Content uploaded by Nicole Yantzi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nicole Yantzi on Aug 24, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [Laurentian University]
On: 15 November 2012, At: 13:33
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Children's Geographies
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cchg20
The suitability of school playgrounds
for physically disabled children
N. M. Yantzi a , N. L. Young b & P. Mckeever c
a Department of Geography, Laurentian University, Sudbury,
Ontario, Canada
b School of Rural and Northern Health, Laurentian University,
Sudbury, Ontario, Canada
c Bloorview Kids Rehab Research Institute and Lawrence S.
Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Canada
Version of record first published: 08 Feb 2010.
To cite this article: N. M. Yantzi, N. L. Young & P. Mckeever (2010): The suitability of school
playgrounds for physically disabled children, Children's Geographies, 8:1, 65-78
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14733281003650984
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-
conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
The suitability of school playgrounds
for physically disabled children
N.M. Yantzi
a
, N.L. Young
b
and P. Mckeever
c
a
Department of Geography, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada;
b
School of Rural
and Northern Health, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada;
c
Bloorview Kids
Rehab Research Institute and Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of
Toronto, Canada
To participate in most educational and social experiences of childhood, many disabled children require
both technological and human supports, in accessible and suitable environments. In Canada, inclusive
education policies and practices increase the likelihood that interior classroom spaces are appropriately
accommodating, yet pay little attention to exterior school spaces such as playgrounds. As a result many
playground attributes contribute significantly to the socio-spatial exclusion and marginalization of
physically disabled children. In this study accessibility audits of five publicly funded school playgrounds
in Toronto, Canada were conducted. The organization of space, equipment design and landscape
characteristics revealed that the rights to full participation are constrained in this important space of childhood.
Keywords: children; disabilities; playgrounds; schools; exclusion
Introduction
Play is a crucial part of children’s mastery of physical, social and intellectual skills (Dunn 2001,
Cole-Hamilton et al. 2002). Hence, increasing attention is being paid to children’s play oppor-
tunities and experiences, and the range of spaces where play occurs (Armitage 2001, Hart 2002,
Thompson and Philo 2004, Harker 2005, Ferre et al. 2006). Children’s geographers have
explored children’s experiences of play spaces (see Tranter and Malone 2004, Dyment 2007,
Veitch 2007) and the everyday spaces occupied by disabled children (see Holt 2003, 2004);
however, there is a paucity of research that connects these two areas. The purpose of the
study reported here was to examine the suitability
1
of a small sample of public school
playgrounds for physically disabled children.
2
Public school playgrounds are important spaces in children’s daily geographies in terms of the
amount of time spent and the activities that occur within them. Ontario school children spend
one-quarter of the school day on playgrounds including before school, at recess and during
lunch time. Playground activities can promote physical and emotional health and social
well-being. More specifically, playgrounds provide opportunities for the development and main-
tenance of: fine and gross motor physical skills, physical stamina; and social interactions. They
constitute spaces where children learn to share, work collaboratively, be empathetic to others,
Children’s Geographies
Vol. 8, No. 1, February 2010, 65 – 78
Corresponding author. Department of Geography, Laurentian University, 935 Ramsey Lake Road, Sudbury Ontario,
Canada P3E 2C6. Email: nyantzi@laurentian.ca
ISSN 1473-3285 print/ISSN 1473-3277 online
#2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/14733281003650984
http://www.informaworld.com
Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 13:33 15 November 2012
and take responsibility for their actions. Through active trial and error they develop cognitive,
creative sensory, problem solving and perceptual skills (Brett et al. 1993, Brown 1994,
Moyles 1994, Smith 1994). According to Gagen (2000, p. 213) such ‘learning environments
are often the spaces through which children become aware of and begin producing social
identities that circulate through broader social space’. Playgrounds represent an important
space where children are able to congregate in groups, often without direct adult surveillance.
Therefore, participating fully in playground activities has wide reaching effects that extend
beyond this space and beyond childhood. Given these benefits, children who are excluded
from playgrounds are at risk for negative social, learning and health consequences (Hughes
2001, Brown 2003, Poulsen and Ziviani 2004). Both the physical and social environments of
playgrounds can contribute to the exclusion of physically disabled children (Dunn and Moore
2005, Woolley et al. 2005).
Exclusion from playgrounds occurs through different mechanisms, most of which are neither
intentional nor recognized as exclusionary. Exclusion occurs through the operationalization of
policies, or by virtue of the types of equipment and surfaces that are used. Many surfaces that
make playgrounds safer for non-disabled children such as sand are problematic spaces for
children with mobility impairments. Playgrounds are not discussed in current accessibility
legislation in Canada (Ontarians with Disabilities Act, ODA 2001); Accessibility for Ontarians
with Disabilities Act (AODA 2005), the United Kingdom (Special Educational Needs and
Disability Act 2001, Disability Discrimination Act 2005) or the United States (Americans
with Disabilities Act 1990, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 2004). Documents
from the United Kingdom (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 2003) and the United
States (US Access Board 2005) contain suggested guidelines for accessible playgrounds and
establish an important first step. However, the guidelines and minimum accessibility standards
were developed after the original legislation was passed. Another concern is that the guidelines
in both countries only cover new play spaces not existing ones and are ‘not backed up by money
for play provision’ (Dunn and Moore 2005, p. 337).
Writing about social and organizational practices pertinent to disabled children on primary
school playgrounds Woolley et al. (2006, p. 310) state that ‘[A]n analysis of the playground
spaces themselves, and how the design and management of them, might be understood to influ-
ence the inclusion of disabled children would be more suited to being a topic of a paper of its
own’. In this paper we take up this challenge and focus specifically on the policy and physical
environments of primary school playgrounds. The research objective is to examine how the
design and organization of the physical space of school playgrounds shape their suitability for
physically disabled children. Grounded in the concepts of socio-spatial inclusion and exclusion
and the social experience of play, we examined the underlying ablest ideologies, representations
and organization of space in school playgrounds. The paper is organized into four main sections.
In section one we review the literature domains of socio-spatial inclusion and exclusion and the
social experience of play. The policy context of playground suitability for physically disabled
children is examined in section two. In section three and four we describe the research design
and methods and findings. In section five we reflect on the implications and key contributions
of the research.
Socio-spatial inclusion and exclusion
Sibley (1995, p. x) states that the role of human geography is to interrogate ‘the assumptions of
inclusion and exclusion which are implicit in the design of places and spaces’. Spaces can be
interpreted as inclusionary or exclusionary as a function of occupants’ subjective experiences
of belonging. The sense of belonging or not belonging is shaped by practices, policies, construc-
tions, assumptions, values, and priorities that influence how spaces are designed and organized
66 N.M. Yantzi et al.
Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 13:33 15 November 2012
and how spaces function. Assumptions, values and priorities are intertwined with space so
that ‘[F]ar from being neutral and functional in a purely material sense, buildings [components
of the built environment] play an essential role as ‘spaces of social reproduction’ and in
regulating social and bodily relationships’ (Armstrong 2003, p. 81). For example, because shop-
ping centers are socially constructed as spaces of consumerism, non consuming groups or
individuals such as large numbers of youth or the homeless are often removed or made to
feel out-of-place. The decisions that delimit preferred users and uses are based on hierarchical
power relationships.
The playground, as a built environment, is ‘an integral element in the production of social life,
conditioning activities and creating opportunities according to the distribution of power in the
socio-spatial system’ (Sibley 1995, p. 76). This power is manifested in the control of space
which functions to set apart groups that challenge the usual effects and conditions of society.
Playgrounds can be thought of as controlled spaces because, until very recently, children
have had little influence in their design and because they do not equally afford play opportunities
to all children.
Spaces are socially constructed and materially designed and organized to keep disabled
people ‘in their place’ (Kitchin 1998, p. 345). Segregated schools and classrooms are expli-
citly designed to separate children with cognitive, emotional, physical and sensory differences
from non-disabled children. Spaces function as ‘social texts that convey to disabled people
that they are out of place’ (Kitchin 1998, p. 345) by eliciting feelings of not belonging
through their organization and design. Despite wide spread integration of disabled children
in publicly funded school systems, most school playgrounds are spaces built for non-
disabled children where the differences between able-bodied and disabled children are
‘played out’.
The social experience of play
Brown (1994) justifies the importance of school playgrounds for all children using four criteria.
Firstly, children do not experience the same intensity of surveillance in playgrounds as they do in
classrooms. Secondly, since many other types of contemporary play spaces such as streets, parks
and fields are considered risky, playgrounds, may represent the only space where children are
able to congregate in small and large groups without direct surveillance but with relative
safety. Thirdly, they enable children to gain experience in selecting activities and finally, they
allow children to master their current realities through experimentation. Although play activities
that occur in school playgrounds are important, attributes of the physical and social environment
influence the play opportunities that are available. In addition to personal factors such as age and
gender, and cultural factors such as rules; environmental and spatial factors influence children’s
choices of play activities (Brown 1994).
In research interviews, disabled children have described school playgrounds as spaces where
they experience tremendous isolation (Lewis 1995, Prellwitz and Tamm 1999, Poulsen and
Ziviani 2004, Woolley et al. 2005). Prellwitz and Tamm (1999) found that there were many
ways that disabled children were excluded from playgrounds. Common surface materials like
sand and gravel were very problematic because they prohibited the effective use of mobility
devices. Children who could move through the playground in their wheelchair said that they
could not actually play in the space.
Other barriers to play include: (1) school organizational arrangements such as scheduling
therapy sessions during recess; (2) lack of staff trained to assist students with play activities;
and (3) peers’ negative behaviors such as bullying (Dunn and Moore 2005, Woolley et al.
2005, 2006). Addressing these barriers means focusing on the social experience of play.
Dunn and Moore (2005) did so and found that misunderstandings of disability, lack of
Children’s Geographies 67
Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 13:33 15 November 2012
knowledge about the benefits of improved accessibility, concerns about safety, and lack of
funding are barriers that need to be addressed.
The core principles of designing and promoting inclusive play center on the physical design
and organization of both the overall space and the micro-spaces within the playgrounds. Shaw
(1987) posits that the environment should be unified such that the various parts are connected to
ensure the flow of play. In other words, play spaces should be seen in terms of the whole space
rather than isolated pieces of equipment. There must be diverse spaces to support rich patterns of
play behavior to support fantasy and to stimulate different physical, social, and intellectual skills
(Shaw 1987, Brett et al. 1993, Smith 1994). For example swings are associated with the primary
activity of swinging, slides with sliding, other types of equipment with rocking, and water tables
and sand boxes with manipulation. Different components provide opportunities for varied play
experiences and can be based on a single activity or part of a broader play experience. A com-
posite play structure consists of two or more play structures that are linked to create one unit that
provides more than one type of play opportunity (US Access Board 2005). In inclusive
playgrounds ‘[A]ll children do not need to access play spaces in the same way but they are
all fundamentally entitled to go out and play’ (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 2003, p. 3).
The policy context
In order to evaluate the physical environment of school playgrounds in Toronto, Ontario, Canada
we examined how various policies shape the suitability of this space for physically disabled chil-
dren. The policy context includes provincial accessibility legislation (ODA 2001, AODA 2005),
and documents from the Toronto District School Board (TDSB). According to the ODA 2001
school boards must develop an accessibility plan to ‘address the identification, removal and
prevention of barriers to persons with disabilities in the organization’s by-laws, if any, and its
policies, practices and services’ (Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2001, c.32, s.15 (2)).
However, what is meant by policies, practices and services is left to the discretion of school
boards. A spokesperson for the TDSB stated that ‘At this time the TDSB accessibility plan
does not address school playgrounds’ (TDSB Accessibility Working Group, personal communi-
cation, 27 February 2006). The Accessibility Directorate of Ontario, the directorate responsible
for educating people on accessibility issues and the provisions of provincial accessibility legis-
lation, does consider playgrounds to be included in the ODA requirement above. Thus, the lack
of explicit mention of school playgrounds in the accessibility legislation has created the potential
for different interpretations of accessibility requirements.
The TDSB accessibility plans and survey provides evidence that interior and exterior spaces
are held to different standards with regard to the identification of barriers. Almost all of the ident-
ified barriers in the 2005 – 2006 accessibility plan focus on interior spaces such as classrooms,
libraries, cafeterias and administrative offices. Lack of accessible parking spaces and entrance-
ways are the only outdoors barriers which are identified. Playground barriers are not addressed at
all, and hence, no recommendations are made to improve their accessibility. The invisibility of
playgrounds in TDSB accessibility policies severely limits the board’s goal of providing ‘learn-
ing and working environments that are accessible to all people, regardless of age or ability’ and
prevents disabled children from being able to ‘participate and be included as fully as possible, in
all activities curricular and co-curricular, of all our school communities’ (TDSB 2006, p. 12).
In contrast, a TDSB (2004) document entitled Transforming the schoolyard: How local school
communities design and build their playground learning environments, establishes criteria for
exemplary playgrounds. An exemplary playground ‘must offer to all children, including those
with special needs, as full a range of experiences as possible within a play environment of differ-
ent types of play spaces and equipment’ (TDSB 2004, p. 7, emphasis added). The obligatory
language such as the use of the word ‘must’ instead of the word ‘may’ represents a promising
68 N.M. Yantzi et al.
Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 13:33 15 November 2012
step forward. However, it is important to note that this document is not a policy; these criteria are
suggested recommendations. These recommendations are not enforced and funding is not man-
dated. Furthermore, the criteria refer to exemplary rather than all playgrounds. The italicized
section of the longer excerpt reflects a discretionary tone. This raises questions concerning
who determines what is possible and what factors are involved in these decisions. The accessi-
bility plan of the TDSB states that barriers will be addressed ‘to the best of the Board’s fiscal
means’ (TDSB 2006, p. 13). Therefore, although the Transforming the Schoolyard document
includes playgrounds as learning environments, the lack of minimum standards, the weak
language used in the recommendations, and lack of fiscal resources devoted to playground acces-
sibility means that few playgrounds will be exemplary. Examination of the policy context shows
that school playgrounds are largely invisible spaces which are not a priority in terms of barrier
identification and amelioration. The marginal position of playgrounds in accessibility policies
and plans underscores the importance of examining their physical design and organization.
Research setting and design
This study was conducted in playgrounds of TDSB schools. This board has jurisdiction over the
largest student body in Canada and is among the largest in North America. In 2007, 177,262 chil-
dren were enrolled in grades one to eight and about 400 physically disabled students were
enrolled in 10 designated elementary or secondary schools (TDSB 2007). These designated
schools are spread across the large geographic region of the TDSB and are selected based on
the extent to which they are physically accessible and their potential to be modified to
improve physical access. Since only two percent of TDSB schools are suitable for physically
disabled children, such children rarely attend their neighborhood schools. Five playgrounds
were purposefully selected from schools that were currently designated sites or were scheduled
to become designated sites for physically disabled children. Since these playgrounds are found at
the most accessible schools in Toronto they should stand the best chance of being exemplary.
The playgrounds varied according to geographic location, socio-economic status of the
surrounding area, and age of the school building (see Table 1).
Table 1. School characteristics of sampled playgrounds.
School
identifier
Number of
students Building age Selection criteria for study
A 150 1958 Proposed designated site,
School profile states ‘offers complete physical
access including a totally accessible
playground’
B 430 1999 Designated site,
At least one physically disabled student is
attending
C 464 1951 Proposed designated site,
School profile states ‘our school is a barrier-free
facility’
D 809 Combination of two schools
(one built in 1926 and the other
built in 1966)
Designated site,
School profile states ‘is accessible for the
disabled with elevators in both buildings’
E 700 1974 School profile states that offers special education
programs and services for students with
physical disabilities
Children’s Geographies 69
Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 13:33 15 November 2012
Data collection
Dunn and Moore (2005) state that in addition to enabling access, playgrounds, should enable the
‘social experience of play’ (p. 341). In inclusive play spaces ‘disabled children and their non-
disabled peers feel comfortable being together in the ways they choose’ (Dunn et al. 2004).
The term ‘playability’, as used by the Ontario Park’s Association (OPA), effectively connects
the tenets of socio-spatial inclusion and the social experience of play. The OPA differentiates
between a playable and an accessible playground. An accessible playground, such as one that
has a ramp to a play structure but which lacks suitable play opportunities, is not necessarily play-
able for all children. A playspace exhibits playability if it meets two essential objectives. First is
that children must be ‘able to play together at a variety of activities’ and secondly ‘“accessible”
play events are not set apart from other activities and structures’ (OPA 2001, p. 10). Therefore a
playable/inclusive playground is one in which a variety of play opportunities are provided for
disabled children and there is an intermingling of accessible and inaccessible play components.
The Playability Audit was developed by the OPA based on consultations with disabled chil-
dren and adults, and key stakeholders in the park industry, universal design, community service
organizations as well as feedback from participants who attended five Playability workshops
(OPA 2001). While maintaining the principles underlying this instrument we modified the Play-
ability audit in three main ways. First, items were removed pertaining to children with other
types of disabilities. Second, the original playability audit was designed to be used in community
playgrounds. We removed items such as parking that were not pertinent and added items such as
the path from the school to the playground that were. Finally we added items concerning the
diversity of spaces found in playgrounds to address Shaw’s (1987) critique about focusing on
equipment and not the variety of different spaces found in playgrounds. Examples include
large play and social gathering spaces such as fields, small play and meeting spaces such as
platforms or berms, hard surface play areas for sports and games, sheltered spaces such as
playhouses, natural learning spaces such as gardens, and quiet spaces for children who prefer
to play quietly or observe others (see TDSB 2004).
Research assistants conducted the audits in five school playgrounds. The in-depth audits
covered the pathway to the playground, different types of play equipment and activities,
layout and design, surfacing and boarders around the perimeter of the playground. The suit-
ability of the equipment was evaluated by whether a physically disabled child could use it.
Data was collected for equipment that was elevated and at ground-level. A play component
can offer a single stand-alone play opportunity such as a slide, or a composite play component
offers a number of play opportunities. An elevated play component cannot be accessed from the
ground and therefore, many physically disabled children require ramps or transfer systems to
reach this component. A ground-level component does not require ramps or transfer systems
to access it. Data was collected on the number of elevated and ground-level play components,
how the elevated components were reached, and if a ramp was used the slope and width require-
ments were checked. In addition to the audits photographs and videotapes of key barriers were
taken and detailed maps of the playgrounds which depicted suitable and non-suitable spaces
were made. Once an audit was completed the data was entered into an Excel spreadsheet.
Data analysis
The analysis is based on a comparison of the data collected (actual) and the required criteria for
accessible playgrounds (required). An Excel spreadsheet was used to count the play opportu-
nities in each playground distinguishing between the total, elevated, elevated reached via
ramp or transfer system, ground-level, and diversity of play type including swinging, sliding,
rocking and manipulative. These comprise the actual availability of play opportunities in the
70 N.M. Yantzi et al.
Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 13:33 15 November 2012
playground. The maps and audits were used to determine the total number of play spaces on the
playground, and the number that were suitable for physically disabled children. Suitability was
assessed based on the surface materials, topography and other significant barriers.
As shown in the policy context section, there are no Canadian accessibility requirements or
guidelines for school playgrounds. To examine the degree of suitability of the school play-
grounds we used the accessibility guidelines for play areas, including school playgrounds,
established by the United States (US) Access Board in 2000. These minimum accessibility
guidelines apply to the construction of new play areas and the alteration of existing play
areas. Since the sampled playgrounds are designated sites for physically disabled children we
postulated that they should meet these minimum standards. These accessibility guidelines
state the requirements for accessible playgrounds in terms of number of accessible elevated
and ground-level components and the diversity of types of play (see Table 2). These require-
ments depend on the number of elevated play components provided in the playground. The
required number of accessible elevated components was determined by dividing the total
number of elevated components by two and rounding up if necessary (US Access Board 2005).
Findings of the playability audits
Table 3 shows a comparison of the actual and required numbers of accessible elevated com-
ponents, ground-level components and different activities of ground-level components. The
numbers with an asterisk indicate playgrounds that did not meet the minimal requirements.
Only playground A met all the requirements and received a grade of 100%. Playground B
Table 2. Component requirements according to the US Access Board.
Number of elevated play
components provided
Minimum number of ground-level
components required to be on an
accessible route
Minimum number of different types of ground-
level play components required to be on an
accessible route
2–4 1 1
5–7 2 2
8–10 3 3
11–13 4 3
14–16 5 3
17–19 6 3
20–25 7 4
Source: US Access Board, 2005, p. 15.
Table 3. Analysis of playground accessibility.
Playground
identifier
Number of
elevated
components
Minimum number of
accessible elevated
components
Minimum number of
ground-level components
(based on number of
elevated components)
Minimum number of
different activities for
ground-level components
Required Actual Required Actual Required Actual
A 9 563735
B530
2523
C1160
43
33
D1470
52
32
E1050
32
31
Children’s Geographies 71
Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 13:33 15 November 2012
met two of the three requirements and received 66.6%. Playground C (one of three require-
ments), and D and E (none of the three requirements) received a failing grade. It is clear that
most of the playgrounds that we audited did not meet the minimal accessibility guidelines.
A major concern is that in four playgrounds there was a dominance of play opportunities that
used inaccessible elevated components. In terms of the total number of play components in
playground A physically disabled children could play with over 80% of the components, in
playground B and C they could play with 50% of the components, in playground D they
could play with 20% of the components, and in playground E they could play with 17% of
the components. The main barrier was that playgrounds B to E did not have ramps or transfer
systems to access elevated components. According to table three the number of accessible
elevated components was the most frequently unmet requirement as four of the five playgrounds
had none of this type of component.
Another concern was the imbalance between the amount of elevated and ground-level
components. Playground A and B met the requirement for minimum number of ground-level
components. Playground C had 11 elevated components and three ground-level components
and it should have had four. Playground D had the largest imbalance and was short three
ground-level components. Playground E was short one ground-level component. In addition
to the number of ground-level components it is also important to examine the diversity of activi-
ties provided by these components. Three of the playgrounds met this requirement (A,B,C).
Playground D required three different types of activities and only had two and playground E
required three different activities and only had one.
In addition to requirements concerning play components two major barriers observed in
the audited playgrounds were inappropriate surface materials and borders. Except for play-
ground C, all used woodchips or sand as ground cover and had prominent wooden borders
around their perimeters (see Figures 1 to 3). Children who require the use of mobility aids
would find it extremely difficult if not impossible to get into these playgrounds due to the
borders. If they can enter the spaces, moving around would be extremely difficult or impossible
due to the surface material. Playground A (Figure 4) used a poured in place rubber surface that
enabled the mobility of physically disabled children.
In summary, physically disabled children experience many barriers when getting into, moving
around and playing in school playgrounds. They cannot get in due to the wooden borders and
Figure 1. Playground E.
72 N.M. Yantzi et al.
Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 13:33 15 November 2012
they cannot move around because of the use of woodchips or sand as surface materials. Those
who do somehow enter cannot play with most of the play components due to a lack of ramps or
transfer systems. Additionally, most ground-level components lack the diversity of experiences
required for children to develop and maintain physical, social and intellectual skills.
Discussion
According to Dudek (2005, p. viii) indoor and outdoor school spaces represent ‘a true landscape
of childhood’. Our findings suggest that outdoor landscapes may not be part of some children’s
Figure 2. Playground D.
Figure 3. Playground C.
Children’s Geographies 73
Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 13:33 15 November 2012
daily geographies. The playability audits clearly demonstrate that four of the five playgrounds
that we studied did not meet the minimum requirements for accessibility, and identified
several barriers to disabled children’s participation.
It is disconcerting that all of the audited playgrounds were in schools which at the time of the
study or shortly after were designated schools for physically disabled children. This designation
means that these schools should be the most accessible and therefore, should be the example for
the school board. In some ways it is not surprising that only one of the studied playgrounds in
these designated schools met the minimum requirements. The policy context of school play-
grounds revealed their absence in accessibility policies and may at least partially explain our
findings. Armstrong (2003) contends that what is missing in policy texts is just as important
as what is present. She argues that ‘formal and written policy can be instruments of policy
making in terms of what they hide or suggest rather than what they appear to ‘lay down’ in
terms of principles and procedures’ (Armstrong 2003, p. 49). Accessibility standards for play-
grounds are absent in provincial accessibility policy documents which set the criteria which
school boards must meet in identifying and addressing barriers. As a result playgrounds are
low on the priority list of legitimate school accessibility issues.
The concept of socio-spatial exclusion reveals that spaces are closely associated with the
construction of identities and therefore the process of othering along with being social is also
inherently spatial (Armstrong 2003, Sibley 1995). Being excluded from spaces provokes
feelings of being different, abnormal and not belonging in disabled people (Kitchin 1998).
The playgrounds in this study had many features resulting in spatial othering and exclusion.
The wooden perimeter border surrounding four of the playgrounds provides a visual and struc-
tural message concerning who belongs and who does not belong. Other instances of spatial
othering include the use of inaccessible surface areas and the dominance of inaccessible elevated
play components.
The only playground that could be considered inclusive was situated in a completely segre-
gated school. This provides a unique example of Kitchin’s differentiation between spaces that
keep disabled people in and out of space. In the case of playground A it is part of a segregated
school which keeps disabled children in place, yet it is the only playground that does not keep
Figure 4. Playground A.
74 N.M. Yantzi et al.
Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 13:33 15 November 2012
disabled children out. Physically disabled children attending a segregated school were the only
ones that could have access to the social experience of play; however, they could not share this
experience with non-disabled children.
The four playgrounds in inclusive education settings did not provide physically disabled
children with social experiences of play. These playgrounds do not even begin to meet the
criteria for playability or suitability. In many of the playgrounds physically disabled children
can not get into the playgrounds, move around or play. This means that they may be physically
and socially set apart from their non-disabled peers. Physically disabled children could only play
with approximately 17 – 50% of the components. Thus, physically disabled children may be
limited in both the number of components that they can play with and the diversity of their
play experience. This could prevent them from learning important physical, social and emotional
life skills.
In Special Education and Accessibility documents, the TDSB uses language about partici-
pation that resembles that of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and
Health (ICF) in which participation is defined as ‘involvement in a life situation’ (World
Health Organization 2001). The objective of the ICF is to help identify barriers that limit the
participation of disabled people. The large volume of literature on play (e.g. Brett 1993,
Moyles 1994, Smith 1994, Cole-Hamilton et al. 2002, Hart 2002, Laris 2005) clearly demon-
strates that play and the spaces that support play are crucial life situations for all children.
The ICF also identifies environmental factors, including physical, social and attitudinal com-
ponents which restrict participation. The culmination of the invisibility of playgrounds in
policy documents, the large perimeter borders, inaccessible surface materials and lack of
playable equipment provide evidence that in Canada’s largest city, the policy and physical
environments of playgrounds restrict the participation of physically disabled children.
The type of surface material can be a considerable barrier to the social experience of play for
disabled children. The use of woodchip and sand surfaces reveals a conflict between assuring the
safety of able-bodied children and the mobility needs of physically disabled children. In Ontario,
playground surface materials must have a certain amount of flexibility so that when children fall
they are less likely to injure themselves (Canadian Standards Association 2007). The problem is
that flexible surfaces are difficult to walk on and present a challenge to using mobility devices
(Safe Kids Canada 2005). It is possible to have surfaces that ensure the safety and inclusion of all
children. A preferable type of surface material is poured in place rubber which is initially very
expensive and requires professional installation. Thus, while this type of material may be the
most suitable it is more costly for school boards to install.
Our research focused on evaluating the physical environments of school playgrounds for
physically disabled children. One limitation is that disabled children and their peers were not
asked about their experiences of participation. It is particularly important to depict this popu-
lation as active participants and negotiators of their daily spaces (Mulderij 1996). Future
researchers should use child-friendly qualitative methods with disabled children to examine
the impacts of inaccessible and exclusive playgrounds, the ways in which activities and nego-
tiations within playgrounds re-construct the spaces, and the strategies these children use to
resist and negotiate what are otherwise non-playable playgrounds.
Shaw (1987) critiques a sole emphasis on equipment and talks about the importance of a hol-
istic examination of playgrounds, including the various types of spaces that are present. Our dis-
cussion of the various types of inaccessible surfacing that is used goes beyond an inventory of
the equipment. Future research depicting the children as actors in the negotiation and reconstruc-
tion of playground spaces will illuminate the other types of activities and spaces that disabled
children use. We also recognize that playgrounds may not be suitable for children with other
types of disabilities (see Blakely et al. 1991 regarding children with visual impairments)
however; limited resources meant that we could only focus on physical disabilities.
Children’s Geographies 75
Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 13:33 15 November 2012
Conclusion
Our findings indicate that at least four Toronto playgrounds at designated schools for physically
disabled children fail to protect and support the spatial rights of disabled children. These rights
are protected by article 31 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which
recognizes the right of children to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to their
age, and have appropriate and equal opportunities for recreational and leisure activity (United
Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights 1989).
Documents from the United Kingdom (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 2003) and the
United States (US Access Board 2005) that contain suggested guidelines for accessible play-
grounds establish an important first step. However, there is a lack of inclusion of playgrounds
in accessibility policies in western nations such as Canada, the United Kingdom and the
United States. Thus, the guidelines and minimum accessibility standards for playgrounds
were developed after the original accessibility legislation was passed. This emphasizes the
need to advocate for the accessibility and inclusion of all spaces of childhood and for required
resources needed to improve the suitability of school playgrounds.
Addressing the exclusionary physical environments of school playgrounds has important
implications not just for disabled children and their families but communities in general.
Schools are important learning environments where, in addition to academics, children learn
and are exposed to attitudes and opinions concerning bodily differences. Giving all children
the opportunity to play together is an important step in redressing discrimination, marginaliza-
tion and exclusion. Inclusive play spaces help to promote and create inclusive communities.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the editors of the special issue and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback. This
research was supported by an Interdisciplinary Capacity Enhancement Grant from the Health Care, Technology and
Place Strategic Training Program funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The input of Dr Catherine
Schryer (University of Waterloo) strengthened this article. Invaluable research assistance was provided by Miyoshi
Kondo, Stephanie Bernston, and Sarah Wendorf.
Notes
1. Suitability goes beyond the concept of accessibility. It is possible for a space to be accessible but not suitable. For
example a playground may have a ramped entrance so it is accessible; however, if there are no play opportunities
once a child goes up the ramp then the playground is not suitable. Suitable playgrounds should also include a
diversity of play opportunities for all children.
2. While many children are born with individual impairments and conditions such as cerebral palsy and spina bifida it is
the physical, policy and social environments that erect barriers and disable children. In this research study we use the
term physically disabled children to refer to children who use mobility aids such as forearm crutches, canes, walkers
and wheelchairs.
References
Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), 2005. (c. 11).
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 1990. (c. 126).
Armitage, M., 2001. The ins and outs of school playground play: children’s use of ‘play places’. In: J.C. Bishop and
M. Curtis, eds. Play today in the primary school playground. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Armstrong, F., 2003. Spaced out: policy, difference and challenges of inclusive education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Blakely, K., Lang, M.A., and Hart, R., 1991. Getting in touch with play: Creating play environments for children with
visual impairments. New York: Lighthouse National Center for Vision and Child Development.
Brett, A., Moore, R.C., and Provenzo, E.F., 1993. The complete playground book. New York: Syracuse University Press.
76 N.M. Yantzi et al.
Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 13:33 15 November 2012
Brown, D., 1994. Play, the playground and culture of childhood. In: J. Moyles, ed. The excellence of play. Philadelphia,
PA: Open University Press.
Brown, F., ed., 2003. Playwork: theory and practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Canadian Standards Association, 2007. CAN/CSA-Z614-07 Children’s playspaces and equipment. Etobicoke: Canadian
Standards Association.
Cole-Hamilton, I., Harrop, A., and Street, C., 2002. Making the case for play – gathering the evidence. London: National
Children’s Bureau.
Disability Discrimination Act, 2005 (c. 13).
Dudek, M., 2005. Introduction. In: M. Dudek, ed. Children’s spaces. Oxford: Elsevier/Architectural Press.
Dunn, K., 2001. Child development and education: different experiences new voices. Sheffield: Philip Armstrong
Publications.
Dunn, K. and Moore, M., 2005. Developing accessible play space in the UK: a social model approach. Children, Youth
and Environments, 15 (1), 331–354.
Dunn, K., Moore, M., and Murray, P., 2004. Research on developing accessible play space: final report [online]. London:
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Available from: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/
pdf/158484.pdf [Accessed 10 June 2008].
Dyment, J.E., 2007. Active by design: promoting physical activity through school ground greening. Children’s
Geographies, 5 (4), 463–477.
Ferre, M.B., Guitart, A.O., and Ferret, M.P., 2006. Children and playgrounds in Mediterranean cities. Children’s
Geographies, 4 (2), 173–183.
Gagen, E., 2000. Playing the part: performing gender in America’s playgrounds. In: S. Holloway and G. Valentine, eds.
Children’s geographies. London: Routledge.
Harker, C., 2005. Playing and affective time-spaces. Children’,s, 3 (1), 47–62.
Hart, R., 2002. Containing children: some lessons on planning for play from New York City. Environment & Urbaniz-
ation, 14 (2), 135–148.
Holt, L., 2003. (Di,sabling children in primary school micro-spaces: geographies of inclusion and exclusion. Health and
Place, 9 (2), 119–128.
Holt, L., 2004. Children with, -body differences: performing disability in primary school classrooms. Children’s Geogra-
phies, 2 (2), 219–236.
Hughes, B., 2001. Evolutionary playwork and reflective analytical practice. London: Routledge.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2004.
Kitchin, R., 1998. ‘Out of place,’ ‘knowing one’s place: spaces, power and the exclusion of disabledpeople’. Disability &
Society, 13 (3), 343–356.
Laris, M., 2005. Designing for play. In: M. Dudek, ed. Children’s spaces. Oxford: Elsevier/Architectural Press.
Lewis, A., 1995. Views of children in segregated special education. New York: Routledge.
Moyles, J., 1994. Introduction. In: J. Moyles, ed. The excellence of play. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Mulderij, K.J., 1996. Research into the lifeworld of physically disabled children. Child: Care, Health and Development,
22 (5), 311–322.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2003. Developing accessible play space – a good practice guide. London: Office of
the Deputy Prime Minister.
Ontarians with Disabilities Act (ODA), 2001. (c. 32).
Ontario Parks Association (OPA), 2001. Playability tool kit: building accessible playspaces. Hamilton: Ontario Parks
Association.
Poulsen, A.A. and Ziviani, J.M., 2004. Can I play too? Physical activity engagement of children with development
coordination disorders. The Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 71 (2), 100–107.
Prellwitz, M. and Tamm, M., 1999. Attitudes of key persons to accessibility problems in playgrounds for children with
restricted mobility: a study in a medium-sized municipality in Northern Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of
Occupational Therapy, 6, 166–173.
Safe Kids Canada, 2005. Comparison of playground surfacing materials [online]. Available from: http:// www.sickkids.
ca/SKCForParents/custom/PlygrndSurfacingComparisonChartNov05.pdf [Accessed 10 June 2008].
Shaw, L.G., 1987. Designing playgrounds for able and disabled children. In: C.S. Weinstein and T.G. David, eds. Spaces
for children: the built environment and child development. New York: Plenum Press.
Sibley, D., 1995. Geographies of exclusion. London: Routledge.
Smith, K.P., 1994. Play and the uses of play. In: J. Moyles, ed. The excellence of play. Philadelphia, PA: Open University
Press.
Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 (c. 10).
Thompson, J. and Philo, C., 2004. Playful spaces? A social geography of children’s play in Livingston, Scotland.
Children’s Geographies, 2 (1), 111–130.
Children’s Geographies 77
Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 13:33 15 November 2012
Toronto District School Board (TDSB), 2003. Special education plan [online]. http:// www.tdsb.on.ca/_site/ViewItem.
asp?siteid¼94&menuid¼325&pageid ¼252 [Accessed 10 June 2005].
Toronto District School Board (TDSB), 2004. Transforming the schoolyard: how local school communities design and
build their playground learning environments. Toronto: Toronto District School Board.
Toronto District School Board (TDSB), 2005a. Annual accessibility plan for the Toronto District School Board: 2004 –
2005 [online]. Toronto: Toronto District School Board. Available from: http:// www.tdsb.on.ca/_site/ViewItem.
asp?siteid¼94&menuid¼317&pageid ¼245 [Accessed 15 June 2005].
Toronto District School Board (TDSB), 2005b. Special education plan [online]. http:// www.tdsb.on.ca/_site/ViewItem.
asp?siteid¼94&menuid¼325&pageid ¼252 [Accessed 10 June 2008].
Toronto District School Board (TDSB), 2006. Annual accessibility plan for the Toronto District School Board: 2005 –
2006 [online]. Toronto: Toronto District School Board. Available from: http://www.tdsb.on.ca/wwwdocuments/
programs/special_education/docs/AccessibilityJune06.pdf [Accessed 12 June 2008].
Toronto District School Board (TDSB), 2007. Facts and figures [online]. Available from: http:// www.tdsb.on.ca/_site/
ViewItem.asp?siteid¼302&menuid¼3654&pageid¼3049 [Accessed 10 June 2008].
Tranter, P.J. and Malone, K., 2004. Geographies of environmental learning: an exploration of children’s use of school
grounds. Children’s Geographies, 2 (1), 131–155.
United Nations High Commission for Human Rights, 1989. Convention on the Rights of the Child. Geneva: UNCHR.
US Access Board, 2005. Accessible play areas: a summary of accessibility guidelines for play areas [online]. Available
from: http://www.access-board.gov/play/guide/guide.pdf [Accessed 10 June 2008].
Veitch, J., 2007. Children’s perceptions of the use of public open spaces for active free-play. Children’s Geographies,5
(4), 409–422.
Woolley, H., Armitage, M., Bishop, J., Curtis, M., and Ginsborg, J., 2005. Inclusion of disabled children in primary
school playgrounds. London: National Children’s Bureau and Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Woolley, H., Armitage, M., Bishop, J., Curtis, M., and Ginsborg, J., 2006. Going outside together: good practice with
respect to the inclusion of disabled children in primary school playgrounds. Children’s Geographies, 4 (3), 303–318.
World Health Organization, 2001. International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: World
Health Organization.
78 N.M. Yantzi et al.
Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 13:33 15 November 2012
