chancellor, B. Engaging Children in Activities beyond the Classroom Walls: A Social-Ecological Exploration of
Australian Primary School Children’s Enjoyment of School Play Activities. J. Play. Pract. 2015,2, 117–141. [CrossRef]
26.
Adams, J.; Veitch, J.; Barnett, L. Physical Activity and Fundamental Motor Skill Performance of 5–10 Year Old Children in Three
Different Playgrounds. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 1896. [CrossRef]
27.
Refshauge, A.; Stigsdotter, U.; Petersen, L. Play and Behavior Characteristics in Relation to the Design of Four Danish Public
Playground. Child Youth Environ. 2013,23, 22–48. [CrossRef]
28.
Sandseter, E.B.H. Affordances for Risky Play in Preschool: The Importance of Features in the Play Environment. Early Child. Educ.
J. 2009,36, 439–446. [CrossRef]
29.
Moore, A.; Lynch, H. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy Accessibility and Usability of Playground Environments for
Children under 12: A Scoping Review. Scand. J. Occup. Ther. 2015,22, 331–344. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30.
Moore, R.C.; Costco, N.G. What Makes a Park Inclusive and Universally Designed?: A Multi-Method Approach. In Open Space:
People Space; Taylor & Francis: Abingdon-on Thames, UK, 2007; pp. 105–130.
31.
Stanton-Chapman, T.L.; Schmidt, E.L. Creating an Inclusive Playground for Children of All Abilities: West Fork Playground in
Cincinnati, Ohio. Child. Youth Environ. 2017,27, 124–137. [CrossRef]
32.
Brown, D.; Ross, T.; Leo, J.; Buliung, R.; Shirazipour, C.H.; Latimer, A.E.; Arbour-Nicitopoulos, K.P. A Scoping Review of
Evidence-Informed Recommendations for Designing Inclusive Playgrounds. Front. Rehabil. Sci.
2021
,2, 3. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
33.
Moore, A.; Lynch, H.; Boyle, B. Can Universal Design Support Outdoor Play, Social Participation, and Inclusion in Public
Playgrounds? A Scoping Review. Disabil. Rehabil. 2020,44, 3304–3325. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34.
Woolley, H. Now Being Social: The Barrier of Designing Outdoor Play Spaces for Disabled Children. Child. Soc.
2012
,27, 448–458.
[CrossRef]
35.
Lynch, H.; Moore, A.; Edwards, C.; Horgan, L. Advancing Play Participation for All: The Challenge of Addressing Play Diversity
and Inclusion in Community Parks and Playgrounds. Br. J. Occup. Ther. 2020,83, 107–117. [CrossRef]
36.
Wenger, I.; Schulze, C.; Lundström, U.; Prellwitz, M. Children’s Perceptions of Playing on Inclusive Playgrounds: A Qualitative
Study. Scand. J. Occup. Ther. 2021,28, 136–146. [CrossRef]
37.
McKenzie, T.L.; Cohen, D.A.; Sehgal, A.; Williamson, S.; Golinelli, D. System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities
(SOPARC): Reliability and Feasibility Measures. J. Phys. Act Health 2016,3, S208–S222. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38.
McKenzie, T.L.; Cohen, D.A. SOPARC (System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities): Description and Procedures
Manual. J. Phys. Act. Health 2006,3, S208–S222. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39.
Pleson, E.; Nieuwendyk, L.M.; Lee, K.K.; Chaddah, A.; Nykiforuk, C.I.J.; Schopflocher, D. Understanding Older Adults’ Usage of
Community Green Spaces in Taipei, Taiwan. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014,11, 1444–1464. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40.
Chung-Do, J.J.; Davis, E.; Lee, S.; Jokura, Y.; Choy, L.; Maddock, J.E. An Observational Study of Physical Activity in Parks in
Asian and Pacific Islander Communities in Urban Honolulu, Hawaii, 2009. Prev. Chronic Dis. 2011,8, A107. [PubMed]
41.
Maxwell, L.; Mitchell, M.; Evans, G. Effects of Play Equipment and Loose Parts on Preschool Children’s Outdoor Play Behavior:
An Observational Study and Design Intervention. Child. Youth Environ. 2008,18, 36–63.
42.
ADA National Network. Information, Guidance, and Training on the Americans with Disabilities Act; ADA National Network: Seattle,
WA, USA, 2019.
43.
Koo, T.K.; Li, M.Y. A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. J. Chiropr.
Med. 2016,15, 155–163. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44.
Cohen, D.A.; Setodji, C.; Evenson, K.R.; Ward, P.; Lapham, S.; Hillier, A.; McKenzie, T.L. How Much Observation Is Enough?
Refining the Administration of SOPARC. J. Phys. Act Health 2011,8, 1117–1123. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45.
Rodriguez-Ayllon, M.; Cadenas-Sánchez, C.; Estévez-López, F.; Muñoz, N.E.; Mora-Gonzalez, J.; Migueles, J.H.; Molina-García, P.;
Henriksson, H.; Mena-Molina, A.; Martínez-Vizcaíno, V.; et al. Role of Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior in the Mental
Health of Preschoolers, Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sport. Med.
2019
,49, 1383–1410.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
46.
ParticipACTION. Lost & Found: Pandemic-Related Challenges and Opportunities for Physical Activity. The 2022 ParticipACTION Report
Card on Physical Activity for Children and Youth; ParticipACTION: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2022.
47.
ParticipACTION. The Role of the Family in the Physical Activity, Sedentary and Sleep Behaviours of Children and Youth. The 2020
ParticipACTION Report Card on Physical Activity for Children and Youth; ParticipACTION: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2020.
48.
Colley, R.C.; Garriguet, D.; Janssen, I.; Craig, C.L.; Clarke, J.; Tremblay, M.S. Physical Activity of Canadian Children and Youth:
Accelerometer Results from 2007–2009 Canadian Health Measures Survey. Health Rep. 2011,22, 15. [PubMed]
49.
Shriver, L.H.; Harrist, A.W.; Page, M.; Hubbs-Tait, L.; Moulton, M.; Topham, G. Differences in Body Esteem by Weight Status,
Gender, and Physical Activity among Young Elementary School-Aged Children. Body Image
2013
,10, 78–84. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
50.
Foster, C.; Moore, J.B.; Singletary, C.R.; Skelton, J.A. Physical Activity and Family-Based Obesity Treatment: A Review of Expert
Recommendations on Physical Activity in Youth. Clin. Obes. 2018,8, 68–79. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
51.
Dyment, J.; O’connell, T.S. The Impact of Playground Design on Play Choices and Behaviors of Pre-School Children. Child. Geogr.
2013,11, 263–280. [CrossRef]
52.
Reimers, A.K.; Knapp, G. Playground Usage and Physical Activity Levels of Children Based on Playground Spatial Features.
J. Public Health 2017,25, 661–669. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 13648 16 of 16
53.
Fernelius, C.L. Evidence-Based Practices for the Design of Inclusive Playgrounds Evidence-Based Practices for the Design of
Inclusive Playgrounds That Support Peer Interactions Among Children with All Abilities That Support Peer Interactions Among
Children with All Abili. Ph.D. Thesis, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA, 2017.
54.
Yantzi, N.M.; Young, N.L.; Mckeever, P. Children’s Geographies the Suitability of School Playgrounds for Physically Disabled
Children. Child. Geogr. 2010,8, 65–78. [CrossRef]
55. Steinfeld, E.; Maisel, J. Universal Design: Creating Inclusive Environments; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012.
56.
Barbour, A.C. The Impact of Playground Design on the Play Behaviors of Children with Differing Levels of Physical Competence.
Early Child. Res. Q. 1999,14, 75–98. [CrossRef]
57.
Czalczynska-Podolska, M. The Impact of Playground Spatial Features on Children’s Play and Activity Forms: An Evaluation of
Contemporary Playgrounds’ Play and Social Value. J. Environ. Psychol 2014,38, 132–142. [CrossRef]
58.
Garner, B.P.; Bergen, D. Play Development from Birth to Age Four. In Play from Birth to Twelve: Contexts, Perspectives, and Meanings;
Taylor & Francis: Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, 2006; pp. 3–12.
59.
Evans, G.W.; Kliewer, W.; Martin, J. The Role of the Physical Environment in the Health and Well-Being of Children. In Series
in Applied Psychology: Social Issues and Questions. New Directions in Health Psychology Assessment; Hemisphere Publishing Corp.:
London, UK, 1991; pp. 127–157.
60.
Oke, A.; Middle, G.J. Planning Practice & Research Planning Playgrounds to Facilitate Children’s Pretend Play: A Case Study of
New Suburbs in Perth Western Australia. Plan. Pract. Res. 2015,31, 99–117. [CrossRef]
61. Nicholson, S. How NOT to Cheat Children. Landsc. Archit. 1971,4, 30–34.
62. Wardle, F. Supporting constructive play in the wild. Child Care Inf. Exch. 2000,5, 26–29.
63.
Pawlikowska-Piechotka, A. Child-Friendly Urban Environemnt and Playgrounds in Warsaw. Open House Int.
2011
,36, 98–110.
[CrossRef]
64.
Prellwitz, M.; Skär, L. Usability of Playgrounds for Children with Different Abilities. Occup. Ther. Int.
2007
,14, 144–155. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
65.
Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. Disability in Canada: A 2006 Profile; Human Resources and Skills Development
Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2006.
66.
Sterman, J.; Villeneuve, M.; Spencer, G.; Wyver, S.; Beetham, K.S.; Naughton, G.; Tranter, P.; Ragen, J.; Bundy, A. Creating Play
Opportunities on the School Playground: Educator Experiences of the Sydney Playground Project. Aust. Occup. Ther. J.
2020
,67,
62–73. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
