RESEARCH ARTICLE

Playground Usability: What Do Playground Users Say?

Jacquie Ripat1*† & Pam Becker2
1
Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Manitoba, Canada
2
Rehabilitation Centre for Children, Canada

Abstract
Play, specifically outdoor play, is crucial for a child’s development. However, not all playgrounds are designed to
provide usable space for children with disabilities. The aim of the study was to gain an understanding of the experi-
ences of playground use for children with disabilities and their caregivers. Using a qualitative descriptive design,
interviews were conducted with children with disabilities and their caregivers. Interview transcripts were reviewed
and coded. The analysis process resulted in three overarching themes. Playground Experiences addressed the sen-
sory experiences that children seek at playgrounds, the importance of creating environments that promote imagi-
native play and the need to provide an appropriate level of challenge. In the second theme, Playground Usability,
participants described barriers that prevent access and features that promote use. The third theme, Inclusivity, fo-
cused on equal access and the importance of providing options in design. The Person–Environment–Occupation
model was used to frame the findings and to identify practice and research recommendations. Outdoor play is a
key occupation of children, and occupational therapists have a role in promoting usable environments for all
children. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 10 November 2011; Revised 24 April 2012; Accepted 30 April 2012

Keywords
accessibility; playground; usability; inclusivity; disability

*Correspondence
Jacquie Ripat, Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Manitoba R131-771 McDermot Avenue, Winnipeg, MB, R3E 0T6,
Canada.
†
Email: ripatj@cc.umanitoba.ca

Published online 15 June 2012 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/oti.1331

Introduction International Play Association, 2010) and passive play op-

Play has been identified as a right of all children (Office of
the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights, 2002). It is not only crucial for a child’s develop-
ment (Titman, 1994; Isenberg and Quisenberry, 2002;
Stagnitti, 2004; Ginsburg, 2007), but it is also a key
occupation of children (Case-Smith, 2005; Miller and
Kuhaneck, 2008). In the past two decades, the literature
has highlighted a decrease in opportunities for all
children to play, with an increased focus on children’s in-
volvement in academics, scheduled activities (Isenberg
and Quisenberry, 2002; The USA Affiliate of the
portunities, such as playing computer and video games
(Burdette and Whitaker, 2005; Ginsburg, 2007; Turner
et al., 2009).
Although play can occur anywhere, community and
school playgrounds are common settings for children
to engage in play (Nabors et al., 2001, Rigby and Gaik,
2007). In playgrounds, children are able to develop
motor skills, take risks and push their limits, interact
with each other, learn social norms and values, and
discover their environment (Shaw, 1987; Fjortoft, 2001;
Isenberg and Quisenberry, 2002; Turner et al., 2009).

144 Occup. Ther. Int. 19 (2012) 144–153 © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Ripat and Becker
Over the past 20 years, there have been research
efforts undertaken to better understand how children
with disabilities play. The findings highlight that chil-
dren with physical disabilities engage in fewer activities
and interact less often with peers than other children
(Tamm and Skar, 2000). Furthermore, children with
disabilities are often excluded from, or restricted in,
play activities because of the physical barriers of play
structures and the surrounding environment (Law
et al., 1999; Tamm and Skar, 2000; Nabors et al.,
2001). In fact, some researchers have suggested that
playground design often does not meet the needs of
typically developing children, and few playgrounds
are accessible and usable for children with physical
disabilities (Prellwitz and Tamm, 1999; Prellwitz and
Tamm, 2000; Prellwitz et al., 2001; Veitch et al., 2006;
Prellwitz and Skar, 2007). When opportunities for play
by children with disabilities are limited, their develop-
ment falters behind other children (Missiuna and
Pollock, 1991; Tamm and Skar, 2000; McCarty and
Morress, 2009). Building play spaces that create oppor-
tunities for all children to play and develop their
skills with peers is essential (Tamm and Skar, 2000).
In recognition of the importance of environmental
factors in enabling or creating barriers to play, there
has been increased attention given to creating or
adapting play areas that facilitate participation and
inclusion (Letts et al., 2003). Accessible playgrounds have
been suggested as a means of providing children with
disabilities independence, easy access to play, and a safe,
challenging and fun environment by providing a play
area in which typically developing children and children
with disabilities can socialize, play and learn together
(Stout, 1988; Christoph, 1997). Universal design is a
specific design approach that promotes accessibility for
all individuals, regardless of ability (Iwarsson and Stahl,
2003). Universally designed playgrounds have been
identified as a means of addressing accessibility
inequalities and providing all children with greater op-
portunities to be physically active, socialize, play and
learn (Stout, 1988).
Usability is a functional concept that promotes
the ability to access and use the built environment
(Iwarsson and Stahl, 2003). Recently, occupational
therapists have focused not only on accessibility or
universal design but also on the inclusive concept of us-
ability (Prellwitz and Skar, 2006; Prellwitz and Skar
2007). Application of this concept suggests that chil-
dren should be able not only to access a space but also
Occup. Ther. Int. 19 (2012) 144–153 © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Playground Usability: What Do Playground Users Say?
to use the play space in the same way as other children
(Iwarsson and Stahl, 2003).
Thus, the purpose of this study was to add to our
understanding of the experience of playground use by
children with disabilities and their caregivers in one
geographical location. Ultimately, our aim was to
generate ideas that would improve the usability of
future playground constructions. This research report
addresses the experience aspect, whereas the specific
ideas generated are available in a report from the
first author upon request. The study was conducted
in Manitoba, Canada, which has a population of
approximately 1,240,000. Canada has an overall disabil-
ity rate estimated at 14% (Statistics Canada, 2008). In
Manitoba, school playgrounds are funded provincially
through school divisions, whereas community play-
grounds are generally funded through a combination of
municipal funding, grants and private donors.
Methods
As we were interested in gaining the thoughts, experi-
ences and meaning from the individuals who encoun-
ter a particular event or phenomenon (Creswell,
2003), qualitative inquiry was selected as the research
approach. Specifically, a qualitative descriptive design
as described by Sandelowski (2000, 2010) was used
to gain an in-depth understanding of the playground
experience for participants. By using qualitative de-
scription, a descriptive summary of the findings was
generated, predominate meanings and patterns in the
data were retrieved, and results were not subject to a
high level of interpretation. In addition, we drew from
the perspective of Burbank and Martins (2009) who
discussed how a more comprehensive understanding
of complex social phenomena can be gained by com-
bining learning from the individual (insider perspec-
tive) with an understanding at a macro or societal
perspective (outsider perspective). This combined
way of examining a phenomenon can be useful for
addressing social change (Burbank and Martins,
2009), as is the goal in the development of useable
public spaces.
Ethical approval to conduct the study was obtained
from the Health Research Ethics Board at the Univer-
sity of Manitoba, and all participants signed informed
consent prior to engaging in the interviews. Parental
consent was required for child participants, and assent
was requested from the child. Each study participant
145
Playground Usability: What Do Playground Users Say?
received a small honorarium to recognize their time
and commitment to the study.
Participants
Sampling occurred to recruit children with disabilities,
the children’s caregivers and other caregivers who
had a disability. Participants were selected that could
provide their perspective on playground experiences
and discuss features that impact the usability of a
playground by children with disabilities. Purposive
sampling methods were employed to ensure that
participants varied with respect to gender, age, nature
of disability and role (e.g. child playground user and
caregiver) and selected for their ability to provide rich,
detailed information (Patton, 2002). The final sample
size was determined by inductive analysis and category
saturation.
Procedures
A total of 20 participants were involved in 11 interviews
(Table I). Each interview consisted of one in-depth
interview session lasting from 30 to 90 minutes. All
interviews were digitally audio-recorded, and field notes
were completed after each interview to capture the
context of the interview and additional ideas. A semi-
structured question guide was used in each of the
interviews. Sample questions asked included the follow-
ing: “What do you love to do at the playground?” and
“What would you put in a playground if you built it?”
Prompts were used to explore and further understand
the reasons behind participant responses. Participants
were also offered the use of age-appropriate expressive
materials such as building blocks, clay, felt and miniature
Table I. Participant demographics
Interview number Interviewed
1 Child, mother, father and sibling
2 Mother
3 Father
4 Child and mother
5 Child and mother
6 Caregiver with a disability
7 Caregiver with a disability
8 Child, educational assistant and mother
9 Mother
10 Mother and father
11 Mother and father
146
Ripat and Becker
figures to depict their ideas about elements that they would
like to access in a playground (Dell Clark, 2011). Use of
the expressive materials encouraged participation from
children who were not able to communicate verbally,
prompted further discussion and ideas for playground
design, and engaged them in the research process.
Analysis
Interviews were transcribed verbatim, with personal
identifiers removed during transcription to maintain
participants’ anonymity. Content analysis (Graneheim
and Lundman, 2003) was used to inductively analyze
the data collected in this study. Two researchers
independently reviewed interview transcripts and coded
interview transcripts to identify key phrases, ideas and
concepts. Researchers then met to discuss and develop
consensus on the coding. The researchers worked to-
gether to cluster related codes into categories and then
to construct overarching themes from the emergent
categories. Interviews were analyzed singularly, as well
as across participants, to gain a sense of individual needs,
suggestions, and commonly expressed ideas and
patterns. The final analysis process resulted in the devel-
opment of three overarching themes. Finally, the induc-
tively derived themes were reviewed in light of
the Person–Environment–Occupation (P–E–O) model
described by Law et al. (1996). Thus, although the
findings of this study are presented using the words of
the individual participants, the overall themes derived
were contextualized and interpreted within a societal
perspective (Burbank and Martins, 2009).
Several methods were employed to ensure rigour in
this study. The use of various methods to collect
Gender of child Age Equipment and mobility
F 14 Manual wheelchair for all mobility
M 12 Independent
F 12 Manual wheelchair for all mobility
F 9 Manual wheelchair and walker
F 10 Wheelchair for all mobility (power and manual)
N/A N/A Wheelchair (power) and scooter
N/A N/A Manual wheelchair for all mobility
M 9 Wheelchair (power and manual)
M 15 Walks with assistance and mobility aid
F 12 Wheelchair manual
F 7 Mobility aid and manual wheelchair
Occup. Ther. Int. 19 (2012) 144–153 © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Ripat and Becker
data (interview and creative expression) added to the
credibility of findings (in particular from the child
participants). The varying perspectives sought through
the sampling methods (i.e. speaking with a variety of
users of playgrounds including children, parents and
caregivers) addressed triangulation (Law and McDermid,
2008). An audit trail was kept throughout the process
of analysis, and peer debriefing occurred between
researchers to ensure an accurate representation of the
data and consensus in analysis. The process was both
reflexive and interactive. Member checking occurred
with a summary of the analysis being returned to seven
of the 11 families to ensure accuracy.
Findings
Analysis of the interview data resulted in the develop-
ment of three primary themes. The first theme, Play-
ground Experiences, focused on the reasons why
children and families go to playgrounds and the types
of play that children and families sought while in that
environment. The second theme, Playground Usabil-
ity, addressed the functional use of playgrounds. Par-
ticipants discussed playground barriers they had
experienced and the ways that they or others had
attempted to overcome those barriers. The third
theme, Inclusivity, addressed the reasons why partici-
pants felt it was important that playgrounds were us-
able by all children.
Playground experiences
The importance of using the playground as a venue for
promoting child development in physical, emotional
and social realms was emphasized by participants. For
instance, parents identified the value of experiencing
movement when swinging and walking over moving
bridges, the opportunity to touch items consisting of
different textures and the sense of being up high. A
mother of a 12-year-old boy emphasized this, stating
“He likes just the normal swing the very best. He can
swing for half an hour. And we did this in the snow.
So I actually had to dig the snow out so he could
swing”. Children reported enjoying touching grass,
flowers, sand and other textures. The sensation of
height and being up above others was frequently dis-
cussed by participants and was described by the father
of a 12-year-old girl when he said, “I mean all kids like
to be up top on something, so [in the playground] you
Occup. Ther. Int. 19 (2012) 144–153 © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Playground Usability: What Do Playground Users Say?
need height”. Playground play has been termed “sen-
sory rich” (Malkusak, 2002), supporting the current
study findings that child participants sought varied sen-
sory and motor experiences when playing at a play-
ground. Playgrounds were also identified as important
spaces for imaginative play development, as discussed
by the mother of a 14-year-old girl: “Having a play-
house that you can go in that would have things
for opening and closing, and sliding, and turn-
ing. . .basically an exploring house. . .you could actually
use it as a puppet house. . .just different kind of ah
imaginary things”. The children and parents spoke
frequently about playing in a house and using wheels
and other objects attached to structures to manipulate
and pretend with friends, for example pretending to
be on a ship.
The playground was viewed as part of an overall
social and family experience, serving as a community
and social environment where the family could go
together, neighbourhood children could play together
and parents could meet other families in their commu-
nity. As one parent expressed, “It was for me to meet
other families and parents, and to get Anna (pseudonym)
introduced to other families and parents in the neighbor-
hood. It’s a meeting place. . .it’s that social, social
networking”. School playgrounds that provided an
important social context for children to engage with
peers without adult supervision were also addressed. As
one participant shared,
So recess is really the time where they can do
whatever they want right, chat and vent and so
you’re going to have a lot of kids again, who
aren’t interested in doing the soccer or the big
physical stuff but just want to be, and just want
to wander around and talk this was, like I said
that’s the social network place.
Participants discussed how it was important for children
to have the opportunity to use his or her abilities
through challenges and options available in the design
of various aspects of the playground: “Yeah, and that’s
it, the opportunity has to be there so that she can use
it to whatever her ability is”. Overall, the playground
served multiple purposes for participants; it was an
environment that offered the potential for children to
engage in age-appropriate occupations that promoted
the child’s development, autonomy, and social and
motor skills.
147
Playground Usability: What Do Playground Users Say?
Playground usability
Within the theme of playground usability, participants
discussed the specific features of a playground that
prevented or limited access, the general lack of access
in the outdoor environment and what prevented them
from getting onto or into a play space. Ground surfaces
such as sand, gravel, grass and boards/railway ties were
highlighted as the primary barrier that precluded access
to playground space or parts of the structure: as one
caregiver stated, “sand is just our enemy”. Our findings
echo those of Prellwitz et al. (2001), who identified
limitations in access due to inaccessible ground
cover materials. In comparison, participants identified
specific features that promoted access; in particular,
accessible surfacing, ramps and pathways were high-
lighted as integral to access. “But what you want is
paths going to each area of function. So you can get
to each space” (caregiver with a disability).
To facilitate playground access within an inaccessible
environment, participants described enlisting the use
of available resources, such as family members carrying
the child up to the top of the structure. A father of a
12-year-old girl described his way of creating playground
access for his child: “So silly me, I pick her up and I put
her on the ledge and I carry her up to the slide and let her
slide down. So I do all that personally. . .so I carry the old
120 pounder up there and then we slide down together
and somehow we get down that slide together”. Similar
to Prellwitz and Tamm (1999) where they identified a
theme of “assistance is a prerequisite for accessibility”
(p. 170), these choices were not pre-existing but spoke
to families’ resourcefulness in accessing personal
resources or supports.
Participants in our study differentiated the concepts of
accessibility and usability: although many playgrounds
were described as having one or more accessible features,
they were not necessarily usable. For these participants,
the term usability referred to the Iwarsson and Stahl’s
(2003) functional concept that describes the ability to
access and use the built environment. For instance,
participants described how play structures were not
able to be used in a functional way in situations where
a ramp might exist, but there were no play opportunities
at the top of the ramp. Within the theme of Playground
Usability, safety considerations were also highlighted, in
particular participants discussed the importance of
access to shade when children had difficulty with tem-
perature regulation.
148
Ripat and Becker
Similar to the reports of others (Phelan, 2011),
parents who had been involved in developing accessible
playgrounds in their children’s schools were often
frustrated by the lack of awareness of this critical
distinction between accessible and usable. As one
parent recalled, “And what looks good on paper and
what works are two entirely different things”. User
involvement in design and development of usable spaces
has been advocated (Bjork, 2009; Phelan, 2011), and
children have been found to enjoy the equipment more
when they were consulted on their preferences (Titman,
1994). It is clear from the current study that families,
children and caregivers have valuable information to
share about designing usable playground space.
Inclusivity
The theme of inclusivity addressed the reasons partici-
pants shared for why it was important to have
usable playgrounds. They described the value placed
on inclusive and usable playgrounds that promoted
equal access and equity amongst children, as described
by a father of a 12-year-old girl with a disability:
Well to be honest, I mean the way the playgrounds
are now, if you took that and just made them
accessible. Get her up in there so she can be. . .as
the kids do their laps they always touch her. . .it’s
like a big home base. . . And she can kind of
scream at them or ‘Hey what are you doing’ or
‘look at this look at me I’m up here. I’m the king
of the castle’ that sort of shpeel you know. That’s
what you need to do. It’s not so much their actions.
Like for my daughter, it’s that she is being a part of
it to an extent. . . I think it is just the full including
of them that’s all.
Children and parents talked about the inequality that
was apparent when their child had limited access. The
meaning imbued by inaccessible spaces went beyond
a physical inability to navigate the space to a sense of
exclusion, as discussed by one participant: “Those
visible barriers (railway ties) that just say to me ‘sorry
you can’t really come in unless you can step over this’ ”.
A 10-year-old girl with a disability spoke about the
sense of inequity and separation that occurs between
friends when you have dual methods of accessing
spaces (e.g. a ramp alongside a set of stairs) rather than
a singular usable method:
Occup. Ther. Int. 19 (2012) 144–153 © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Ripat and Becker
It’s wheelchair accessible all right, but you have
to take this thing on a long, long, long path to
go down, down. . .it’s a long ways. . .when you
can just make a little dent in the curb and then
you can go with your class rather than going all
the way around the building to try and get to
the wheelchair accessible spot.
Participants voiced their concerns about providing all
children with choices and options for play and the fact
that many, if not most, of the playgrounds did not offer
this to their child. Some participants suggested a lack of
social opportunities on the playgrounds when they
spoke about the inequality and the limited opportuni-
ties for their children to be a part of the playground
experience: “The biggest one is giving her that opportu-
nity to be there first. . .but when you are sitting out
back completely excluded from everything. It’s not
fair”. Similarly, Tamm and Skär’s (2000) research
demonstrated that children with disabilities have fewer
opportunities to engage in social play with peers.
If a child’s occupation is play but some children are
unable to access a play space, the unspoken message to
the children is that they are not welcome in that play
space; this may be framed as an occupational injustice.
Correspondingly, in the research by Prellwitz et al.
(2001), the authors noted, “the insufficient accessibility
of playgrounds also indicates that children with re-
stricted mobility are treated in a discriminatory
way. . .and. . .excluded from a section of society that is
important to them” (p. 65).
A usable space was viewed by participants as a means
to bring children together to play in a way that
promoted social inclusion through increasing other
children’s, and society’s in general, awareness of
disability-related issues. The playground was viewed
as a place where this could occur.
Lets buy both of them (piece of playground
equipment) and side by side. . .they could be
playing away. . .and together the two of them
would be integrated but its, its not just our child
that should be integrated, it’s in a sense the
other ones.
This finding is echoed in the reports of others (Furey
et al., 2009; Talay et al., 2010) that support the impor-
tance of the playground as a site for the development of
disability awareness and social integration, where all
Occup. Ther. Int. 19 (2012) 144–153 © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Playground Usability: What Do Playground Users Say?
children will benefit from mutual peer learning. Peer
interactions are key to social skill development, and
limited accessibility to play spaces for children with
restricted mobility will hamper their development of
social skills. Tamm and Skar’s (2000) research highlight
the importance of building play spaces that allow
all children access to play and develop their skills
with peers.
Participants suggested that the idea of inclusivity
could be actualized in a playground by considering
design-for-disability, that is, that by considering dis-
ability-first in design, it would necessarily be inclusive
of everyone. Participants shared this idea, for example
a 10-year-old girl stated, “and again, it’s quite opposite,
cause like kids that can walk can go up ramps, where
kids that can’t walk, and there is stairs, can’t go”, and
a caregiver with a disability suggested,
So whatever is accessible to disability is usually
always very functional for the general public.
So if you would start with the disabilities instead
of the general public then everybody can use it.
It’s that simple and basic. None of my accessibil-
ity ever interferes with the general public. And
they usually find bonuses in it themselves. . ..
There is, you know, if everything started from
disability.
The idea of design-for-disability described by partici-
pants is clearly distinct from the concept of develop-
ment of disability-specific space, the latter supporting
concepts of isolation and segregation (Talay et al.,
2010).
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to understand the
experience of playground use by children with disabil-
ities. Data from this study demonstrated the many
limitations of playgrounds for children with disabilities.
Although some existing playgrounds were described
as accessible, participants did not identify a single
usable playground.
Following development of our inductively derived
themes, we examined whether our findings could be
framed using the P–E–O model (Law et al., 1996).
The resultant analysis is depicted in Figure 1. The
Person aspect in our model is illustrated by the
theme Playground Experiences that emphasizes the
149
Playground Usability: What Do Playground Users Say?
Figure 1. Playground experiences, play and usability as transactive and overlapping concepts to promote inclusivity
importance of the playground and the person-based
experiences including physical, developmental and
social aspects of the person gained through their expe-
rience in a playground. The Occupation aspect of the
model relates to the importance of play as a primary
occupation of all children, the meaning ascribed to play
by children and caregivers in the study, and the right to
play asserted by the United Nations Convention on the
rights of the child (Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights, 2002). The Environ-
ment aspect of the P–E–O model was addressed in the
Playground Usability theme of the current study, where
usability focused on the barriers and supports within,
and extending beyond, the playground. At the conver-
gence and overlap of these three areas, a transactive
component is depicted where there is an increased
opportunity to engage in social and play occupations
leading to an experience of inclusivity. Overall, the theme
of inclusivity was consistent with the principles of
universal design, specifically the principle of “equitable
use”, and the idea of universal design as a social move-
ment (Iwarsson and Stahl, 2003).
Important in this model is the area and amount of
overlap. Consistent with the P–E–O model, when there
is a relatively small area of overlap, there is limited
opportunity to experience inclusivity. By enhancing
the usability of a playground or space, the convergence
150
Ripat and Becker
between the person–environment–occupation can be
maximized (Law et al., 1996), increasing opportunity
and potential for engaging in inclusive play.
Framing the study results in this way provides
multiple opportunities for clinicians and researchers:
1. Clinicians may use the model to depict areas of
consideration when advocating for usable playgrounds
or to describe the importance of creating usable space
that promotes playground experiences to promote
inclusiveness.
2. Clinicians may use the model and study findings as
justification for their own work at the environmental
rather than the individual level. Occupational
therapists promote play as a child’s occupation and
believe that creating functionally usable places for
play is crucial when designing spaces for children
(Prellwitz and Skar, 2007). Occupational therapists
are integrally important in promoting play and devel-
opment of skills that effect play and, in turn, are
affected by play. Given these are areas of skill and
knowledge for occupational therapists, it is within
the scope of the profession to support the develop-
ment of usable spaces for children to play.
3. Researchers are offered the model to study whether the
assumptions behind the model hold true. Although
the model supports the assumption that usable spaces
Occup. Ther. Int. 19 (2012) 144–153 © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Ripat and Becker
for children with disabilities actually improve outdoor
play opportunities and social opportunities for
children and adults with disabilities (Furey et al.,
2009), this assumption has not yet been tested. Future
research needs to examine whether and how usable
spaces influence inclusion, play and social opportuni-
ties from a child-centred perspective.
Limitations and future research
Although the study provided a description of playground
play based on participants’ experiences, the findings may
be limited by the small number of participants in the
study. Although children with disabilities were recruited
to participate in the interviews, many had communica-
tion difficulties. Furthermore, this study addressed un-
structured playground play; playground experiences
during recess or a school day may be quite different.
Some of the older children had not played in play-
grounds within the last year, and this may have impacted
their recall of their experience. Future research might
consider interviewing children while at the playground.
The strength of this study is with the insights that users
of playgrounds have provided for both limitations of
playgrounds and suggestions for design of usable
playground space. Further research should include
exploration of the topics of justice, equal access and
the idea of designing for disability, which began to
emerge in this study.
Conclusion
Many environments continue to remain inaccessible for
many individuals (Imrie and Wells, 1993). The current
study is consistent with international research showing
that few playgrounds are accessible to children with
restricted mobility (Prellwitz et al., 2001; Talay et al.,
2010). The ability to consult with children about design
of playgrounds has been shown to increase children’s
enjoyment of the space (Titman, 1994). Participants
in this study offered many creative ideas to improve
usability of a playground. Creating usable outdoor play
environments for all children will provide them with a
venue to develop physically, socially and emotionally.
Play for children has been described as a “means of
learning to live” (The USA affiliate of the International
Play Association, 2010, p. 1), and the United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights has recognized
play as a right of all children (Office of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2002).
Occup. Ther. Int. 19 (2012) 144–153 © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Playground Usability: What Do Playground Users Say?
Occupational therapists can play a role in advocating
for the development of usable playgrounds. Playgrounds
can create an environment of inclusion or exclusion;
thus, addressing the factors that influence the usability
of playgrounds is paramount.
REFERENCES
Björk E (2009). Many become losers when the universal
design perspective is neglected: exploring the true cost
of ignoring universal design principles. Technology
and Disability 21(4): 117–125.
Burbank PM, Martins D (2009). Symbolic interactionism
and critical perspective: divergent or synergistic? Nursing
Philosophy 11: 25–41.
Burdette H, Whitaker R (2005). Resurrecting free play in
young children – looking beyond fitness and fatness to
attention, affiliation, and affect. Archives of Pediatric
& Adolescent Medicine 159(1): 46–50. DOI: 10.1001/
archpedi.159.1.46
Case-Smith J (2005). Occupational Therapy for Children
(5th edn). St. Louis: Mosby, Inc.
Christoph NJ (1997, April 1). Planning accessible play
facilities. American School & University 69(8): 22.
Creswell JW (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantita-
tive and Mixed Methods Approaches (2nd edn). Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.
Dell Clark C (2011). In a Younger Voice: Doing Child-
centered Qualitative Research. Toronto: Oxford University
Press Inc.
Fjortoft I (2001). The natural environment as a playground
for children: the impact of outdoor play activities in pre-
school children. Early Childhood Education Journal 29
(2): 111–117. DOI: 10.1023/A:1012576913074
Furey M, Tedder C, Welsh J, Wilson E (2009, August
31). Promoting accessible playgrounds. OT Practice
14(15): 8–12.
Ginsburg K (2007). The importance of play in promoting
healthy child development and maintaining strong
parent–child bonds. Pediatrics 119(1): 182–191. DOI:
10.1542/peds.2006-2697
Graneheim UH, Lundman B (2003). Qualitative content
analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures, and
measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education
Today 24(2): 105–112. DOI: 10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001
Imrie R, Wells P (1993). Disablism, planning, and the built
environment. Environment and Planning C: Government
and Policy 11(2): 213–231. DOI: 10.1068/c110213
Isenberg J, Quisenberry N (2002). Play: essential for all chil-
dren. A position paper of the Association for Childhood
Education International. (Available at: http://www/acei.
org/playpaper.htm) (Accessed 18 January 2010).
151
Playground Usability: What Do Playground Users Say?
Iwarsson S, Stahl A (2003). Accessibility, usability and
universal design positioning and definition of concepts
describing person–environment relationships. Disabil-
ity and Rehabilitation 25(2): 57–66. DOI: 10.1080/
dre.25.2.57.66
Law M, Cooper B, Strong S, Stewart D, Rigby P,
Letts L (1996). The person–environment–occupation
model: a transactive approach to occupational per-
formance. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy
63(1): 9–23.
Law M, Haight M, Milroy B, Willms D, Stewart D,
Rosenbaum P (1999). Environmental factors affecting
the occupations of children with physical disabilities.
Journal of Occupational Science 6(3): 102–110.
Law M, McDermid J (2008). Evidence-based Rehabilitation:
A Guide to Practice (2nd edn). Thorofare: NJ: Slack, Inc.
Letts L, Rigby P, Stewart D (2003). Using Environments
to Enable Occupational Performance. Thorofare, NJ:
Slack, Inc.
Malkusak T (2002, April). Turning accessible playgrounds
into fully integrated playgrounds: just add a little essence.
Parks and Recreation 37(4): 66–71.
McCarty E, Morress C (2009). Establishing access to tech-
nology: an evaluation and intervention model to increase
the participation of children with cerebral palsy. Physical
Medicine and Rehabilitation 20(3): 523–534.
Miller E, Kuhaneck H (2008). Children’s perceptions of
play experiences and play preferences: a qualitative
study. American Journal of Occupational Therapy 62
(4): 407–415. DOI: 10.5014/ajot.62.4.407
Missiuna C, Pollock N (1991). Play deprivation in
children with physical disabilities: the role of the
occupational therapist in preventing secondary disability.
American Journal of Occupational Therapy 45(10):
882–888.
Nabors L, Willoughby J, Leff S, McMenamin S (2001).
Promoting inclusion for young children with special
needs on playgrounds. Journal of Developmental and
Physical Disabilities 13(2): 179–190. DOI: 10.1023/
A:1016665409366
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights (2002, November 18). Convention on
the rights of the child: General Assembly Resolution
44/25 of 20 November 1989. (Available at: http://
www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm) (Accessed 8 De-
cember 2008).
Patton MQ (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation
Methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE publications.
Phelan SK (2011). Constructions of disability: a call for
critical reflexivity in occupational therapy. Canadian
Journal of Occupational Therapy. Revue Canadienne
d’Ergotherapie 78(3): 164–172. doi:10.2182/
cjot.2011.78.3.4
152
Ripat and Becker
Prellwitz M, Tamm M (1999). Attitudes of key persons to
accessibility problems in playgrounds for children with
restricted mobility: a study in a medium-sized munici-
pality in northern Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Oc-
cupational Therapy 6(4): 166–173. DOI: 10.1080/
110381299443645
Prellwitz M, Tamm M (2000). How children with restricted
mobility perceive their school environment. Scandinavian
Journal of Occupational Therapy 7(4): 165–173. DOI:
10.1080/110381200300008706
Prellwitz M, Tamm M, Lindqvist R (2001). Are play-
grounds in Norrland (northern Sweden) accessible to
children with restricted mobility? Scandinavian Journal
of Disability Research 3(1): 56–68. DOI: 10.1080/
15017410109510768
Prellwitz M, Skar L (2006). How children with re-
stricted mobility perceive the accessibility and
usability of their home environment. Occupational
Therapy International 13(4): 193–206. DOI:
10.1002/oti.216
Prellwitz M, Skar L (2007). Usability of playgrounds
for children with different abilities. Occupational
Therapy International 14(3): 144–155. DOI: 10.1002/
oti.230
Rigby P, Gaik S (2007). Stability of playfulness across envi-
ronmental settings: a pilot study. Physical & Occupational
Therapy in Pediatrics 27(1): 27–43. DOI: 10.1300/
J006v27n01_03
Sandelowski M (2000). Whatever happened to qualitative
description? Research in Nursing & Health 23(4):
334–340. DOI: 10.1002/1098-240X(200008)23:4 < 334::
AID-NUR9 > 3.0.CO;2-G
Sandelowski M (2010). What’s in a name? Qualitative
description revisited. Research in Nursing & Health 33
(1): 77–84. DOI: 10.1002/nur.20362
Shaw L (1987). Designing playgrounds for able and
disabled children. In: Weinstein CS, David TG
(eds). Spaces for Children: The Built Environment
and Child Development (pp. 187–213). New York:
Plenum Press.
Stagnitti K (2004). Understanding play: the implica-
tions for play assessment. Australian Occupational
Therapy Journal 51(1): 3–12. DOI: 10.1046/j.1440-
1630.2003.00387.x
Statistics Canada (2008). Prevalence of disability in
Canada 2006. (Available at: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/
pub/89-628-x/2007002/4125019-eng.htm) (Accessed 3
October 2011).
Stout J (1988). Planning playgrounds for children with
disabilities. American Journal of Occupational Therapy
42(10): 653–657.
Talay L, Akpinar N, Belkayali N (2010). Barriers to play-
ground use for children with disabilities: a case
Occup. Ther. Int. 19 (2012) 144–153 © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Ripat and Becker
from Ankara-Turkey. African Journal of Agricultural
Research 5(9): 848–855.
Tamm M, Skär L (2000). How I play: roles and
relations in the play situations of children
with restricted mobility. Scandinavian Journal of
Occupational Therapy 7(4): 174–182. DOI: 10.1080/
110381200300008715
The USA Affiliate of the International Play Association
(2010). Promoting the child’s right to play. (Available
at: http://www.ipausa.org%22 %5Ct %22l) (Accessed
17 January 2010).
Occup. Ther. Int. 19 (2012) 144–153 © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Playground Usability: What Do Playground Users Say?
Titman W (1994). Special Places, Special People: The
Hidden Curriculum of School Grounds. Surrey, UK: World
Wide Fund for Nature/Learning through Landscapes.
Turner J, Newman-Bennett K, Fralic J, Skinner L (2009).
Everybody needs a break! Responses to a playgarden
survey. Pediatric Nursing 35(1): 27–34.
Veitch J, Bagley S, Ball K, Salmon J (2006). Where do
children usually play? A qualitative study of parents’
perceptions of influences on children’s active free-play.
Health & Place 12(4): 383–393. DOI: 10.1016/j.health
place.2005.02.009
153