Landscape Research

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/clar20

Participatory school ground design: play behaviour

and student and teacher views of a school ground
post-construction

Angela Kreutz, Anna Timperio & Jenny Veitch

To cite this article: Angela Kreutz, Anna Timperio & Jenny Veitch (2021) Participatory school
ground design: play behaviour and student and teacher views of a school ground post-
construction, Landscape Research, 46:6, 860-877, DOI: 10.1080/01426397.2021.1909713

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2021.1909713

Published online: 19 Apr 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 299

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=clar20
LANDSCAPE RESEARCH
2021, VOL. 46, NO. 6, 860–877
https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2021.1909713

Participatory school ground design: play behaviour and student

and teacher views of a school ground post-construction
a b b
Angela Kreutz , Anna Timperio and Jenny Veitch
a
Architecture and Built Environment, Faculty of Science, Engineering and Built Environment, Deakin University,
Geelong, Australia; bInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences,
Deakin University, Geelong, Australia

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Participatory school ground design projects have acknowledged benefits School ground; nature play;
for children’s sense of empowerment, ownership and learning, but the participatory design;
play behaviour outcomes of these school ground projects are less under­ behaviour mapping; gender;
stood. The aim was to investigate the use of a renovated school ground in age
Colorado, USA that had engaged students in the redesign process.
Behaviour mapping investigated the spatial distribution of children’s
(n = 342) play behaviours, through observations of active, constructive,
imaginative, reflective and conversational school ground play. Walk-along
and semi-structured interviews with 52 students aged 5–13 years and 9
school staff explored views of the school ground design post-
construction. The results indicate that there were aspects of the school
ground design that warranted further improvement to facilitate social
interaction, girls’ preferred play choices, and older children’s sense of
challenge in the school ground. The research presents design recommen­
dations and reflects upon the benefits of continued community engage­
ment in school redesign.

Introduction
Children spend a large proportion of their day at school and outdoor school grounds are an
important place for children to engage in diverse play behaviours and social interaction. Outdoor
play in the school ground has been found to improve physical development (N. D. Ridgers et al.,
2012; Sharma-Brymer & Bland, 2016), social competence (Burdette et al., 2005; Chawla et al., 2014),
emotional well-being (Niehues et al., 2013; Roe & Aspinall, 2011) and academic performance
(Matsuoka, 2010). Rich and diverse school ground environments can become an extension of the
children’s learning environment; a place where children interact, construct, imagine, talk, cooperate
and learn important social and emotional skills (Lucas & Dyment, 2010; Moore & Wong, 1997).
Outdoor school environments continue to be the focus of study in recent decades (Dyment et al.,
2009; Moore & Wong, 1997; Skelly & Bradley, 2007). A review study by Ridgers et al. (2006) examined
age and gender variations on children’s behaviour in the school ground. The research indicates that
children’s age may effect play behaviours, with students in the early years engaging in activities that
are likely to advance their motor skills (McKenzie et al., 1997), elementary students displaying high
levels of physical activity (Lindon, 2001) and middle school students refining their social and peer
group skills (Pellegrini, 1995). Research that examined gender differences in school ground play
found that boys have a preference for competitive and sport-based activities (Luchs & Fikus, 2013;
Pawlowski et al., 2019) and girls non-competitive and social activities with their peers (Blatchford

CONTACT Angela Kreutz angela.kreutz@deakin.edu.au

© 2021 Landscape Research Group Ltd
 LANDSCAPE RESEARCH 861

et al., 2003; Snow et al., 2019). Furthermore, it is important to note that school grounds with less
prescribed and more natural features provide dramatic, creative and constructive play opportunities
that do not discriminate against age and gender preferences (Dyment et al., 2009; Jansson et al.,
2018). Play behaviours in children’s outdoor settings that are identified as significant include
functional (physical play activities), constructive (building play activities), symbolic (imaginative
play activities), self-focused (looking on) and conversational (talking) (Dyment & O’Connell, 2013;
Fjørtoft, 2004; Fjørtoft & Sageie, 2000).
Researchers in the participatory design field argue that engaging children in design processes has
reciprocal benefits for children and their environment (Chawla & Heft, 2002). Children gain a sense of
empowerment and appreciation for the environment when inclusive design approaches involve
them, encouraging them to become stewards of the earth (Derr et al., 2018). Participatory design is
driven by children’s play preferences and has the potential to inspire landscape architects to move
beyond traditional perceptions of school ground design (Luchs & Fikus, 2013). Yet, landscape
practitioners will often limit engagement to the early design phases, primarily using children’s
proposals to inspire their own design and final plan development process (Kreutz et al., 2018;
Sanoff, 2000). Participatory design researchers maintain that children need to be involved in multiple
design and re-design phases for sustained design improvement and deepening attachments (Fuad-
Luke, 2009; Green, 2014; Hart, 1997). The recognised benefit of sustained and repeated engagement
with children in school ground design is particularly well demonstrated in school ground greening
research that documents the advantages of ongoing student participation (Jansson et al., 2018; Van
Dijk-Wesselius et al., 2018; Wake & Birdsall, 2016). While the majority of school ground participation
projects are short term and do not involve children beyond the early phases of idea generation, there
are potential benefits in revisiting school ground sites with new incoming student cohorts post-
construction (e.g., The Natural Learning Initiative (NLI), 2005).
This study returns to a participatory school ground design project in Colorado (United States) to
investigate children’s play behaviours and experiences of a school ground post-construction. It is
based on the premise that when a school ground is planned with children, it should demonstrate the
potential to meet children’s varying play needs and desires. This is despite the fact that the final
outcome of participatory design projects are likely to be compromised as a consequence of time­
frames, design translation, and construction budgets (Kreutz et al., 2018). The participatory process
of this case study from expert and child perspectives, including how much of children’s voices were
reflected in the final design outcome, have been reported elsewhere (Derr, 2018; Derr & Rigolon,
2016; Kreutz et al., 2018).

Theoretical framework
To investigate the behavioural relationship between children and the redesign of their school
ground, this study adopts a functional and relational approach. The relational character of individual-
environmental reciprocity in everyday real-life contexts lies at the essence of ecological psychology
(Heft & Kyttä, 2006). Theoretical concepts from ecological psychology involve Barker’s behaviour
setting (Barker, 1968) and Gibson’s theory of affordances (Gibson, 1979). The construct, affordance,
captures the functional relationship between the environment and the individual (Kyttä et al., 2018).
Behaviour settings are the relational characteristics of the environment and behaviour within the
boundaries of time and space, where regular and constant patterns of behaviours make the setting
unique from other settings (Barker, 1968). Affordances can be used to describe qualities of behaviour
setting features whereby ‘clusters of affordances that are identified by a group of children can be
defined as a behaviour setting’ (Kyttä et al., 2018, p. 321). The concept of behaviour setting can assist
landscape designers to identify the types of settings (e.g., play equipment, sand pit, pathway etc.)
within the school ground that afford unique play actions and behaviours (Cosco et al., 2010; Heft &
Kyttä, 2006).
862 A. KREUTZ ET AL.

Aim and research questions

This study is directed at understanding the use of a school ground renovation that formerly engaged
students in the redesign process. The aim was to investigate children’s diverse play behaviours in the
school ground, buttressed by children and staff views post-construction. The research questions
are: 1) Where and how do children play in their renovated school ground, dependent upon gender
and age?; 2) Which design features are preferred by children and why? These questions are
important for generating insights and design guidance for future school ground renovations.

Methods
School ground
This study took place at a charter school, a publicly funded independent school established by
teachers, parents and community members, situated in Colorado, USA. The eight-acre school ground
adjoins the only accessible public green space in the area, a ten-acre park that includes an open grass
area leading down to a wetland. The school is a K-8 school with 342 students across kindergarten
(aged 4 to 5 years), elementary grade 1 to 4 (aged 5–10 years) and middle grade 5 to 8 (aged 11–13).
During a seven-hour school day, all school students receive a 15-min recess break. This is followed by
a 40-min lunch break for students in grade 1–4 or a 30-min lunch break for students in grade 5–8.
Kindergarten children receive a 30-min break over a three-and-a-half-hour school day.
A major renovation of school buildings led to the deconstruction of the school’s playground that
consisted of various fixed play equipment, zip line and a sports court. The basketball court and one
play structure with climbing features and slides remained. In 2014, the school grounds were redeve­
loped via a participatory design process that led to the creation of various traditional and nature
inspired play spaces (Rigolon et al., 2015). Children and their educators were engaged in the early
phase of idea generation, with children re-envisioning the school ground via techniques that involved
photography, drawing and model making (Kreutz et al., 2018). Alongside the desire for active play
equipment, children shared a vision for a nature-inspired school ground with natural design features,
including a riverbed with loose materials, sand and vegetation. The renovated playground was
completed in 2015 and included an outdoor classroom, manufactured play equipment (including
a new play structure), sport courts, grass field, dry riverbed and natural landscaped features and areas.
The school grounds are not fenced and run seamlessly into the adjoining park (Figure 1).

Methods and procedures

This study used mixed methods that collected data 12 months after the completion of the school
ground refurbishment. These methods included behaviour mapping, semi-structured interviews
with the school principal and teachers, walk-along interviews with children and brief field notes.
The mixed methods approach captured children’s rather objective observable behaviour (Schoggen,
1989) and subjective student and staff views (Markus, 2005). The sequence of method implementa­
tion was important, with findings from the observations informing the interview protocol. Ethical
approval was granted by the University of Colorado Research Ethics Committee.

Observational methods: behaviour mapping

Behaviour mapping is an observational method applied to landscape research that seeks to record
human behaviour as it occurs in true location (Cosco et al., 2010). This provides a level of detail and
visual information that is relevant to landscape designers (Goličnik, 2005). The spatial representation
of the map provides a connection to the material place, which other direct observation methods that
tabulate activity counts within defined target areas, do not (e.g., Child Activity Rating Scale (CARS),
System for Observing Play and Leisure Activity in Youth (SOPLAY), or the Observational System for
 LANDSCAPE RESEARCH 863

Figure 1. Plan of school ground and key design features (not to scale).

Recording Physical Activity in Children—Preschool Version (OSRAC-P). Behaviour mapping that

records activities within different types of settings also has the potential to record variations in the
children’s use of behaviour settings according to gender and age.
Systematic and periodic scans were conducted in a clockwise rotation of the entire school ground
every 10 min during lunch break by two trained observers. As it was possible to observe the entire
space clearly from one standpoint, each observer observed half of the school ground during each
scan on measured base maps. A total of 110 scans were completed in spring over a ten-day period
where daytime temperature ranged between 6°C and 15°C. During each observation scan, all
children present were recorded according to their position on the map, counts and play behaviour
(e.g., 3AB for three counts of active boys; 2IG for two counts of imaginative girls). Recording age was
possible as kindergarteners, grade 1–4, and grade 5–8 have staggered recess times. The play
behaviour categories were defined as (Dyment & O’Connell, 2013; Fjørtoft, 2004):

● Active (physical activities—e.g., running, soccer, climbing rocks, sliding slopes, parkour)
● Constructive (building activities—e.g., building and digging in sand or snow, playing with loose
parts like sticks, gravel, smashing rocks)
864 A. KREUTZ ET AL.

● Imaginative (creative/imaginative play—e.g., role play, dramatic play, social play, and invented
games)
● Reflective (no interaction with others—e.g., day dreaming, watching activities, playing alone,
empty staring)
● Conversational (talking with children/teachers, not engaged in vigorous activity—e.g., eating
lunch and talking, walking and talking)

Reliability
Inter-observer reliability was established in a separate pilot study to ensure consistent recording of
observations (Hops et al., 1995). The two observers simultaneously completed 22 scans within the
school ground over the same area. However, this was unlikely to affect the overall reliability of the
results given that when observations were compared using kappa, they demonstrated high inter-
observer reliability (k = 0.86). This indicates that the observers accounted for 86% agreement over
and above what would be expected by chance (Watkins & Pacheco, 2000).

Field notes
Interesting observations, unique activities and information that were otherwise not recorded via the
coding system, were noted during the observation sessions.

Child walk-along and teacher semi-structured interviews

Walk-along interviews were conducted with 52 students from kindergarten and the composite grade
1/2, 3/4, 5/6 and 7/8 (2 groups per class, 4–6 students per group). The lead author guided individual
student groups along a predetermined route to discuss and prompt students to talk about their
views and experience of the playground elements and landscaped design features. To ensure unique
insights into the function of the school ground, children who were originally engaged in the
participatory design process and continued to use the playground did not join the walk-along
interviews. Their views on the participatory process and school ground design are reported else­
where (Kreutz et al., 2018). Walk-along methods encourage rich descriptions of design features and
lived experience in situ (Kusenbach, 2003). Conducting the interviews in the school ground triggered
children’s memories and inspired them to re-enact their typical behaviours and activities. Children’s
verbalised play preferences were prompted further with questions, such as: ‘Why is this piece of play
equipment valued over this one here?’ Children also prompted each other: ‘I don’t go out to the field
much, but he does.’ Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim.
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the school principal and eight educators
employed across the kindergarten, elementary and middle school grades to obtain school staff
views on the renovated playground. During the 30-min one-on-one interviews, participants were
asked about observed student play behaviours. Interviews were individually conducted, recorded
and transcribed verbatim.

Data analysis
The observation data underwent a two-fold analysis which sought; 1) to describe children’s spatial
distribution and playground use according to age group, gender and play behaviour; 2) to identify
common affordances of school ground features in order to define behaviour settings. The first
analysis relied on the digitised behaviour maps that allowed spatial data to be organised according
to gender, age group, activity and location. The second analysis categorised common affordances in
the school ground to identify eight behaviour settings (Figure 2 and Figure 3) including:

(1) Manufactured play equipment and soft fall area (play structures such as monkey bars, slides,
swings, surrounding wood chips and rubber surfacing);
 LANDSCAPE RESEARCH 865

Figure 2. Behaviour setting locations.

(2) Grass field (semi-maintained grass areas including sports field);

(3) Sport courts (asphalt and paved areas including basketball court, go-go pit, ball wall area);
(4) Sandpit (sandpit area within the dry river bed);
(5) Pathways (compressed red mud walkways);
(6) Natural (trees, boulders, tree stumps and logs, dry creek, grassy knoll);
(7) Seating (seating, outdoor classroom, tables, benches, planter drums);
(8) Pea gravel (pea gravel expanse).

Descriptive statistics were calculated and cross-tabulated against these behaviour settings for
children’s play behaviours (i.e., active, constructive, imaginative, reflective and conversational),
gender and age groups. Transcripts from the interviews with school staff and walk-alongs with
children served to buttress the findings from the observational data and allowed for triangulation of
the research results. The transcripts were considered using content analysis, which linked children
and teacher responses to behaviour settings and potential affordances in the school ground. The
observations provided information on ‘how’ the school ground was being used, while the interviews
provided insight into ‘why’ it was being used in this way.
866 A. KREUTZ ET AL.

Figure 3. Behaviour settings from top-right to bottom-left: 1. Play equipment 2. Grass field 3. Sports courts 4. Sand pit 5.
Pathways 6. Natural 7. Seating 8. Pea gravel.

Results
The results section begins with a description of the spatial distribution patterns across the school
ground according to age and gender. This is followed by results from the observations and inter­
views according to each behaviour setting. (Table 1) shows the overall counts of children observed in
each behaviour setting according to gender and age. (Table 2) shows the dominant play activities
observed in each behaviour setting. The observational data is underpinned by findings that emerged
during the student and staff interviews and the field notes.
 LANDSCAPE RESEARCH 867

Table 1. Observations of children in design feature areas.

Overall Observations Girls Boys Kindergarten Grade 1–4 Grade 5–8
Design feature areas N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)
Equipment 1433 (27.3) 956 (36.2) 477 (20.5) 106 (35.7) 729 (29.0) 279 (22.7)
Grass field 779 (14.7) 233 (8.8) 546 (23.6) 12 (4.0) 412 (16.3) 193 (13.0)
Sport courts 1002 (19.1) 377 (14.3) 625 (27.0) 50 (16.8) 378 (15.0) 362 (24.3)
Sand 223 (4.3) 116 (4.4) 107 (4.6) 35 (11.8) 139 (5.5) 18 (1.3)
Pathways 244 (4.7) 118 (4.5) 126 (5.5) 18 (6.1) 169 (6.7) 12 (0.8)
Natural 406 (7.7) 208 (7.9) 134 (5.8) 46 (15.5) 207 (8.2) 67 (4.5)
Seating 974 (18.6) 543 (20.6) 207 (8.9) 19 (6.4) 409 (16.2) 459 (30.8)
Pea gravel 183 (3.5) 87 (3.3) 96 (4.1) 11 (3.7) 77 (3.1) 39 (2.6)
Total 5244 (100) 2638 (100) 2318 (100) 297 (100) 2520 (100) 1489 (100)

Table 2. Play behaviours observed by design feature areas.

Active Constructive Imaginative Reflective Conversational
Design feature areas N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)
Equipment 1107 (63.9) 14 (2.8) 174 (18.6) 18 (2.2) 119 (12.5)
Grass field 578 (74.2) 12 (1.5) 85 (10.9) 11 (1.4) 93 (12)
Sport courts 891 (89.0) 7 (0.7) 27 (2.7) 4 (0.4) 73 (7.2)
Sand 0 (0.0) 204 (91.5) 2 (0.9) 3 (1.3) 14 (6.3)
Pathways 29 (11.9) 3 (1.2) 22 (9.0) 19 (7.6) 171 (70.1)
Natural 72 (17.8) 138 (34.0) 57 (14.0) 26 (6.4) 113 (27.8)
Seating 20 (2.1) 25 (2.6) 30 (3.0) 32 (3.3) 867 (89.0)
Pea gravel 53 (29.0) 64 (35.0) 24 (13.1) 6 (3.3) 36 (19.6)

Spatial distribution
Observations and field notes revealed the spatial distribution patterns according to age group and
gender. The grade 1–4 students had the greatest spatial range, utilising the entire school ground
from the corners of the internal courtyard and reaching out to the open grass field. Kindergarteners
were not permitted to go beyond the swing set which restricted their wider mobility. Field notes
revealed that there were variations in the spatial behaviour among the grade 5–8 group with older
students progressively retracting back into the courtyard (Figure 4). The spatial occupancy also
differed according to gender, most notably with more boys than girls accessing the open space of
the grass field (Figure 5).

Figure 4. Spatial distribution per age group: 1. Kindergarten; 2. Grade 1–4; Grade 5–6.
868 A. KREUTZ ET AL.

Figure 5. Spatial distribution for girls and boys: 1. Girls; 2. Boys.

Manufactured play equipment and soft fall area

The manufactured play equipment and surrounding soft fall area that included play structures such
as monkey bars, slides, swings, and surrounding wood chip and rubber surfacing was the most
occupied behaviour setting with almost one-third of students occupying these areas (27%). Most
children engaged in active and imaginative play (64% and 19% of scans, respectively). The behaviour
maps revealed a congregation of activities around the original playground structure that was being
used significantly more for imaginative play than the new play equipment (69% vs 31%) (Figure 6).
The enclosed spaces in and around the original structure afforded role playing:

We like the old structure. It is really good because we can pretend play. (Girl, grade 1/2)

A greater proportion of girls (36%) than boys (20%) were observed on and immediately around the
play equipment. According to age group, it was often used by younger children (36% kindergar­
teners), but was frequented by all groups (29% grade 1–4; 23% grade 5–8). Although the play
equipment setting appeared to be popular, the walk-along interviews revealed frustrations with
younger and older children complaining about crowding and lack of challenge, respectively:

We could do with more play equipment because they get crowded. (Girl, grade 3/4)

We need a structure for big kids. I really enjoy climbing, but this is not really challenging enough. (Girl, grade 7/8)

The swing set consisted of eight individual swings and one tyre swing (Figure 7), yet behaviour maps
revealed that the single tyre swing was as populated (51%) as the nine individual swings collectively
(49%) (Figure 6). When students were asked why this might be the case, they explained that it offered
an opportunity to play with friends, as captured by this quote:

When you get pushed and you close your eyes it feels like you are flying. (Boy, kindergarten)

Unlike the individual swings, the tyre swing afforded more than just swinging alone. Typically, four to
six children were observed swinging and pushing the tyre swing, whereas only one child was
 LANDSCAPE RESEARCH 869

Figure 6. Cumulative recess observations for grade 1–8 students showing play variations within behaviour settings.

Figure 7. Swing set with eight individual swings and one tyre swing.
870 A. KREUTZ ET AL.

observed on the individual swings at any one time. This meant that despite ‘the three minute rule’
that children invented, they were often waiting in queues for the single swings. The teachers agreed:
It gets crowded and the kids complain about access to the swings. They sometimes wait to use them for most of
recess.

This demonstrates that while the play equipment was in high demand, it was often crowded and
there were aspects of the design that did not accommodate all children simultaneously.

Sport courts
The sport courts were the second most used design feature category with 19% of all students
engaging in basketball, wall ball and gaga (a fast-paced ball game played in an octagonal pit). The
majority of students observed using the sports courts engaged in active play (89%), while kinder­
garteners used the basketball courts for imaginative play. The children also ran along the line
markings on the court, as this quote captures:
We play puppy-dog and run along the lines and like you bark and have to find the others. (Boy, kindergarten)

More boys than girls were observed on the sports courts (27% vs 14%); however, both girls and boys
were observed playing in mixed teams across the various courts. Grade 5–8 students were the most
frequent user group (24%), compared to grade 1–4 (15%) and kindergarteners (17%).

Seating
Seating opportunities consisted of an outdoor classroom, tables, benches and planter drums and
were occupied by a significant number of children (19%). This was in part due to school-age children
spending time in the south-west corner of the courtyard eating their lunch in a dedicated seating
area. Twice the number of girls (21%) than boys (9%) were observed in seating areas, with older
students in grade 5–8 the most dominant users (31%). Students conversing (87%) was the most
observed behaviour. Behaviour maps and field notes revealed that students were using planter
drums in non-formal ways with more students observed conversing around empty circular planter
drums (74%) than, for example, a single bench seats (26%) (Figure 6). A teacher reflected:
I don’t know if they were planned but kids really sit here and discuss things.

The planter drums also provided both shelter and privacy with two to three children observed, at
any one time, inside the planter drums engaged in imaginative play. Moreover, different seating
options afforded different activities from imaginative play on the tiered outdoor classroom,
discrete conversations around planter drums and occasional reflective behaviours on the bench
seats.

Grass field
The grass field is located to the north of the school ground and runs seamlessly into the adjoining
park and was the largest outdoor open space. It was occupied by 15% of students with most
engaging in active play (74%) usually running and playing soccer. Kindergarteners did not venture
out to the grass field and there was little differentiation in use between the younger grade 1–4 (16%)
and older grade 5–8 students (13%). More boys (24%) than girls (9%) occupied the grass filed, as one
girl explained:
The boys don’t eat lunch because they run straight to the field (Girl, grade 5/6)

While students were grateful for the open space, they complained about the field having ‘potholes’,
being ‘water logged’ and ‘uneven’ making it difficult to ‘run around’. The open field afforded running
 LANDSCAPE RESEARCH 871

and playing games (e.g., soccer) in an open space, yet the ground surface impacted the quality of
its use.

Natural
The natural areas and features in the school ground included trees, boulders, logs, grassy knoll and
a dry creek bed. Fewer than 8% of children occupied these natural areas, which may be explained
by the lack of shelter and green elements due to immature trees and incomplete vegetation
plantings. Responses during the walk-along interviews identified existing natural features as
valuable with groups of children in grade 1–4 observed congregating beneath one tree in the
north-west corner of the school courtyard (Figure 4 & Figure 6). Students and staff supported this
observation commenting:
We like the tree. We named it “ninja tree”. (Boy, grade 1/2)

Nature play opportunities have increased with kids behind trees smashing rocks and making fairy dust. (Teacher)

Playing with loose materials such as the pea and cobble stones at the dry creek bed was common
with constructive play accounting for one third of observations in these areas (34%). One teacher
explained:
I notice the younger kids build tributaries to the larger dry river bed.

Natural settings provided opportunities for imaginative play (14%), reflection (6%), and active
play (18%):
We go jumping over rocks. We run along them and try not to touch the ground. (Girl, grade 3/4).

Field notes revealed this was especially so for girls who were less inclined to visit the grass field,
playing in games such as ‘lava monster’.
There was a decrease in the use of natural areas with increasing age (15% kindergarteners, 8% of
grade 1–4; and 5% of grade 5–8 students) and greater use by girls (16%) than boys (9%). During the
walk-along interviews, however, girls would often comment on the lack of vegetation stating ‘we
need more trees and plants’ with teachers observing the lack of private spaces claiming ‘children
[hiding] in planter boxes is a response to not having enough privacy because everything here is so
wide open’.

Pea gravel
The vast area of pea gravel located centrally was the least occupied with only 3% of students
observed in the space. Student walk-along interviews identified issues with the pea gravel surface:
We don’t like this gravel you have to walk on. You know, you’re just slower on it. (Girl, grade 5/6)

There was very little variation in use according to gender or age. Constructive play (35%) was the
most common play behaviour observed with children sitting together and digging, mounding and
moulding the pea gravel together.

Sand
The sandpit was a small area when compared to other behaviour settings and perhaps, subse­
quently, was one of the least occupied with only 4% of students observed in the sandpit. As to be
expected, the dominant play activity was constructive play (92%). There was a notable decrease in
the use of the sandpit with age (K 16%, grade 1–4 8%, and grade 5–8 1%). Older students
explained:
872 A. KREUTZ ET AL.

We don’t use much of the playground, sand pit or creek anymore. We use the basketball court. (Boy, grade 7/8)

Field notes explained that the use of the sandpit increased after heavy rain and was a popular
destination for younger children in general.

Pathways
Fewer than 5% of students were observed on the pathways. There were no significant variations
across gender and age groups with low counts across all age groups. Those observed on the
pathways were most frequently in conversation (70%); however, more children were observed
being reflective (8%) along the pathways than in other school ground settings. When asked why
children would run across the courtyard and not use the prescribed pathways, children mentioned
that it was because they did not offer a ‘direct route to the main door’, ‘the red mud surface gets
slippery’, ‘there are pot holes’ and ‘they are covered in pea gravel’. The meandering pathways across
the school grounds did not offer indirect routes to major entrances and play settings and with the
ringing of the school bell, there was a sense of urgency among students who would run direct routes
and jump over riverbed rocks to access the school building.

Discussion
This study investigated how a renovated school ground, designed with and for children, functioned
for girls and boys of varying ages. Drawing from a functional and relational approach, we captured
children’s diverse play behaviours and the views of children and staff on their recently constructed
school ground. The results indicate that children generally used the whole school ground, however,
students in grade 1–4 displayed the greatest spatial range. This is consistent with previous research
that reported children at this age tended to be more mobile in the use of their school ground
(Lindon, 2001; Ridgers et al., 2006). Students of all ages showed a preference for settings that
afforded active play, with the play equipment, sports courts, and the grass field attracting high
numbers of students engaging in physical activities. Several studies support this finding and suggest
that play equipment, and in part, sports courts and grass fields, support vigorous play (Cosco et al.,
2010; Dyment et al., 2009; Dyment & O’Connell, 2013). Active play was somewhat hindered across
a number of settings due to crowding at the manufactured play equipment (e.g., single swings) and
inadequate ground surface at the grass field, pea gravel area and pathways.
Play behaviours and views were influenced by gender. More girls than boys were observed on the
play equipment and seating areas which supports previous research studies that found girls
preferred inclusive, passive and socially oriented play (Stratton, 1999). Boys sought out settings
that afforded active and game orientated sports and aligns with research claims that boys orientate
themselves more towards competitive sports than girls (Harten et al., 2008; Pawlowski et al., 2019).
Gender variations were less apparent among natural design settings that afforded active, imagina­
tive and constructive play among both girls and boys. This supports the literature that these natural
settings are less gender biased and subsequently a beneficial contribution to the redesign (Dyment
et al., 2009; Jansson et al., 2018). Studies have highlighted the value of nature settings for girls in
particular, which found that girls highly valued natural settings and the loose-parts typically found
within them (Moore, 1986; Snow et al., 2019) and studies that found that girls active play benefited
from natural features (Pawlowski et al., 2019; Spark et al., 2019).
The use of behaviour settings tended to differ according to age. The results illustrate that use of
natural settings decreased with age, perhaps due to younger children seeking affordances for
imaginative and constructive play. Similarly, the use of play equipment decreased with age, with
student responses indicating that older children were not sufficiently challenged by the play
equipment available. Older children viewed the play equipment as risk averse, which is consistent
with research conducted with children in public parks (Flowers et al., 2019; Veitch et al., 2007). The
 LANDSCAPE RESEARCH 873

use of seating increased with age, possibly reflecting both the limited spaces dedicated for older
students (grade 5–8) and their increasing desire to informally catch-up and socialise with peers.
The participatory design process that contributed to the redesign of the school ground strived for
more than was achieved post-construction (Kreutz et al., 2018). The school ground offered numerous
designed settings for students, yet the quality of affordances often frustrated children’s play
experiences. Some of these shortcomings include ground surfaces, crowding, shelter, sense of
challenge, privacy and most noticeably school ground greening. The greening of school grounds
provides children with opportunities to explore, learn and connect with nature, and in doing so, can
foster social inclusion (Chawla et al., 2014; Malone & Tranter, 2003). While natural settings within the
school ground offered opportunities for imaginative and constructive play, fewer children occupied
these spaces than might be expected. This may be attributed to the quality of these natural settings
that appeared bare and lacked vegetation due to immature and incomplete plantings and might
otherwise have offered increased shelter, shade and privacy. Further, while curvy pathways lend
themselves to exploration (Cosco et al., 2010), it appears that the open spaces surrounding the
installed pathways did not offer a sense of discovery.
Children were observed appropriating their school ground in non-formal ways. For example,
students used the empty circular planter drums for the purpose of sitting intimately and privately
together. Further examples include the use of the original play equipment and associated private
spaces for increased imaginative play, the preference of the tyre swing over single swings for active
and socially inclusive play, and ground markings on the sports courts that afforded imaginative play
for younger children. These affordances highlight the influence of friends and peers and the
importance of social bonds, a finding that is echoed in other research on peer play in the school
ground (Corsaro, 2000; Raney et al., 2019). This provides more nuanced information that can inform
design improvements that better respond to children’s socially oriented play desires.

Design recommendations
This research sheds light on what features of the school ground are being used well, including the
provision of imaginative and constructive play in the natural setting. The research also pointed
towards further design options and considerations in terms of the quality of designed settings
including: firm and levelled ground surfaces for active play; play structures that challenge the
physical capabilities of older students; natural and green features that appeal to both gender
preferences, refuge and shelter that can be used for intimate social gathering and conversation
and, multi-person swings, seesaws, spiral climbing nets and spinners that can be used by several
children simultaneously, promoting social interaction and avoiding long queues common among
prescribed play equipment that dictates single use. The discovery of the design successes and the
identification of further design improvement suggests that there are benefits of conducting a post-
construction design assessment that records students’ school ground usage and gathers student and
staff views. These design recommendations were reported back to the school community by the lead
researcher and may inform future school ground design projects, thus supporting the continuation
of student and staff participation in school ground design.

Strengths and limitations

The inclusion of one school ground site and the completion of observations in one season was
a limitation of the study. The single case study, however, was comprehensive and novel with
mixed methods providing an in-depth understanding of the physical school ground, its use,
perceived value and suggested design improvements. Behaviour mapping made it possible to
capture both the spatial distribution and the use of significant settings according to age group,
gender and play activity, while student and staff responses provided explanation. The theoretical
and related methodological analysis captured rich descriptions and insights that render this study
874 A. KREUTZ ET AL.

more useful to design researchers who require a greater level of detail to better respond to user
needs.

Conclusion and reflections

The results of this study suggest that returning to a participatory school ground project site to
investigate children’s diverse play behaviours and explore child and teacher views can yield further
design guidance. Modifications such as challenging play structures, enhanced refuge and shelter
provision, multi-person equipment, and considerations of ground surfacing needs may help facilitate
and improve affordances for social interaction, active play, girls' preferred play choices, and older
children’s sense of risk and challenge in the school ground. It would appear that when participatory
school ground design leads to adaptable design outcomes that can be re-shaped by incoming
student cohorts the benefits are twofold. Firstly, the environmental design of the school ground is
more responsive to children’s play behaviours and secondly, children’s connection to their school
ground, developed via active participatory design processes, instils a sense of ownership and care.
Targeted design modifications have the potential to enhance school ground use, meeting the
varying social and play needs of children now and into the future.

Acknowledgments
Angela Kreutz would like to thank Lori Carlussi for her voluntary assistance in conducting observations.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
Angela Kreutz acknowledges the DAAD (Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst) for financial support of the abroad
research project. Jenny Veitch is supported by an Australian National Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship (ID
101928).

Notes on contributors
Angela Kreutz is a Lecturer in Architecture at Deakin University, Australia. Angela’s interdisciplinary research within the
field of Children and the Environment lies between architecture, anthropology and environmental psychology. Her
research aims to better understand the relationship between children and the built environment across cultural
contexts. Angela has researched, collaborated, and consulted with children from across the globe, including
Australia, Europe and the United States. Her book Children and the Environment in an Australian Indigenous
Community (Routledge, 2015) is both a historical and contemporary ethnography of children and their families in
Cherbourg, Australia. As a DAAD postdoctoral fellow at the University of Colorado she researched intergenerational
values in sustainable park design. Her broad research interests include children’s ethnography, community participatory
planning, intergenerational design, and architectural anthropology.
Anna Timperio is Professor Timperio is Deputy Director of Deakin University’s Institute for Physical Activity and
Nutrition. She has training in health promotion and behavioural epidemiology and a background in health promotion
evaluation. Her work has focused on understanding family and neighbourhood influences on physical activity and
sedentary behaviour among children and young people, and finding and evaluating solutions to help children and
youth move more and sit less.
Jenny Veitch is an Associate Professor, supported by a National Heart Foundation of Australia Future Leader Fellowship,
in the Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, at Deakin University.
Her research aims to better understand how design of the neighbourhood built and social environment may influence
physical activity across the lifespan. A/Prof Veitch has a particular research focus on understanding how parks and
public open spaces can be designed to encourage people of all ages to engage in physical activity.
 LANDSCAPE RESEARCH 875

ORCID
Angela Kreutz http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6257-4649
Anna Timperio http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8773-5012
Jenny Veitch http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8962-0887

References
Barker, R. (1968). Ecological psychology: concepts and methods for stying the environment of human behaviour. Stanford
University Press.
Blatchford, P., Baines, E., & Pellegrini, A. (2003). The social context of school playground games: Sex and ethnic
differences, and changes over time after entry to junior school. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21(4),
481–505. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151003322535183
Burdette, H. L., Whitaker, R. C., & Daniels, S. R. (2005). Resurrecting free play in young children: Looking beyond fitness
and fatness to attention, affiliation, and affect. Archives of Paediatric Adolescent Medicine, 159(1), 46–50. https://doi.
org/10.1001/archpedi.159.1.46
Chawla, L., & Heft, H. (2002). Children’s competence and the ecology of communities: A functional approach to the
evaluation of participation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22(1–2), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1003/
jevpl2002.0244
Chawla, L., Keena, K., Pevec, I., & Stanley, E. (2014). Green schoolyards as havens from stress and resources for resilience
in childhood and adolescence. Health and Place, 28, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2014.03.001
Corsaro, W. A. (2000). Early childhood education, children’s peer cultures, and the future of childhood. European Early
Childhood Education Research Journal, 8(2), 89–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/13502930085208591
Cosco, N. G., Moore, R. C., & Islam, M. Z. (2010). Behavior mapping: A method for linking preschool physical activity and
outdoor design. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2(3), 513–519. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.
0b013e3181cea27a
Derr, V. (2018). Urban greenspaces as participatory learning laboratories. Urban Design and Planning, 171(1), 25–33.
https://doi:10.1680/jurdp.17.00009
Derr, V., Chawla, L., & Mintzer, M. (2018). Placemaking with children and youth: Participatory practices for planning
sustainable communities. New Village Press.
Derr, V., & Rigolon, A. (2016). Participatory schoolyard design for health and well-being: Policies that support play in
urban green spaces. In C. Freeman, P. Tranter, & T. Skelton (Eds.), risk, protection, provision, and policy (pp. 1-34).
Volume 12 of Geographies of children and young people. Springer Science and Business Media. https://doi:10.1007/
978-981–287-035-3_21
Dyment, J., Bell, A. C., & Lucas, A. J. (2009). The relationship between school ground design and intensity of physical
activity. Children’s Geographies, 7(3), 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733280903024423
Dyment, J., & O’Connell, T. S. (2013). The impact of playground design on play choices and behaviors of pre-school
children. Children’s Geographies, 11(3), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2013.812272
Fjørtoft, I. (2004). Landscape as playscape: The effects of natural environments on children’s play and motor develop­
ment. Children, Youth and Environments, 14(2), 21–44.
Fjørtoft, I., & Sageie, J. (2000). The natural environment as a playground for children” Landscape description and
analyses of a natural playscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48(1–2), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-
2046(00)00045-1
Flowers, E. P., Timperio, A., Hesketh, K. D., & Veitch, J. (2019). Examining the features of parks that children visit during
three stages of childhood. Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(9), 1658. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph16091658
Fuad-Luke, A. (2009). Design Activism: Beautiful strangeness for a sustainable world. Earthscan.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.
Goličnik, B. (2005). People in place: A configuration of physical form and the dynamic patterns of spatial occupancy in urban
open public space. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Edinburgh College of Art, Heriot Watt University.
Green, M. (2014). Transformational design literacies. Children as active place-makers. Children’s Geographies, 12(2),
189–204. https://doi:10.1080/14733285.2013.812305
Hart, R. A. (1997). Children’s participation: The theory and practice of involving young citizens in community development
and environmental care. Earthscan.
Harten, N., Olds, T., & Dollman, J. (2008). The effects of gender, motor skills and play area on the free play activities of
8-11 year old school children. Health and Place, 14(3), 368–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2007.08.005
Heft, H., & Kyttä, M. (2006). A psychologically meaningful description of environments requires a relational approach.
Housing, Theory and Society, 23(4), 210–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/14036090600909550
876 A. KREUTZ ET AL.

Hops, H., Davis, B., & Longoria, N. (1995). Methodological issues in direct observation: Illustrations with the living in
familial environments (LIFE) Coding System.”. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 24(2), 193–203. https://doi.org/10.
1207/s15374424jccp2402_7
Jansson, M., Mårtensson, F., & Gunnarsson, A. (2018). The meaning of participation in school ground greening: A study
from project to everyday setting. Landscape Research, 43(1), 163–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2017.
1306623
Kreutz, A., Derr, V., & Chawla, L. (2018). Fluid or fixed? Processes that facilitate or constrain a sense of inclusion in
participatory schoolyard and park design. Landscape Journal, 37(1), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.37.1.39
Kusenbach, M. (2003). Street phenomenology: The go-along as ethnographic research tool. Ethnography, 4(3),
455–1381. https://doi.org/10.1177/146613810343007
Kyttä, M., Oliver, M., Ikeda, E., Ahmadi, E., Omiya, I., & Laatikainen, T. (2018). Children as urbanities: Mapping the
affordances and behavior settings of urban environments of Finnish and Japanese children. Children’s Geographies,
16(3), 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2018.1453923
Lindon, J. (2001). Understanding children’s play. Nelson Thornes.
Lucas, A., & Dyment, J. E. (2010). Where do children choose to play on the school ground? The influence of green design.
Education, 38(2), 177–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004270903130812
Luchs, A., & Fikus, M. (2013). A comparative study of active play on differently designed playgrounds. Journal of
Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 13(3), 206–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2013.778784
Malone, K., & Tranter, P. J. (2003). School grounds as sites for learning: Making the most of environmental opportunities.
Environmental Education Research, 9(3), 283–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620303459
Markus, H. R. (2005). On telling less than we can know. The too tacit wisdom of social psychology. Psychological Inquiry,
16(4), 180–184. https://doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1604_08
Matsuoka, R. H. (2010). Student performance and high school landscapes. Landscape Urban Planning, 97(4), 273–282.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.06.011
McKenzie, T. L., Sallis, J. F., Elder, J. P., Berry, C. C., Hoy, P. L., Nader, P. R., Zive, M. M., & Broyles, S. L. (1997). Physical activity
levels and prompts in young children at recess: A two-year study of a bi-ethnic sample. Research Quarterly Exercise
and Sport, 68(3), 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1997.10607998
Moore, R. C. (1986). Childhood’s domain: Play and place in child development. Croom Helm.
Moore, R. C., & Wong, H. H. (1997). Natural learning: The life history of environmental schoolyard. MIG Communications.
The Natural Learning Initiative (NLI). (2005). Post occupancy evaluation (POE) of kids together park, Cary, North Carolina
State University. Summary Report. https://projects.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/about_us/docs/KTP-
POE_Report_March-05.pdf
Niehues, A. N., Bundy, A., Broom, A., Tranter, P., Ragen, J., & Engelen, L. (2013). Everyday uncertainties: Reframing
perceptions of risk in outdoor free play. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 13(3), 223–237. https://
doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2013.798588
Pawlowski, C. S., Veitch, J., Andersen, H. B., & Ridgers, N. D. (2019). Designing activating schoolyards: Seen from the girls’
viewpoint. Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(19), 3503. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16193508
Pellegrini, A. D. (1995). School recess and playground behaviour: Developmental and educational roles. SUNY Press.
Raney, M. A., Hendry, C. F., & Yee, S. A. (2019). Physical activity and social behaviors of urban children in green
playgrounds. Journal of Preventive Medicine, 56(4), 522–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2018.11.004
Ridgers, N. D., Stratton, G., & Fairclough, S. J. (2006). Physical activity levels of children during school playtime. Sports
Medicine, 36(4), 359–371. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200636040-00005
Ridgers, N. D., Timperio, A., Crawford, D., & Salmon, J. (2012). Five-Year changes in school recess and lunchtime and the
contribution to children’s daily physical activity. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 46(10), 741–746. https://doi.org/10.
1136/bjsm.2011.084921
Rigolon, A., Derr, V., & Chawla, L. (2015). Green grounds for play and learning: An intergenerational model for joint
design and use of school and park systems. In D. Sinnett, N. Smith, & S. Burgess (Eds.), Handbook on green
infrastructure: Planning, design and implementation (pp. 281–300). Edward Elgar.
Roe, J., & Aspinall, P. (2011). The restorative outcomes of forest school and conventional school in young people with
food and poor behavior. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 10(3), 205–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2011.03.
003
Sanoff, H. (2000). Community participation methods in design and planning. Wiley.
Schoggen, P. (1989). Behavior settings: A revision and extension of Roger G. Barker’s ecological psychology. Standford
University Press.
Sharma-Brymer, V., & Bland, D. (2016). Bring nature to schools to promote children’s physical activity. Sports Medicine, 46
(7), 955–962. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0487-z
Skelly, S. M., & Bradley, C. J. (2007). The growing phenomenon of school garden: Measuring their variation and their
affect on students’ sense of responsibility and attitudes toward science and the environment. Applied Environmental
Education and Communication, 6(1), 97–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/15330150701319438
 LANDSCAPE RESEARCH 877

Snow, D., Bundy, A., Tranter, P., Wyver, S., & Naughton, G. (2019). Girls’ perspectives on the ideal school playground
experience: An exploratory study of four Australian primary schools. Children’s Geographies, 17(2), 148–161. https://
doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2018.1463430
Spark, C., Porter, L., & De Kleyn, L. (2019). ‘We’re not very good at soccer’: Gender, space and competence in a Victorian
primary school. Children’s Geographies, 17(2), 190–203. https://doi:10.1080/14733285.2018.1479513
Stratton, G. (1999). A preliminary study of children’s physical activity in one urban primary school playground:
Differences by sex and season. Journal of Sport Pedagogy, 2(1), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X17743048
Van Dijk-Wesselius, J. E., Mass, J., Hovinga, D., Van Vugt, M., & Van Den Berg, A. E. (2018). The impact of greening
schoolyards on the appreciation, and physical, cognitive and social-emotional well-being of schoolchildren:
A prospective intervention study. Landscape and Urban Planning, 180, 15–26. https://doi.org110.1016/j.landurb
plan.2018.08.003
Veitch, J., Salmon, J., & Ball, K. (2007). Children’s perceptions of the use of public open spaces for active free-play.
Children’s Geographies, 5(4), 409–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733280701631874
Wake, S. J., & Birdsall, S. (2016). Can school gardens deepen children’s connection to nature? In T. Skelton, K. Nairn, &
P. Kraftl (Eds.), Space, place, and environment (pp. 89–113). Springer.
Watkins, M. W., & Pacheco, M. (2000). Interobserver agreement in behavioral research: Importance and calculation.
Journal of Behavioral Education, 10(4), 205–212. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012295615144