A Longitudinal Study of Playground Surfaces to Evaluate Accessibility - Final Report

I. Introduction to the Study

Purpose

In 2008, the National Center on Accessibility (NCA) at Indiana University initiated a longitudinal study of playground surfaces with research funding by the U.S. Access Board.  The purpose of this longitudinal study was to evaluate a variety of playground surfaces, their costs, and their ability to meet accessibility requirements while documenting deficiencies that arise upon initial installation or those that might require maintenance after a 3‒5 year period of use.

Background

There are an estimated 2.9 million children with disabilities under the age of 18 in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009).  More than 28 percent of American families have at least one family member with a disability (Wang, 2005).  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report an estimated 17 percent of children ages 2‒19 are obese with increased caloric intake, sedentary behavior and lack of physical activity viewed as contributing factors (CDC, 2010‒2013).  Playgrounds are one of the potential solutions to the health and wellness issues faced by children. In a study of perceptions, Devine (2004) suggests the meanings ascribed to ability, equal status, difference, and belonging [for people with disabilities] may be created within leisure situations as well as brought from other environments and applied in leisure. These findings would suggest that in the leisure environment of the playground, a child with a disability can be challenged, take risks and learn the difference between his ability and his functional impairment. The public playground is emerging into its own, becoming one of the most important environments for children to develop socialization skills and benefit from physical activity.  On the playground children can discover who they are and learn what they can accomplish.  They are challenged physically, socially, mentally and emotionally through a variety of play experiences.  For children with disabilities, the playground experience is just as important as it is for children without disabilities.  In some respects, it is even more important for children with disabilities.  On the playground, a child with a disability is able to discover the important distinctions between his disability and his functional ability.  The playground also provides a non-threatening recreation environment where children with disabilities can play, learn and form friendships with non-disabled peers.  The playground is the ideal environment to facilitate inclusion between children with and without disabilities.  However, if the playground equipment or surface is not accessible for a child with a disability, the opportunity for play, discovery and growth is lost (Skulski, Bloomer, et al., 2004).

When the playground presents physical barriers such as inaccessible surfaces and routes, play, learning, development and the self-actualized benefits of the leisure experience can be stunted or even eliminated for a child with a disability.  Inaccessible surfaces can prevent children with physical disabilities who may use canes, crutches, walkers or wheelchairs from ambulating through the play area.  Pushing a wheelchair over gravel or sand requires tremendous physical effort.  When so much effort is exerted little to no energy is left for play (Skulski, 2007).  The presence of physical barriers prevents children with disabilities from accessing all play elements on the playground.  Most significantly, the inclusive play between children with disabilities and children without disabilities is threatened when the physical playground environment is not accessible through the provision of accessible equipment and accessible play surfaces (Skulski, Bloomer, et. al., 2004).  Choosing play surfaces that are accessible upon installation and maintained for accessibility over time becomes one of the most critical decisions during the playground planning and design phases.

The 2010 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards for Accessible Design and the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) Accessibility Standards require newly constructed playgrounds and those existing playgrounds that are altered to comply with a series of technical provisions for accessible play components and the accessible route to those components.  Criteria specify a maximum running slope for a ground level accessible route (1:16 or 6.25%), maximum cross slope (1:48 or 2.08%), minimum clear width (60 inches), limit on a change of level along the route (no more than .50 inch), and vertical clearance up to 80 inches.  In addition, the ground surface must meet the ASTM F1951‒99 Standard Specification for Determination of Accessibility of Surface Systems Under and Around Playground Equipment.  The technical provisions further state that ground surfaces shall be inspected and maintained regularly and frequently to ensure continued compliance with ASTM F1951‒99.  Ground surfaces that are part of the accessible use and also located in the use zones must meet ASTM F1292‒99/04 Standard Specification for Impact Attenuation of Surface Systems Under and Around Playground Equipment.

According to the Final Accessibility Guidelines for Play Areas Economic Assessment, the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines are estimated to affect as many as 5,300 new playgrounds and 18,600 renovated playgrounds annually.  Between 5,650 and 8,770 playgrounds at public schools and municipal parks are estimated to be replaced; and 380 to 520 new playgrounds are constructed at public schools and municipal parks each year. Thus, choosing play surfaces that are accessible upon installation and can be maintained as accessible becomes one of the most critical decisions during the playground planning and design phases.

In light of evolving safety and accessibility standards for playgrounds, coupled with complaints and litigation, park and recreation professionals are confronted with questions of how to install and maintain safe and accessible public playgrounds that are cost effective and able to withstand a full life cycle of public use.  Results of an online buyers’ guide search identifies more than 100 different commercial varieties of playground surfaces on the market.  Many claim to meet the national standards for safety and accessibility.  The range of product claims, advantages and disadvantages, the differential in costs for installation and maintenance, and claimed life cycle lead playground owners on a guessing game as to which product is most cost effective and reliable over time.  Lack of reliable product performance data on the effectiveness of safe, accessible playground surfaces relative to costs for installation and ongoing maintenance prevents public playground owners from making informed choices on the selection of surfaces most appropriate for their public setting.