(Reprinted with permission from The Construction Specifications Institute Incorporated from October 1985 issue of The Construction Specifier)

This year as many as a million children will be injured in playground accidents. Of these, about 210,000 will require hospital attention. About half of these injuries will be classed as “serious”?EUR??,,????'??+a fracture, laceration, or amputation, for example. A score of children will be crippled for life, and 10 to 15 youngsters will die. All of the children will have been injured while playing in areas designed, equipped, and maintained for them by adults.

Admittedly, designing playgrounds which are at once interesting and safe is not an easy task. Children will always take risks, test the limits of their skills and strength. Further, they will almost always reject, or re-design, a play environment which provides too little opportunity for them to act like children. These observations have caused many to declare “children will be children,” and make ready the emergency medical equipment.

In the past most playground accidents were attributed to rowdiness, poor supervision, or equipment failure. But more detailed statistics, courtesy of the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC), suggest that design failure and poor specification of equipment, not inadequate supervision, are the major culprits. Conversely, there is ample evidence that good design practice, based on an understanding of the theory of chilren’s play and the sources of playground accidents, can make a profound difference. This article takes a look at both issues.

Making Playgrounds Appropriate

Playground safety is certainly the overriding issue facing designers today, but the appropriateness of the play environment is also critical. Inappropriate playgrounds may not cause worry about safety, because they are not often used by children.

Joe Frost, Ph.D., Professor of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Texas, is one of the nation’s experts on playground design. Landscape “Architects for the most part receive little or no training in play theory or playground design,” Frost says. “They seem to know almost nothing of the play research.” Frost believes every playground project should be reviewed by a competent professional, both for safety and appropriateness.

Frost and other specialists in childhood education and playground design cite a number of fundamental problems most builders make.

1. Playgrounds are designed only for physical development. We have incorrectly assumed, the experts say, that playgrounds are exclusively a place where young people test their bodies. Gary T. Moore, of the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, was part of a team which examined playground and park design for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. “The study decided that the best playgrounds should not only consider the physical side of play,” Moore says, “but also the social, cognitive, and creative sides.”

Social interaction and creative play take place in playgrounds which play to, rather than discourage, children’s fantasy worlds. This notion has been addressed in the last decade with the increase in wooden playground structures designed to simulate forts, buildings, boats, and other structures. While these are good, the playground may not need to have so much hardware to encourage creative, social play. The model for the “economical system” is available in most vacant lots: dirt, hills, streams, sand, tree roots, culverts. These are the areas children play in naturally, and they can be incorporated into a designed play system.

Undoubtedly the zenith of the “creative” playgrounds are the adventure playgrounds. Modeled from Europe, they are represented by about 16 adventure playgrounds in this country. These are supervised, neighborhood facilities where children work together to create their own playground environments. They use wood, hammers, and saws to make buildings. They create things from tires, rope, and cable. Even fire is allowed. The playgrounds do not always meet with neighborhood approval?EUR??,,????'??+usually the major complaint is that they are an eyesore?EUR??,,????'??+but they are popular with the children. Preliminary studies suggest they are no more dangerous than ordinary playgrounds. A review of adventure playgrounds, U.S. Adventure Playground Report, has been compiled by William Vance, a leisure specialist at Central Washington University, Ellensburg, Washington.

2. Playgrounds are designed for the wrong level of development. Each age e level has its own characteristic play patterns. Large playgrounds should be divided into clear areas for varying age levels.

Ages 2 to 5 participate in rudimentary physical skills, some climbing, sliding, and swinging, adapted to their physical stature, strength, coordination, and hand size. They also enjoy crawling, splashing, throwing, and rolling. Creative play for this age group includes molding of environments, epitomized by the sand box, water play, and blocks.

Ages 6 to 9 are the more active. They require ample opportunities to test physical skills and enjoy climbing, swinging, gymnastic stunts, jumping, and rough play. They also have active fantasies, and need a place for these. Playstructures, cubby holes, windows, dirt, water, and other aspects of a moldable environment are appropriate. Children at the high end of this age group do less and less abstract play, opting for more organized systems.

Ages 10 to 15 are outgrowing playground equipment. Play in playgrounds is less common as children get older, and if they are there at all it is only as a place to meet socially. Many experts contend that designing playgrounds for children over 10 is not justified. Instead, they need either social settings or sports areas, such as basketball courts or ballfields.

3. Playgrounds are designed to fulfill designer fantasies. The classic analogy is the treehouse built as a father-son project. The father, who always wanted a treehouse, proposes the project to the 9-year-old, who eagerly agrees. The father buys $200 worth of wood and erects a Better Homes and Gardens structure while the boy watches from below. When it is done, fulfilling all the fantasies the father had at 9, but without the roughness, kids won’t play in it.

Landscape Architects often make the same mistake in designing play areas. They let their grown-up sense of aesthetics dominate the design. This may result in both unsafe and inappropriate structures, albeit always with nice lines. Adults look at playgrounds; children live in them.

One way to avoid such errors, many playground experts say, is to make sure the kids themselves are a part of the design process. Some designers have the children generate suggestions, others scout around where the kids play naturally, incorporating their play areas into the finished product.

4. Playgrounds are designed for maximum ease m supervision and maintenance. One of the dilemmas of child’s play is that the “funnest” things are the things which make parents wince and the laundry supervisor scream. For this reason, playground designs, especially those for schools, have eliminated places where children can get dirty.

To prevent vandalism, provide for rapid sweeping, and cut costs of upkeep, equipment is often mounted in asphalt or concrete. Indeed, a letter to the editor in the New York Times a few years ago called for the complete paving of all playgrounds in New York City.

Another aspect of this goal has been the elimination of “difficult to supervise” areas. Cubby holes, hiding places, and the like are often cut out of designs because children might use them for unsavory activities.

Finally, the need for easiest supervision and maintenance has almost completely eliminated what the playground experts call “loose parts”?EUR??,,????'??+nonattached play items which can be used within the play environment. In most areas, for example, children are specifically forbidden to alter their environment by digging, tunneling, or otherwise doing what children naturally love to do. Few, if any, pieces of equipment are designed so they can change shape, location, or function when children get tired of them. The result is an invitation to repetitive, often uninteresting play. A further result, many child education experts say, is to give children a sense of helplessness over the environment. The playground, rather than a haven for children, is a clear extension of the adult work and adult rules.

Making Playgrounds Safe

Appropriateness is an important consideration, but safety is more important, especially considering the growing liability involved with playground design. The golden rule of medicine might easily be applied to playgrounds: “First, do no harm.”

There are no federal mandatory safety standards for playground equipment, nor, most observers suggest, are there likely to be in the near future. This is not for lack of trying.

The movement to establish standards for playgrounds was begun as far back as 1906, when the Playground and Recreation Association of America first drafted an outline for playground law. This document, which never became law, dealt with the size and function of playground equipment, among other things. More influential were the National Recreational Association’s guidelines, established in 1928. These guidelines probably gave birth to the stereotypical playground of the last 50 years?EUR??,,????'??+a swingset, teetertotters, narrow slide, and a jungle gym. Unfortunately, the guidelines effectively standardized designs, but safety suggestions were largely ignored. As a result, since 1928, millions of youngsters have been injured, many seriously, on equipment conforming to the guidelines.

The modern movement toward safe playgrounds began in the early 1970s with investigations by, among others, the American Academy of Pediatrics. In the late 1970s the Consumer Products Safety Commission assembled a panel to issue what many expected to be mandatory safety standards. The product of the effort, however, was not a set of standards, but a set of suggestions, published in a two-volume series entitled A Handbook for Public Playground Safety. Volume 1 has “General Guidelines for New and Existing Playgrounds” and Volume 2 contains “Technical Guidelines for Equipment and Surfacing.”

In general, the CPSC guidelines have been praised by playground watchers and accepted by equipment manufacturers, although there has been some criticism that they do not include much of the new, wood-based equipment. Safety experts say that if the guidelines were followed in all playgrounds, injuries could be reduced dramatically. A New York City study of stringent safety procedures provides strong evidence that this assumption is correct. Equipment manufacturers are increasingly citing the guidelines in their own literature, and urging customers to conform to the suggestions in installation.

Most important, the CPSC guidelines are being used as the benchmark for settling litigation. There is nearly universal agreement that the guidelines are now, and henceforth, part of the body of knowledge on playground safety. No building owner or manager, no architect or engineer, school official or playground supervisor can hold himself or herself exempt from these “suggestions.” Many school districts and parks departments are incorporating them into specifications for playgrounds.

Specifying for Safety

The standard language in specifications for playground equipment has long been the phrase “install according to manufacturers’ recommendations.” But is trusting the manufacturer sufficient? Probably not. Most experts?EUR??,,????'??+and especially those who frequently testify as expert witnesses?EUR??,,????'????EUR??,,????'???strongly urge that specifications incorporate the safety standards of the CPSC guidelines. Frost adds that all plans should be inspected and signed off by a recognized expert in playground design and safety. Further, installation instructions and all other documents related to installation, maintenance, and safety should be kept on file permanently, together with whatever training documents and regular inspection checklists are used.

Finally, those specifying equipment would be wise, says New York-based playground consultant Fran Wallach, to avoid combining components from different firms. “Many manufacturers will not sell to a designer if they think he or she might be planning to combine components in other than a manner suggested by the manufacturer,” Wallach says.

Equipment Specifics

Falls are the leading cause of injury on playgrounds, accounting for about 70 percent of all injuries requiring hospital treatment. Of these falls, about 80 percent are falls to hard surfaces beneath equipment. The remaining are falls to other parts of equipment. Falls and the resultant head, neck, and spine injuries are the leading cause of death and permanent disability from playground accidents. Clearly, solving the problem of falls would go a long way toward eliminating injuries.

Concrete or asphalt surfaces are so non-resilient that a fall from as low as inches may be fatal. Sadly, asphalt and concrete are among the most widely used surfaces in playgrounds today, largely because they provide secure footings, low maintenance, and easy cleanup.

Some people have the misconception that grass or dirt will provide sufficient safety. These surfaces are good under low equipment. But for potential falls of greater than a few feet, a giving surface is needed. Gary Moore of the University of Wisconsin recommends as a rule of thumb that “an inch of resilient surface be provided for each foot of maximum fall.” Thus a slide of 8 feet in a playground where children are 4 feet in height would have at least 12 inches of special surface.

One of the obvious problems is that no one has yet discovered the optimum resilient material. Every surface has advantages and disadvantages. Let’s examine some of these.

Sand is potentially a good surface, although it can lose its resiliency when wet and packed. Sand is also inclined to become contaminated, especially with pet feces, and may create a housekeeping problem.

Pea gravel has a number of advantages over sand, including less inclination to migrate indoors. It is less attractive to animals. One of the primary problems with pea gravel is containment, which requires a commitment to maintenance.

Shredded wood has tested out well in terms of resilience, but there are serious problems with decomposition and containment. Further, many experts are bothered by the potential of this organic material to harbor bacteria and other lifeforms.

Shred tires are the favorite of many, where they are commercially available. The tires maintain resilience well, are unaffected by moisture, and will not harbor life. They present the same containment problems as wood or pea gravel, however, and they can absorb heat. Care must be taken to ensure that none of the tires contains foreign material, principally steel.

Mats are effective for lower equipment, but mats required to cushion falls from heights above 5 or 6 feet would be prohibitively expensive. Thin mats have almost no safety value for high falls. Mats are generally expensive and require maintenance.

One suggestion receiving some study from manufacturers is that they sell a package which includes a resilient surface for their equipment?EUR??,,????'??+none currently does. This might formalize the arrangement now widely being followed in which distributors handle installation and arrange for resilient surfaces at that time. A major problem will remain, however, even with such a system: most older playgrounds still have non-resilient surfaces.

Of course, another way to prevent problems with falls is to keep heights low, especially in playgrounds designed for younger children. Heights above 8 feet are not justifiable, many playground experts say. Theodora Sweeney, of John Carroll University in Cleveland, long an advocate of safe playground equipment, lists this as one of her main pleas to landscape architects. “Please,” she says, “keep them low.”

A solution to height problems for slides, Sweeney suggests, is to embed the slides in a steep hill of grass or dirt. Such a slide can be longer and wider, while still being safe. Sweeney also reports an interesting additional benefit to such a slide system. “We put one in and soon discovered the kids enjoyed playing on the hill as much as on the slide.”

A second major problem is falls from one part of an apparatus to another. This is a major cause of internal injuries. Falls into tight points or onto protruding parts can cause accidental hanging?EUR??,,????'??+the leading cause of death in home playground accidents.

The most common culprit in such falls is the jungle gym and similar climbing apparatus. Although swings are the most common site of injury when home accidents are included, climbing apparatus is the most dangerous item on school or public playgrounds. Accidents from this equipment accounted for 30 percent of hospital admissions from playground accidents in 1984.

One solution is to specify an apparatus which provides for a “free fall” to the resilient surface beneath. A geodesic dome or open jungle gym, for example, contains far less potential for injuries of this type. Further, no climbing equipment should encourage a child to venture into areas which will require more skill to get out of than it did to get into. Finally, any place designed for sitting have a height of 4 feet should be provided with a railing, platforms above 8 feet should be given a barrier, and those above 12 feet must be completely enclosed.

Many of the injuries in the playground can be traced to children hitting each other or pieces of equipment. The key to preventing this is adequate spacing of equipment and separation of equipment by age type.

For example, with swings, the most common injury scenario is for a smaller child to wander into larger children swinging. Small children should be given their own swing set. Also, clear delineation of apparatus “influence” zones should be provided, either through design?EUR??,,????'??+as by the edge of the resilient surface?EUR??,,????'??+or through permanent lines. Areas for hard-surface games, running, and apparatus play should be clearly separated. Of course, equipment should not contain protrusions, pinch points, or other likely sources of injury.

The Future of Playgrounds

With more and larger financial settlements and the wider distribution of safety procedures, newly installed playgrounds will certainly be better than those of the past. Architects and engineers involved in playgrounds need only use common sense, viewing the apparatus they select through the mind, and body, of the child who will use it.

Says Theodora Sweeney: “A playground should be a challenge to a child’s ability, not his survival.” If those designing play structures keep that thought in mind, perhaps the playgrounds of the future will be filled only with screams of pleasure, never cries of pain.