Tradition vs. Adventure: A Perspective on American Playgrounds
By Linus Rueegger
Some of the most formative moments of a child’s life may not occur in the home, the classroom or in any parent supervised activity but instead in the free, child run world, that is the playground. Playgrounds around the world offer children of a wide range of ages a physical space to fully immerse themselves in childhood, to run, laugh and play. However, the question that will be examined in this blog is if all playgrounds are created equal? Do different variants of equipment and materials set up children for a better quality of play, do different layouts allow for more freedom, and what are the different pros and cons of specifically two varieties of playgrounds? A type of playground that has become more well known internationally in recent years are adventure playgrounds or playscapes, these physical spaces heavily prioritize connection with natural landscapes and allowing space to ignite children’s imagination and physical activity. This blog will be comparing and contrasting these adventure playgrounds to what is more typically seen as a “traditional playground”, equipped with slides, swing and other more typical play structure equipment.
One grouping that contains a wide variety of playgrounds within it but is most definitely recognizable is what a University of North Flordia thesis paper by Susan C Mathews defines as the “traditional American playground” (Mathews, 1985). An image of what is described in her paper is shown below.
A typical playground in the United States-(Mathews, 1985)
These playgrounds as shown by the example in the picture are often constructed of artificial materials such as plastics, metals and some rubber. One of the largest negatives brought up in Mathew’s study of the traditional American playground is that the structures look very similar to the structures that were erected in the early 1900s, with some modernizations such as the plastic material (Mathews, 1985). However, the actual contents of the structures, from slides to monkey bars, swings, and climbing walls are virtually unchanged from nearly 100 years ago. One of the other negatives of these more classic playgrounds is brought up in the “Playground Ideas” Blog a site most often used by parents looking to construct their own playgrounds (Moreno, Elisabeth). One of the key aspects of a “good” playground discussed in this blog is leaving space for imagination during a child’s play. These traditional American play structures leave little room for imagination, with very copy and paste structures and limits on the structures themselves ie, there are only so many things a child can do with a slide leave these structures lacking in this category, and one of the biggest reasons for this leads into what can be seen by some as a pro and others as a con, safety.
As discussed in chapter four of Sobels writing on nature preschools and kindergartens as the author compares European practices to American there is a stark difference in thinking about safety (Sobel, 2016). Below is a table where the author summarizes the key differences in thinking about safety when it comes to children and the way they play.
Table highlighting differences in outdoor education (Sobel, 2016)
Some groups of thinking may see the traditional American play structures approach to safety as a pro, with strict rules such as only being able to go down a slide and not up preventing injury parents may have more peace of mind when letting their children go out to play. However, then the question arises of who are these safety precautions for, the peace of mind of the parents or the protection of the children? In the European setting children are allowed to experience growth through not being guaranteed 100% safety which may be seen as more of a positive by some.
Aside from the controversial “pro” of safety one genuinely positive aspect of these traditional playgrounds is the cost to implement them. In a study done on traditional play structures done in Ankara, Turkey between the quality of private school play structures and public school play sutures there was little difference found in the cost of implementation due to the basic copy and paste nature of these playgrounds. Bellow is a digital example of what the authors of the paper consider as one of the traditional structures in Turkey.
On the opposite side of the spectrum in terms of spaces for children’s play from the “traditional” play structures are what many refer to as adventure playgrounds or playscapes. Unlike the traditional play structure described above, it is nearly impossible to give a blanket definition for adventure playgrounds, there is no copy and paste function here. They can take the form of natural playgrounds that utilize the nature around them to create a fun space for children, below is an example found in Perth, Australia.
However, adventure playgrounds can also take a variety of other forms as well, one of the more popular forms of adventure playgrounds are referred to as junkyard playgrounds, as seen in the example from Governor Island New York below.
These two adventure playgrounds while looking very different on the surface follow the same ethos that best describes the movement of adventure playgrounds, unrestricted play, a lack of parental control or micromanagement and in some instances the presence of playworkers, older children or teenagers who help ignite or engage play within the space. This ethos brings up some of the immediate pros of this style of play space for children. Due to the lack of both physical structure, as well as mandated rules, the children’s imagination is tasked with creating a type of play that best fits the wants and needs of each child. As looked at in the New York Times article discussing junk playgrounds this allows children with a unique opportunity to hone their creative thinking skills in such a manner that they may not be able to in any other setting. Another unique aspect of the adventure playgrounds that presents another pro is the inclusion of trained playworkers and the distancing of parents from children in this space of play. These playworkers are trained not to dictate but guide children’s play experiences, whereas parents may be more naturally inclined to take over the child’s experience in order to ensure what is once again the most controversial point of these spaces, safety.
“I came to the counterintuitive conclusion that engaging in risk is actually very important in preventing injuries,” says a researcher from the Governor island adventure playground (Schiffman, 2019). By introducing some danger or element of risk in the physical space of play, adventure playgrounds allow children to learn from small scrapes and bruises and take those lessons from the playground into real-life scenarios. However, there is also a negative side to the risk element presented by these playgrounds.
While there are over 1,000 adventure playgrounds worldwide, there remain only a handful in the United States, the reasoning behind this is certainly linked with the following quote, “Many agencies fear being sued if a child gets hurt,” said Teri Hendy, the president of an Ohio-based playground consultancy, Site Masters (Schiffman, 2019). There is a unique culture of anyone being able to sue anyone in the United States and costing the other parry thousands of dollars in legal fees even if there was never a case against them. This paired with the fact that if there is anything people will ve overly protective of is their children makes adventure playgrounds very incompatible with the current culture of the United States if this is a con of the adventure playground or of the U.S itself is left to interpretation.
Ultimately it may seem that adventure playgrounds and the more traditional play structure are miles apart. However, both deep down have the same goal of supplying children with a space to play and grow. While there may be space for each to exist and serve its purpose a question arises, will the copy and paste nature of traditional playgrounds who have not seen a major design change since over 100 years ago be pushed or inspired by the more free-flowing nature of adventure playgrounds? This blog writer can only answer that question in one short word, hopefully.
References
Holmes, Tao Tao. “The Movement to Make Playgrounds Less Regulated, and More Free.” Atlas Obscura, Atlas Obscura, 26 Feb. 2016, https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/playworkers-ph-ds-and-the-growing-adventure-playground-movement.
Mathews, Susan ,Adventure playgrounds Vs. Traditional playgrounds, UNF, http://digitalcommons.unf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1055&context=etd
Moreno, Elizabeth, and Elizabeth Moreno. “Blog.” Playground Ideas, 16 July 2017, https://playgroundideas.org/10-principles-of-playground-design/.
Olgan, Refika; Öztürk, Deniz Kahriman. ,An Investigation in the Playgrounds of Public and Private Preschools in Ankara, Egitim ve Bilim; Ankara Vol. 36, Iss. 161, (2011): 85.
Schiffman, Richard. “Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 10 May 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/10/well/family/adventure-playgrounds-junk-playgrounds.html.
Sobel, David, et al. Nature Preschools and Forest Kindergartens: the Handbook for Outdoor Learning. Redleaf Press, 2016.