Herrington, Brunelle Brussoni (2017) Outdoor Play Spaces in Canada

Herrington, Brunelle & Brussoni (2017) Outdoor play spaces in Canada: As if children mattered. In Waller, T., Arlemalm-Hagser, E.
, Sadseter, E.B.H., Lee-

Hammond, L., Lekies, K. & Wyver, S. The SAGE handbook of outdoor play and learning. (pp. 143-160 ). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://www-doi-
org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.4135/9781526402028
The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and

Learning
Outdoor Play Spaces in Canada: As if Children
Mattered
Contributors: Author:Susan Herrington, Sara Brunelle & Mariana Brussoni

Book Title: The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning
Chapter Title: "Outdoor Play Spaces in Canada: As if Children Mattered"
Pub. Date: 2017
Access Date: February 10, 2021
Publishing Company: SAGE Publications Ltd
City: 55 City Road
Print ISBN: 9781473926608
Online ISBN: 9781526402028
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781526402028.n10
Print pages: 143-160
© 2017 SAGE Publications Ltd All Rights Reserved.
This PDF has been generated from SAGE Knowledge. Please note that the pagination of the online
version will vary from the pagination of the print book.
SAGE SAGE Reference
© Tim Waller, Eva Ärlemalm-Hagsér, Ellen Beate Hansen Sandseter, Libby
Lee-Hammond, Kristi Lekies and Shirley Wyver 2017
Outdoor Play Spaces in Canada: As if Children Mattered
Outdoor Play Spaces in Canada: As If Children Mattered

Susan Herrington Sara Brunelle Mariana Brussoni
OUTDOOR PLAY IN A CANADIAN CONTEXT
In Canada, a myriad of social and political practices have limited children's opportunities for outdoor play
and the types of play spaces we design for children. ‘Intensive parenting', in which parents have close
involvement in and control of children's lives to ensure that they reach their full potential (Einboden, Rudge,
& Varcoe, 2013; Shirani, Henwood, & Coltart, 2012; Wall & Arnold, 2007; Zelizer, 1985), has shifted values
regarding children and the outdoor play spaces where they play. The conception of the child as resilient
has been replaced with the image of the child as vulnerable and in need of constant protection. Free play,
once viewed as the primary work of childhood, is now often considered a detraction from involvement in
academic enrichment programmes deemed more critical to a child's future achievements. Likewise, changing
perceptions of risk have led to expectations that risks can and should be avoided (Ball & Ball-King, 2011;
Green, 1999). These pressures have heightened expectations regarding appropriate levels of supervision,
as well as reduced the availability of free time to engage in outdoor unstructured and unsupervised play
(Clements, 2004; Gaster, 1991; Hofferth, 2009; Karsten, 2005; Malone, 2007).
Added to this situation, when children are permitted to play outdoors, the extent of their geographical
boundaries for play has been reduced compared to previous generations of children. Wridt (2004) analysed
autobiographies of residents’ use of outdoor public spaces when they were between the ages of 11 and 13
from the 1930s to early 2000s. She found a decreasing amount of experiences in parks and playgrounds as
the decades passed. Clements (2004) surveyed 830 mothers and found that in the first decade of the twenty-
first century, children spent significantly less time playing outdoors and participated in more adult organized
activities than the previous generation. Using global positioning systems (GPS) worn by 143 9- to 13-year-old
children in London, Canada, researchers found that on average 94.5 per cent of the participants’ time was
spent within a short distance (less than 400m) of their homes and that they spent only a very small portion of
their time in the larger neighbourhood context (Loebach & Gilliland, 2014).
Even when children are allowed to play in spaces designed expressly for them, the time, space and quality
of these places is limited. Compared to schools in other countries, North American schools in general
provide shorter and less frequent recess times. Children in most Canadian elementary schools are given
two 15-minute recesses per school day. Children's limited outdoor play time at school not only reduces
opportunities to make friends on their own and engage in free play, but may also hinder classroom learning
as recess contributes to cognitive, emotional and social development as well as adjustment to school
(Fagerstrom & Mahoney, 2006; Haapala et al., 2014; Pellegrini & Bjorklund, 2010; Pellegrini & Bohn, 2005;
Pellegrini & Smith, 1993; Ramstetter, Murray, & Garner, 2010; Waite-Stupiansky & Findlay, 2001). In Finland,
children are typically given a 15-minute break after every 45 minutes of classroom instruction (Haapala et al.,
2014). In Britain, children are provided two breaks for the school day: children 5–7 years old have 93 minutes
of break time, 83 minutes for children 7–11 years old and 77 minutes for children 11–16 years old (Pellegrini
& Bohn, 2005).
Despite Canada's geographic expanse as the second largest country in the world, the amount of space
dedicated to children's play is small in comparison to countries like Norway, particularly for outdoor play
spaces at childcare centres. While researchers found that outdoor play spaces in Oslo were shrinking
for children, the minimum allocation per child was 24m2 (Nilsen & Hägherhäll, 2012). In Canada, most
communities dedicate more space to a parked car than to a child. The average parking stall is 14m2, while
each full-time enrolled child in care is typically allocated 7m2 of outdoor play space (Community Care and
Assisted Living Act, 2007). This minimum standard is considerably less than Oslo's allocation, and it is
prevalent throughout North America. This fact has not escaped Early Childhood Educators (ECE) who work
in Vancouver's childcare centres. When asked to evaluate the outdoor play spaces at their centres, 64 per
cent wanted more space and 57 per cent thought the children needed more challenge (Herrington, 2008).
The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning
Page 2 of 24
SAGE SAGE Reference
The size of an outdoor play space is only one factor contributing to its quality. Researchers have identified
the importance of the physical layout of play spaces, what the play spaces contain, the amount of material
that can be manipulated by the children and opportunities for that all-important ingredient – challenge and
risk (Refshauge, Stigsdotter, Lamm, & Thorleifsdottir, 2013; Woolley, 2008). In particular, the importance
of natural elements within children's play spaces has been identified. A systematic review examining the
benefits of children's engagement with natural elements and in natural settings found that this experience
was associated with greater physical activity, mental health, emotion regulation, motor fitness, environmental
knowledge and long-term pro-environment attitudes (Gill, 2014). Children's play with natural elements or in
natural settings is more complex, diverse and lasts longer than play in equipment-based playgrounds (Drown
& Christensen, 2014; Luchs & Fikus, 2013; Samborski, 2010; Sargisson & McLean, 2012). Play in nature
also increases moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (Coe, Flynn, Wolff, Scott, & Durham, 2014) and light to
moderate physical activity among children (Dyment & Bell, 2008). It fosters self-determination (Kochanowski
& Carr, 2014) and helps children with emotional and behavioural problems (Maller & Townsend, 2006; Roe
& Aspinall, 2011). Natural play environments are also more gender neutral and offer more gender equity in
opportunities for play (Änggård, 2011; Lucas & Dyment, 2010).
Risky play opportunities are also beneficial to children's health and development. A recent systematic
review found overall positive effects of risky outdoor play on children's health, including increased physical
activity, reduced sedentary behaviour and the promotion of social health and behaviours (Brussoni et al.,
2015). Other research has suggested that risky play promotes risk management competence, self-esteem,
motor skills, social behaviour and independence (Hüttenmoser, 1995; Lavrysen, Bertrands, Leyssen, Smets,
Vanderspikken, & De Graef. Chapter 7 in this volume, by Sandseter, Little, Ball, Eager, & Brussoni, provides
a summary of the evidence on risky play.)
Unfortunately, it has been difficult to apply this research to the design of outdoor play spaces in Canada
because these spaces almost exclusively focus on fixed equipment, which minimize risk-taking and natural
elements in the play experience. One of the factors that has had a major impact on public play space design in
Canada has been the development and widescale application of the Canadian Standards Association (CSA)
Children's Playspaces and Equipment standards. The CSA standards were first introduced in 1990 with a
succession of updated versions in 1998, 2003, 2007 and 2014. The CSA standards are voluntary and must
be purchased, but there is often a misperception that they are a governmental publication. An unintended
result is their adoption by numerous Canadian communities as policy and their use in litigation cases involving
playground injuries. The widespread use of standards is problematic for a number of reasons. First, the main
goals of the standards are to provide ‘[g]uidance on requirements for the type of materials and equipment
that promote optimal safety in playspace layout’ (Canadian Standards Association, 2014), and to ‘enhance
trade and help make industry more competitive in the global marketplace’ (Canadian Standards Association,
2016). They are not intended to address play value or child development. Their use as design guidelines
has meant that they have been implemented beyond the scope of their remit (Spiegal, Gill, Harbottle, &
Ball, 2014). Second, since the standards focus on structures, equipment and surfacing materials (Canadian
Standards Association, 2014), an unfortunate and unintended effect has been the creation of outdoor play
spaces that consist of primarily equipment rather than natural play elements – what the landscape researcher
Helen Woolley calls Kit, Fence, Carpet, or KFC (Woolley & Lowe, 2013). These KFC play spaces are rated
as having the fewest opportunities for play compared to play spaces incorporating natural elements and risk-
taking.
Third, the value of standards as a mechanism for injury prevention has not been proved, despite their
intention to promote ‘safety'. At the time of Children's Playspaces and Equipment standards’ inception,
Canadian injury experts found injury levels on outdoor play spaces were not significantly high, yet the CSA
referenced US injury data to justify the need for standards (Herrington & Nicholls, 2007). Spiegel et al.
(2014) document similar misinterpretations of injury statistics in Britain to justify recommendations for surface
absorbing materials in order to prevent head injuries. The injury data are clear in indicating the rarity of head
injuries. For example, studies that have collected playground injury statistics across entire school districts in
Canada and New Zealand have not documented any head injuries (Howard, Macarthur, Rothman, Willan,
& Macpherson, 2009; Rubie-Davies & Townsend, 2007). A US study of playground-related head injuries
between 2001 and 2013 found rates indicating that an elementary school with 500 students would experience
one emergency department visit every 5–6 years, and a city of 700,000 would experience one hospitalization
Page 3 of 24
SAGE SAGE Reference
every year (Cheng et al., 2016). Fractures are by far the most common cause of hospitalization due to a
fall from play equipment (Sherker & Ozanne-Smith, 2004; Vollman, Witsaman, Comstock, & Smith, 2009).
Serious injuries from playground-related incidents continue to be rare, with research indicating that children
are more likely to get a medically attended injury while engaged in sports than while playing, when time spent
playing is taken into account (Nauta, Martin-Diener, Martin, van Mechelen, & Verhagen, 2015).
DESIGNING OUTDOOR PLAY SPACES AS IF CHILDREN MATTERED
The research supporting the importance of outdoor risky play with natural elements gets lost with the focus
on equipment-based playgrounds, the fear of children's injuries and the potential for litigation. Despite this
difficult situation, in Canada over the past decade a concerted effort has been made to create better play
spaces with children's needs in mind. A 2014 online survey suggests that general attitudes may be shifting
away from prioritizing equipment and safety, to a more holistic consideration of children's play space design
that accounts for children's developmental and health needs. Of the 592 adult respondents, 69 per cent
believed contemporary playgrounds to be too safe and lacking challenges (Brunelle, Coghlan, Herrington, &
Brussoni, 2016). Furthermore, when asked about their childhood memories of favourite outdoor play spaces,
a majority of respondents (59 per cent) said that they had preferred natural play spaces and elements, and
overwhelmingly listed natural elements, such as sticks, logs and vegetation, as their favourite features of
outdoor play.
Position Statement on Active Outdoor Play
A number of initiatives have begun from a diversity of Canadian sectors to improve outdoor play for children.
These sectors include academic researchers, designers, knowledge translation groups and environmental
organizations that draw from the expertise of landscape architecture, child development, education and health
promotion. The Position Statement on Active Outdoor Play (ParticipACTION Canada, 2015; Tremblay et al.,
2015), released in June 2015 by a consortium of academics and Canadian organizations, represents the most
recent and visible milestone in these efforts. To develop the Position Statement, broad multidisciplinary input
was sought regarding the findings of two systematic literature reviews on the health benefits of risky play
(Brussoni et al., 2015) and outdoor time (Gray et al., 2015). In reaction to the findings of these two reviews,
a national consensus group met to discuss research evidence and develop content for a position statement.
An online survey, completed by 1,908 respondents, was used to solicit comments on the draft position
statement. The final position statement was launched as part of a large-scale public relations campaign led
by ParticipACTION, a national non-profit organization whose mission is to help Canadians sit less and move
more. It resulted in extensive media coverage across Canada, including almost 1,000 news stories and 300
million media impressions. At the time of this writing, 279 individuals and organizations had signed on as
supporters of the Position Statement on Active Outdoor Play (Healthy Active Living and Obesity Research
Group, 2015).
Tim Gill, a leading UK advocate for children's play, notes parallels between the Canadian Position Statement
on Active Outdoor Play and the 2002 UK Play Safety Forum's position statement (Play Safety Forum, 2002,
2008). This document and surrounding advocacy influenced the ethos with respect to risk in play in the
UK, such that in 2012 the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) – the UK's safety regulator – recognized the
importance of play, and opportunities for risk through play, in order to help prepare children for adulthood
(Ball, 2014; Spiegal et al., 2014). Gill reports that their guide promoting risk–benefit assessments has been
endorsed by the HSE and is gaining use throughout the UK (Gill, 2015). The All-Party Parliamentary Group
on a Fit and Healthy Childhood's recently released report on play highlighted the importance of supporting
children's experience of risk and challenge (UK All-Party Parliamentary Group on a Fit and Healthy Childhood,
2015). They recommended professional training in risk–benefit assessment for all educators, local authorities
and inspectors, public-information initiatives to increase parents and professionals’ awareness of risk–benefit
assessments, as well as mechanisms for challenging questionable decisions limiting children's play made in
the interest of ‘health and safety'.
While it is still too soon to determine the impact of the Canadian Position Statement on Active Outdoor Play,
it was recently introduced as evidence in a case presented to the Supreme Court of British Columbia in which
Page 4 of 24
SAGE SAGE Reference
it was used as ‘social fact’ evidence that ‘rules and regulations designed to prevent injuries and reduce tort
liability have become excessive and counter-productive to youth health and fitness’ (Baird, 2015, p. 5). The
case that prompted the suit was dismissed, with the judge concluding that the District was not at fault for the
injury the child received while playing in its care.
Some Canadian municipalities have shifted their approach to risk in play. The Corporation of Delta, BC, has
offered up to $10,000 in playground funding to schools ‘[t]o encourage the reintroduction of risk through
natural play elements’ (Corporation of Delta Parks Recreation and Culture Department, 2015, p. 3). The
City and District of North Vancouver, through the North Vancouver Recreation & Culture Commission, has
approached risk in play from multiple angles: an audit of policies, guidelines and services with community and
recreation centres and services to eliminate or modify excessively protective and unnecessary regulations; a
rethink of the play elements within parks and playgrounds; and redesign of recreational service offerings to
incorporate principles of risky play and to enable free, unstructured play.
In an attempt to address some of the barriers that municipalities, schools and other play providers face in
managing risk in play, work is under way to adapt the UK Play Safety Forum's risk–benefit assessment
approach to the Canadian legislative landscape. The Child and Nature Alliance of Canada has incorporated
a modified version within its Forest Schools Canada programme. In addition to running a forest school in
Ottawa, Forest Schools Canada offers training and certification to practitioners from across the country,
thereby disseminating this approach nation-wide.
Further challenges remain to shift Canadian attitudes toward children's outdoor play. However, the Position
Statement on Active Outdoor Play and its influence on the policy-related dimensions of children's outdoor
play demonstrates an openness to include multidisciplinary research evidence. This research, which stresses
the importance of risky play and play with natural elements, promises to improve children's outdoor play
opportunities. The Position Statement on Active Outdoor Play represents one tool that has been useful in
advocating for change. Another instrument that has been helpful in shaping the quality of outdoor play spaces
has been the ‘Seven Cs’ design guidelines.
The Seven Cs
The Outside Criteria study, a 5-year examination of the outdoor play spaces at childcare centres in Vancouver,
identified the physical characteristics of these environments that contribute to early childhood development.
The results of this study, combined with findings from a review of the literature concerning landscapes
designed for children, were compiled into the Seven Cs Informational Guide for Young Children's Play Spaces
(Herrington, Lesmeister, Nicholls, & Stefiuk, 2007). The Seven Cs (Character, Context, Connectivity, Clarity,
Chance, Change and Challenge) have been used in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, China,
Australia and Iran (Herrington, 2012; Mountain, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c; Nature Play Western Australia, n.d.;
Sajadi & Khoshnevis, 2016). In terms of a North American context, introducing the Seven Cs to outdoor play
space design means a call for more natural materials in the play space including plants, boulders, bricks,
sand, logs and other items not normally associated with Canadian playgrounds. Arranging these materials
based on the Seven Cs guidelines can heighten play value, increase the amount of challenge and healthy
risk-taking in play, and contribute to more natural material in the play space (Herrington et al., 2007).
Each element of the Seven Cs is outlined in the following paragraphs, illustrated by three different types
of outdoor play spaces recently created in British Columbia. The first example, the Garden City Play
Environment, is a permanent urban park connected to a nearby school. Designed by Space2Place Landscape
Architects, using the Seven Cs and clay work with local children, the park was one of the first of its kind in
Canada. It won the 2009 Award of Excellence from the Canadian Society of Landscape Architects, a National
Merit Award in the category of Design, and the British Columbia Recreation and Parks Association Parks and
Open Spaces Award.
Terra Nova Park, the second example, is a permanent park located in a rural area of Richmond. Designed by
landscape architects at the Hapa Collaborative, who incorporated the Seven Cs in their design process, this
park's design makes a concerted effort to provide challenge for older school-aged children. The third example
involves the Risky Play Meets Nature Play research project, which is a semi-permanent play installation that
Page 5 of 24
SAGE SAGE Reference
was designed by Sara Brunelle while a landscape architecture student at the University of British Columbia,
using the Seven Cs. It is part of a study conducted by the authors. Since childcare centres are usually limited
in their funding options, the goal was to employ inexpensive play installations that could be potentially adopted
by other centres.
Designing for Character
Character refers to the general feel of the outdoor play space, including the condition it is in and the quality
of the play elements within it. Ideally, the materials that make up the space contribute to a sense of overall
softness and provide children with a multisensorial experience that is not only rich in stimuli but has distinct
sensory values that stimulate different senses – touch, smell, sound and sight. Creating a sense of ‘softness’
in the play space can be achieved by adding a range of vegetative and porous material such as grass, sand,
dirt, water and wood chips. These elements have tactile qualities that contribute to creating a stimulating and
engaging space where children are encouraged to explore the consistency of materials (compact, malleable,
slippery, soft, hard), understand their tactile qualities (hot, cold, wet, dry, smooth, rough) and observe their
movement (brusque, gentle, rhythmic). These elements can also contribute to expanding the colour and
textural palette and help to balance the light quality of the play space. Figure 9.1 shows the childcare outdoor
play space for the Risky Play Meets Nature Play project before the installation. Figure 9.2 displays the play
space after the intervention. The character of the play space has changed, with plant materials creating
‘softness’ and contributing to a stimulating and engaging play space.
Figure 9.1 Risky Play Meets Nature Play project before the installation (Photo: Sara Brunelle).

Page 6 of 24
SAGE SAGE Reference
Figure 9.2 Risky Play Meets Nature Play project after the installation (Photo: Sara Brunelle).
Designing for Context
Designing with context in mind means considering how the play space interacts with the surrounding
landscape. In general, playground design has little regard for local character and provides few opportunities
for children to interact independently with the surrounding space (Woolley, 2008). While this is often a reaction
to traffic and other perceived dangers, when possible, offering children the opportunity for views out of the
play space, as well as opportunities to safely interact with neighbours, is a way to expand the playground
beyond its actual borders. Considering context also requires designers to address the microclimate conditions
within the play area. Designing for climate comfort by mitigating hot and cold pockets, addressing intense
sun exposure, and blocking wind corridors will enhance play experience and allow children to be outdoors
comfortably and safely for longer periods. Figure 9.3 demonstrates how the vegetation can play a role in
modifying the play space microclimate.

Page 7 of 24
SAGE SAGE Reference
Figure 9.3 Use of vegetation to address microclimate conditions (from the Seven Cs Informational Guide,
image by Kate Stefuik).
Designing for Connectivity
Connectivity unifies the space, allowing children to create physical and visual connections within the play
environment. Pathways should be designed to promote easy entry into the play space and allow children to
access and explore the different play zones within the playground. In general, paths should lead children to
spaces. Looping paths promote continuous and fluid movement. Providing a series of pathways with different
widths and textured surfaces will also give children the freedom to decide where to explore next. While paths
may be multipurpose, creating a separation between pedal traffic for tricycle play and foot traffic should
be considered. Figure 9.4 from the Garden City Play Environment shows how paths can be given different
textures and colour.

Page 8 of 24
SAGE SAGE Reference
Figure 9.4 Textured pavement in the Garden City Play Environment (Photo: Tasha Sangha).

Page 9 of 24
SAGE SAGE Reference

Page 10 of 24
SAGE SAGE Reference
Figure 9.5 is an aerial view of the Garden City Play Environment, showing the connectivity of the design. The
looping paths continuously lead to sub-play space in the environment. This play environment has a robust
relationship to context, as the pathways lead to existing paths surrounding the play area.
Figure 9.5 Aerial photo of the Garden City Play Environment by Space2Place (Photo: Jeff Cutler).
Designing for Clarity
Clarity in the play space allows children to recognize the patterns and physical composition of the space.
Clarity in design offers a range of play zones that can be easily identified. These zones include messy zones,
sand play, water play, tricycle space and designated areas for running and climbing as well as places to
cool off, sit down and hang out. Designing for clarity also provides clear space for storage and clean-up of
loose materials. Figure 9.6 shows clarity at the Garden City Play Environment. Zones are clearly defined for
different types of play and informal seating, and a high point in the play environment offers prospects of the
entire space.

Page 11 of 24
SAGE SAGE Reference
Figure 9.6 Garden City Play Environment by Space2Place (Photo: Jeff Cutler).
Designing for Chance
Designing for chance is achieved by offering children elements in the play space to create and build with,
manipulate and change, allowing children to participate in the transformation of their own play space.
Elements that move, can be used to build with, or that can be mixed together offer children chance for
something to happen. Vegetation (that can withstand tugging), gravel, sand, water, mulch and dirt can be
used as creative and imaginative play props. Adding mystery to the play space by designing spaces to look
behind, objects to stand on for prospect and spaces to crawl into promotes exploration. Figure 9.7 shows the
mud play area at the Garden City Play Environment.

Page 12 of 24
SAGE SAGE Reference
Designing for Change
Designing for change involves creating a play space that is constantly changing in material and spatial
composition. The play space should also provide a range of spaces and sub-spaces that accommodate
different size groups and allow for a diversity of play. Change can be integrated into the ground plane by using
different ground surfaces and manipulating the topography to include slopes and mounds. Creating a play
environment that is constantly changing by adding materials that transform over time, such as vegetation,
allows children to observe and understand change. Ornamental grasses are versatile plants that add change
to the play environment because they grow very quickly every spring and then are cut back in winter. In Figure
9.8 grasses are not pushed to the sides of the play space, but are integrated into the play space.

Page 13 of 24
SAGE SAGE Reference
Designing for Challenge
Challenging elements should be placed throughout the playground for children to explore, master and test
their limits. Within the play space, children should be encouraged to take risks and challenge themselves with
elements that allow them to play at height (e.g., structures of varying height, ladders, ropes, nets, bars to hang
from), balance (e.g., stepping stones, logs, balance beams) and speed (e.g., flat open spaces for running,
ball play, cycling, swings). Play elements should be gauged to a range of difficulties, suitable for children with
varying personalities and levels of competence. Natural elements like trees provide ideal challenges as they
are not predictable and the child must determine if a branch will hold their weight or not.
In Figure 9.9, a felled tree trunk at the Garden City Play Environment provides challenge for this preschooler.
In Figure 9.10, a low sprawling tree and wood structure at the Terra Nova Play Environment provides
challenge for school-aged children. Figure 9.11 shows a four-metre-high tower at the Terra Nova Play
Environment, which provides challenge for the more daring.

Page 14 of 24
SAGE SAGE Reference

Page 15 of 24
SAGE SAGE Reference
Figure 9.10 Terra Nova Play Environment by Hapa Collaborative (Photo: Tasha Sangha).

Page 16 of 24
SAGE SAGE Reference
Figure 9.11 Terra Nova Play Environment Hapa Collaborative (Photo: Tasha Sangha).

Page 17 of 24
SAGE SAGE Reference

Page 18 of 24
SAGE SAGE Reference
Seven Cs Evaluation
For readers interested in applying the Seven Cs principles to an existing play space, Appendix 9.1 contains
an evaluation checklist that can help the user identify strengths and potential improvements for the play space
(Herrington, Brunelle, Mountain, & Brussoni, 2015). Originally developed by Julie Mountain using the Seven
Cs, it has been expanded and adapted to incorporate the latest research and design principles. Based on this
checklist, play spaces can be assigned a maximum score of 135, which includes up to 25 points for Character,
25 for Context, 15 for Connectivity, 20 for Clarity, 15 for Chance, 25 for Change and 10 for Challenge. Thus,
users can pinpoint specific elements of the Seven Cs that are already being addressed well, or that require
additional attention to improve.
CONCLUSION
Recent decades have seen a reduction in children's opportunities for outdoor play and a proliferation of KFC-
style play spaces for children in Canada. There are, however, encouraging trends that indicate an interest
in promoting children's outdoor play and designing quality play spaces that incorporate natural materials.
In this chapter we have profiled two initiatives in Canada that are beginning to change attitudes towards
children's outdoor play and improve the landscapes designed for their play. The Position Statement on Active
Outdoor Play is starting to influence the conversation on children's outdoor play and has the potential to shape
legislative decisions regarding children's outdoor play. The Seven Cs design guidelines, which address the
physical design of outdoor play spaces, have helped Canadian communities provide developmentally rich
play environments. It is clear that promoting an approach to children's play that values access to the outdoors
and a high quality play space design requires a multi-pronged effort that addresses society's social, legal and
physical contexts. Activities in Canada illustrate potential approaches that can be adapted to local contexts
for promoting necessary change.
REFERENCES
Änggård, E. (2011). Children's gendered and non-gendered play in natural spaces. Children, Youth and
Environments, 21(2), 5–33.
Baird, R. A. M. (2015). Thompson v. Corp. of the District of Saanich, 2015 BCSC 1750. Victoria, BC: BC
Supreme Court. Retrieved from www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/15/17/2015BCSC1750.htm.
Ball, D. J. (2014). Risk management and risk-benefit assessment. Injury Prevention, Supplement 6.
Ball, D. J., & Ball-King, L. (2011). Public safety and risk assessment. New York: Routledge.
Brunelle, S., Coghlan, R., Herrington, S., & Brussoni, M. (2016). Play worth remembering: Are playgrounds
too safe? Children, Youth and Environments, 26(1), 17–36.
Brussoni, M., Gibbons, R., Gray, C., Ishikawa, T., Sandseter, E. B. H., Bienenstock, A., … Tremblay, M.
S. (2015). What is the relationship between risky outdoor play and health in children? A systematic review.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(6), 6423–6454.
Canadian Standards Association (2014). CAN/CSA-Z614-14 – Children's playspaces and equipment (
5th
ed.). Toronto, ON: Canadian Standards Association.
Canadian Standards Association (2016). Codes & Standards. Retrieved from www.csagroup.org/services/
codes-and-standards/.
Cheng, T. A., Bell, J. M., Haileyesus, T., Gilchrist, J., Sugerman, D. E., & Coronado, V. G. (2016). Nonfatal
playground-related traumatic brain injuries among children, 2001–2013. Pediatrics, 137(6), e20152721.
Clements, R. (2004). An investigation of the status of outdoor play. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood,
5(1), 68–80.
Coe, D. P., Flynn, J. I., Wolff, D. L., Scott, S. N., & Durham, S. (2014). Children's physical activity levels and
utilization of a traditional versus natural playground. Children, Youth and Environments, 24(3), 1–15.
Community Care and Assisted Living Act. Child Care Licensing Regulation (2007). British Columbia, Canada.
Retrieved from www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/332_2007.
Corporation of Delta Parks Recreation and Culture Department (2015). Community Initiated Cost Sharing
Projects – Community Playgrounds. Delta, BC.

Page 19 of 24
SAGE SAGE Reference
Drown, K. K. C., & Christensen, K. M. (2014). Dramatic play affordances of natural and manufactured outdoor
settings for preschool-aged children. Children, Youth and Environments, 24(2), 53–77.
Dyment, J. E., & Bell, A. C. (2008). Grounds for movement: Green school grounds as sites for promoting
physical activity. Health Education Research, 23(6), 952–962.
Einboden, R., Rudge, T., & Varcoe, C. (2013). Producing children in the 21st century: A critical discourse
analysis of the science and techniques of monitoring early child development. Health, 17(6), 549–566.
Fagerstrom, T., & Mahoney, K. (2006). Give me a break! Can strategic recess scheduling increase on-task
behaviour for first-graders? Ontario Action Researcher, 9, 6.
Gaster, S. (1991). Urban children's access to their neighborhood: Changes over three generations.
Environment and Behavior, 23, 70–85.
Gill, T. (2014). The benefits of children's engagement with nature: A systematic literature review. Children,
Youth and Environments, 24(2), 10–34.
Gill, T. (2015). No risk, no reward – liberating the bubble-wrapped generations. In BC Recreation and Parks
Association Syposium (p. 6). Victoria, BC: BC Recreation & Parks Association.
Gray, C., Gibbons, R., Larouche, R., Sandseter, E. B. H., Bienenstock, A., Brussoni, M., … Tremblay, M. S.
(2015). What is the relationship between outdoor time and physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and physical
fitness in children? A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
12(6), 6455–6474.
Green, J. (1999). From accidents to risk: Public health and preventable injury. Health, Risk & Society, 1(1),
25–39.
Haapala, H. L., Hirvensalo, M. H., Laine, K., Laakso, L., Hakonen, H., Kankaanpää, A., … Tammelin, T. H.
(2014). Recess physical activity and school-related social factors in Finnish primary and lower secondary
schools: Cross-sectional associations. BMC Public Health, 14(1), 1114.
Healthy Active Living and Obesity Research Group (2015). Position statement on Active Outdoor Play.
Retrieved from www.haloresearch.ca/outdoorplay/.
Herrington, S. (2008). Perspectives from the ground: Early Childhood Educators’ perceptions of outdoor play
spaces at child care centers. Children, Youth and Environments, 13, 64–87.
Herrington, S. (2012). An informational guide for young people's play spaces. Landscape Architecture CHINA,
2, 42–55.
Herrington, S., Brunelle, S., Mountain, J., & Brussoni, M. (2015). 7Cs evaluation for children's play spaces.
Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.
Herrington, S., Lesmeister, C., Nicholls, J., & Stefiuk, K. (2007). Seven C's: An informational guide to young
children's outdoor play spaces. Vancouver: Consortium for Health, Intervention, Learning and Development
(CHILD). Retrieved from www.wstcoast.org/playspaces/outsidecriteria/7Cs.pdf.
Herrington, S., & Nicholls, J. (2007). Outdoor play spaces in Canada: The safety dance of standards as policy.
Critical Social Policy, 27(1), 128–138.
Hofferth, S. L. (2009). Changes in American children's time – 1997 to 2003. Electronic International Journal
of Time Use Research, 6, 26–47.
Howard, A. W., Macarthur, C., Rothman, L., Willan, A., & Macpherson, A. K. (2009). School playground
surfacing and arm fractures in children: A cluster randomized trial comparing sand to wood chip surfaces.
PLoS Medicine, 6(12), e1000195.
Hüttenmoser, M. (1995). Children and their living surroundings: Empirical investigation into the significance
of living surroundings for the everyday life and development of children. Children's Environments, 12(4),
403–413.
Karsten, L. (2005). It all used to be better? Different generations on continuity and change in urban children's
daily use of space. Children's Geographies, 3, 275–290.
Kochanowski, L., & Carr, V. (2014). Nature playscapes as contexts for fostering self-determination. Children,
Youth and Environments, 24(2), 146–167.
Lavrysen, A., Bertrands, E., Leyssen, L., Smets, L., Vanderspikken, A., & De Graef, P. (2015). Risky-play at
school. Facilitating risk perception and competence in young children. European Early Childhood Education
Research Journal. [Online] http://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2015.1102412.
Loebach, J. E., & Gilliland, J. A. (2014). Free range kids? Using GPS-derived activity spaces to examine
children's neighborhood activity and mobility. Environment and Behavior, 48(3), 1–33.
Lucas, A. J., & Dyment, J. E. (2010). Where do children choose to play on the school ground? The influence
of green design. Education 3-13, 38(2), 177–189.
Luchs, A., & Fikus, M. (2013). A comparative study of active play on differently designed playgrounds. Journal
Page 20 of 24
SAGE SAGE Reference
of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 13(3), 206–222.

Maller, C., & Townsend, M. (2006). Children's mental health and wellbeing and hands-on contact with nature.
International Journal of Learning, 12(4), 359–372.
Malone, K. (2007). The bubble-wrap generation: Children growing up in walled gardens. Environmental
Education Research, 13, 513–527.
Mountain, J. (2014a). Character building. Nursery World, 7–20 April, 21–24.
Mountain, J. (2014b). Clear thinking. Nursery World, 2–15 June, 21–23.
Mountain, J. (2014c). In context. Nursery World, 5–18 May, 21–24.
Nature Play Western Austalia (undated). 7Cs ‘An informational guide to young children's outdoor play
spaces'. Government of Australia. Retrieved from www.natureplaywa.org.au/7cs-an-informational-guide-to-
young-children-s-outdoor-play-spaces-2.
Nauta, J., Martin-Diener, E., Martin, B. W., van Mechelen, W., & Verhagen, E. (2015). Injury risk during
different physical activity behaviours in children: A systematic review with bias assessment. Sports Medicine,
45, 327–336.
Nilsen, A. H., & Hägherhäll, C. M. (2012). Impact of space requirements on outdoor play areas in public
kindergartens. Nordic Journal of Architectural Research, 24(2), 8–28.
ParticipACTION Canada. (2015). The biggest risk is keeping kids indoors: ParticipACTION Report Card on
Physical Activity and Youth. Toronto, Ontario. Retrieved from www.participaction.com/report-card-2015/.
Pellegrini, A. D., & Bjorklund, D. F. (2010). The role of recess in children's cognitive performance. Educational
Psychologist, 32(1), 35–40.
Pellegrini, A. D., & Bohn, C. M. (2005). The role of recess in children's cognitive performance and school
adjustment. Educational Researcher, 34(1), 13–19.
Pellegrini, A. D., & Smith, P. K. (1993). School recess: Implications for education and development. Review
of Educational Research, 63(1), 51–67.
Play Safety Forum (2002). Managing risk in play provision: A position statement. London: National Children's
Bureau.
Play Safety Forum (2008). Managing risk in play provision: A position statement. London: Play England.
Retrieved from www.playengland.org.uk/resources/managing-risk-in-play-provision-a-position-
statement.aspx.
Ramstetter, C. L., Murray, R., & Garner, A. S. (2010). The crucial role of recess in schools. Journal of School
Health, 80(11), 517–526.
Refshauge, A. D., Stigsdotter, U. K., Lamm, B., & Thorleifsdottir, K. (2013). Evidence-based playground
design: Lessons learned from theory to practice. Landscape Research, 40(2), 226–246.
Roe, J., & Aspinall, P. (2011). The emotional affordances of forest settings: An investigation in boys with
extreme behavioural problems. Landscape Research, 36(5), 535–552.
Rubie-Davies, C. M., & Townsend, M. A. R. (2007). Fractures in New Zealand elementary school settings.
Journal of School Health, 77(1), 36–40.
Sajadi, S. A., & Khoshnevis, A. M. K. (2016). Studying seven criteria of designing outdoor play spaces in some
kindergartens of Tehran. International Journal of Biology, Pharmacy and Allied Sciences, 5(1), 306–318.
Samborski, S. (2010). Biodiverse or barren school grounds: Their effects on children. Children, Youth and
Environments, 20(2), 67–115.
Sargisson, R., & McLean, I. G. (2012). Children's use of nature in New Zealand playgrounds. Children, Youth
and Environments, 22(2), 144–163.
Sherker, S., & Ozanne-Smith, J. (2004). Are current playground safety standards adequate for preventing
arm fractures? Medical Journal of Australia, 180(11), 562–565. Retrieved from http://europepmc.org/abstract/
med/15174986.
Shirani, F., Henwood, K., & Coltart, C. (2012). Meeting the challenges of intensive parenting culture: Gender,
risk management and the moral parent. Sociology, 46, 25–40.
Spiegal, B., Gill, T. R., Harbottle, H., & Ball, D. J. (2014). Children's play space and safety management:
Rethinking the role of play equipment standards. SAGE Open, 4(1), 2158244014522075.
Tremblay, M. S., Gray, C., Babcock, S., Barnes, J., Bradstreet, C. C., Carr, D., … Brussoni, M. (2015).
Position statement on active outdoor play. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
12(6), 6475–6505.
UK All-Party Parliamentary Group on a Fit and Healthy Childhood (2015). Play. Retrieved from
www.educ.cam.ac.uk/centres/pedal/downloads/play-report-final-designed.pdf.
Vollman, D., Witsaman, R., Comstock, R. D., & Smith, G. A. (2009). Epidemiology of playground equipment-
Page 21 of 24
SAGE SAGE Reference
related injuries to children in the United States, 1996–2005. Clinical Pediatrics, 48(1), 66–71.
Waite-Stupiansky, S., & Findlay, M. (2001). The fourth R: Recess and its link to learning. The Educational
Forum, 66(1), 16–25.
Wall, G., & Arnold, S. (2007). How involved is involved fathering? An exploration of the contemporary culture
of fatherhood. Gender and Society, 26, 508–527.
Woolley, H. (2008). Watch this space! Designing for children's play in public open spaces. Geography
Compass, 2(2), 495–512.
Woolley, H., & Lowe, A. (2013). Exploring the relationship between design approach and play value of outdoor
play spaces. Landscape Research, 38(1), 53–74.
Wridt, P. J. (2004). An historical analysis of young people's use of public space, parks and playgrounds in
New York City. Children, Youth and Environments, 14(1), 86–106.
Zelizer, V. A. R. (1985). Pricing the priceless child: The changing social value of children. New York: Basic
Books.
Appendix 9.1: 7 Cs evaluation for children's play space
By Susan Herrington, Sara Brunelle, Julie Mountain, Mariana Brussoni

Page 22 of 24
SAGE SAGE Reference

Page 23 of 24
SAGE SAGE Reference
• children
• Canada
• garden city
• playgrounds
• hapa
• sangha
• gardening
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781526402028.n10

Page 24 of 24

Herrington, Brunelle Brussoni (2017) Outdoor Play Spaces in Canada

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Herrington, Brunelle Brussoni (2017) Outdoor Play Spaces in Canada

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Herrington, Brunelle & Brussoni (2017) Outdoor play spaces in Canada: As if children mattered. In Waller, T., Arlemalm-Hagser, E.

, Sadseter, E.B.H., Lee-

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and

Contributors: Author:Susan Herrington, Sara Brunelle & Mariana Brussoni

Outdoor Play Spaces in Canada: As if Children Mattered

Outdoor Play Spaces in Canada: As If Children Mattered

OUTDOOR PLAY IN A CANADIAN CONTEXT

DESIGNING OUTDOOR PLAY SPACES AS IF CHILDREN MATTERED

Position Statement on Active Outdoor Play

Designing for Character

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

Designing for Context

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

Designing for Connectivity

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

Designing for Clarity

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

Designing for Chance

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

Designing for Change

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

Designing for Challenge

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 13(3), 206–222.

Appendix 9.1: 7 Cs evaluation for children's play space

By Susan Herrington, Sara Brunelle, Julie Mountain, Mariana Brussoni

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

You might also like