Category: Parks, open space, play spaces

The Paths for All organisation in the UK has devised a guide for all types of outdoor situations. The aim is to help make outdoor places and spaces more accessible and more enjoyable for all. The guide is for anyone managing land for public access, including volunteers and recreation teams.

The Paths for All Outdoor Accessibility Guidance is a practical reference with tools and design details. It covers everything from remote paths and trails to more intensively managed parks and community spaces. The aim is to go beyond compliance using examples of good practice.

The guide is 200 pages, which indicates the number of contexts covered and the level of detail provided. The key sections are guidance for:

The Paths of All guide brings together many of the features found in other access guides. For example, ramp gradients, seating and toilets, and information materials and wayfinding. Changing Places toilets also feature. The reviewing tools are for assessing the “Access Chain”.

Each section has a box with the question, “What does inclusive practice look like?” followed by a section on design guidance with examples. Cyclists, children, birdwatchers and boating enthusiasts are thoughtfully included.

The guide is titled Outdoor Accessibility Guidance: Supporting inclusive outdoor access in the UK. The downloadable guide is 14MB. The Sensory Trust produced the guide.

Australians are known for their love of beaches and water. Beach accessibility has improved greatly in recent years. Strip matting, specialist water wheelchairs and accessible change facilities have made a significant difference for wheelchair users. But beach access needs constant maintenance.

The latest access consultants association magazine, Insight, is all about beaches, water and access. The lead article by Jane Bryce looks at the damage done by storms and the erosion of once accessible beach access

Derek Mah covers the accessibility of aquatic facilities from an architect’s perspective. Access for swimming pools was first introduced in 2011. But the standard for the public domain (AS1428.1) is inadequate for ramps and stairs in pools. Mah discusses the issues of design and certification of swimming pools and some of the assistive equipment.

Shane Hryhorec provides a wheelchair user perspective. Going to the beach is not just a fun thing, it also enables social inclusion for individuals and families. Shane is the founder of Accessible Beaches Australia which has a directory of accessible beaches.

Italian beach fun

For those wanting to travel there’s an extra feature on the accessible beaches in Italy. Stefano Sghinolfi is an Italian accessible tourism operator. Lots of pictures show great beaches. “To make up for the shortcomings of national policies on accessibility, there are associations and private companies. Hard work has been done by these private groups to make part of the Italian coast accessible to wheelchair users.” It’s worth noting that all accessible beaches in Italy are private.

Technical insights

As usual, Howard Moutrie adds the technical insights and background information. The purpose of this feature is to promote thought and discussion and answer members’ questions. Swimming pools are covered in the National Construction Code when it is part of another building. But there are exceptions. Swimming pools can be part of an apartment complex, an hotel, and a regular back yard. This is where it all gets tricky. Howard works his way through these in the article.

You can access the magazine online on the ACAA website where you can also download the 6.8MB PDF version or view online.

Water activity, low vision and blindness

There’s a related research paper, Practical Applications of Aquatic Physical Activity, Swimming, and Thereapy for People with Visual Impairment or Blindness.

Everyone should have the opportunity to enjoy our national parks. The personal benefits include increased wellbeing and improved quality of life. But not everyone can access these parks. The new Accessible Parks Policy published by the New South Wales Government should go some way to addressing the barriers. 

The policy aims to provide a framework for improving access by integrating accessibility into the planning and management of parks.

But once again, we have a document professing to promote access and inclusion yet universal design is tacked on at the end as if it is an optional extra rather than an underpinning concept. 

The reference link to universal design takes you to the Centre for Excellence in Universal Design in Ireland and the list of the 7 principles of universal design.  

Guiding principles

In brief, the National Parks Service recognises:

• • the health and wellbeing benefits 
  • cultural and historic heritage can present a range of barriers 
  • barriers to accessing national parks may have compounding impacts on Aboriginal people
  • disability is diverse and may not be visible to others
  • good information is critical to empowering people with disability 
  • the inclusion of people with disability in the planning and decision-making process
  • people who experience barriers to access should have the opportunity to participate in finding solutions to those barriers
  • accessible facilities or experiences in national parks are only one component of the whole visitor journey
  • it will not always be feasible to provide physical access to national parks for all people.

Commitments

In brief, the National Parks Service will:

• • identify and aim to remove barriers to services, facilities and experiences 
  • identify and remove barriers to people engaging and collaborating with the management of national parks and reserves
  • engage and consult with those experiencing barriers in accessing national parks, visitor facilities and visitor experiences
  • where possible, apply the principles of universal design

The webpage has different policy sections for visitor facilities, information, collaborating, and decision making. 

Connection to Country is not included in this policy as there is a separate policy document. Perhaps as some point the Department of Planning will take a universal design approach which embraces intersectionality. That is, First Nations people also have disabilities and specific access requirements. 

 

Updates to the very successful Everyone Can Play guideline means everyone can play more. That’s because it now includes new sections on nature play, water play, and place and play. The new sections are based on the original principles, of Can I get there? Can I play? and Can I stay?

Nature play

Access to nature depends on where you live, cultural background and level of capability. Incorporating nature into playspaces offers everyone the opportunity to experience the joy an benefits it can bring. That is, regardless of age, ability, background or postcode.

Nature play can be a playspace with simple play elements through to a natural space with minimal formal play elements. Combined with custom play equipment they give a variety of experiences. A nature playspace can even reduce ongoing maintenance costs.

Consider using flat level surfaces from decomposed granite or stone pavers. Ensure paths are free and clear of loose, natural items by providing raised and fixed edges. The guideline suggests a natural shaded clearing for a quiet space or a retreat, and place seats in strategic locations. Two case studies provide extra ideas for designers.

Water play

Access to water for play varies depending on where people live. Incorporating water into playspaces is a good way to bring the benefits of this type of play to communities.

Level access to water play activities is a must. Taps at different heights, raised troughs, easy push buttons and large levers to control or pump water are good for everyone. Water play in playspaces can provide a safer more controlled environment to interact and play with water. It also gives people access to water in area without natural bodies of water.

Place and Play

Expanding on the principles of Can I get there? Can I play? Can I stay? this document encourages people to ask:

Connecting with a place should always start with a local conversation to understand community dynamics and desires. Australia is home to the oldest living culture in the world and we have access to beautiful and diverse landscapes. These unique environments should foster connection, discovery and celebration.

Ongoing and early engagement with Traditional Custodians is not just a one-off engagement process. Strong relationships provide a solid foundation for ongoing guidance throughout the project.

Places can be important because of their location, their history, or how they make us feel. Acknowledging and celebrating the land we are on strengthens connection with Country. Natural materials drawn from local sources are a way of sharing local history while playing.

Everyone can play with more experiences

The three new sections of the Everyone Can Play build on the original work with three additional sections for more play experiences. You can download the sections separately from the NSW Government dedicated website.

Not everyone feels safe and welcome in public spaces and some of this is due to the way they are designed. Younger and older people are rarely considered or consulted about built environment decisions. However, age is just one dimension when considering inequity in public space. Disability, gender, cultural background intersect with all ages. A high density low-income area of Los Angeles was used for a study on intergenerational space for everyone.

The article describes the participatory method of focus groups, interviews and site observations. The focus on the study was three parks in the Westlake area. Older adults shared personal memories of the parks, often associated with when they first arrived in Los Angeles. Younger people remembered visiting the parks and times shared with family and friends. These happy times were not to continue, however. The parks became run-down and felt less safe and inclusive.

The research revealed that active engagement appeals to both older and younger residents. Park designers might assume that older adults prefer quieter, less active public spaces, but this ignores those who enjoy active engagement. Similarly the stereotype that younger people want activity dismisses those who want a quiet place to read.

The study is another example of participatory action research, or co-design, which is a processes for producing inclusive, universally designed public spaces.

The title of the article is, “We should all feel welcome to the park”:
Intergenerational Public Space and Universal Design in Disinvested Communities. It is open access with PDF and online access.

From the abstract

This article investigates the potential for intergenerational public space in the Westlake neighborhood of Los Angeles. We work with 43 youth and 38 older adults (over 65), to examine their public space use, experiences, and desires. We seek to identify where the two groups’ interests intersect or diverge. A series of site observations, focus groups, interviews, thick mapping, and participatory design exercises were used.

The potential for complementary approaches to creating intergenerational public space was explored using universal design. The importance of taking an intersectional approach to designing public space is emphasized. There are multiple, often overlapping identities of disability and age, in addition to race, class, and gender.

Our findings yield insights for creating more inclusive and accessible public spaces in disinvested urban neighborhoods. There are also opportunities for allyship between groups whose public space interests have been marginalized by mainstream design standards.

The idea of inclusive playspaces is catching on. More design thought is being given to making them more welcoming and accessible for everyone. And it’s not just about children with diverse needs: parents and caregivers require design thought too. A case study from Auckland, New Zealand is a good example of how to create playspaces. So, let’s play together!

An article in the Journal of Public Space explains the project in detail. The project began with a review of the existing facilities and how to achieve the outcomes within budget constraints. The park was also a popular fishing spot so this also had to be considered in the planning.

The co-design process

The Manurewa Local Board contacted multiple organisations to invite them to participate in the co-design process. The co-design process was driven and guided by a project team, which consisted of a landscape architect and a project manager.

There was concern that using a co-design method would take the project over budget and require bespoke playground equipment. These assumptions proved not to be the case. Indeed, the learning from the process will be with the participants for all future projects.

Two draft concept plans were created and three outcome measures were set. These were:

• Accessibility and inclusiveness
• Overall connection
• Increased utilisation

The article goes into detail about the play features and equipment and the adult and child change facilities. Bilingual signage in the park shows pride in the area’s strong Māori identity. Co-design methods might take a little longer but the pay-off is worth it. It’s worth doing for the great learning experience for all involved.

The title of the article is, Te Pua Keith Park – Nau mai, Haere mai Let’s Play Together. The article has many photos that highlight the key areas of the playspace. There’s a useful reference list as well.

There is also a magazine article that shows photos of the many park elements and features.

From the Abstract

Play equipment included vestibular, visual, and auditory pieces as well as a customised 2m high wheelchair accessible play tower. Caregivers could play with their children through smooth and step-free surfaces and an adult and child swing.

Communication boards were collaboratively designed with visual images representing various features of the playground. QR codes linking to online videos with New Zealand Sign Language were also provided.

The toilet facilities were crucial for many families, including those with bigger children or teens. Keith Park worked with a leading toilet manufacturer to co-design a bespoke double toilet block with enhanced accessibility features including an adult-sized change table.

Every aspect of the park was carefully selected and designed including fencing, furniture, plants and colours. Colour was used to guide children with low vision and created a play circuit to assist neurodiverse children. The playground welcomes all to play, which is a core tenet of child development, socialisation and participation.

Editor’s comment. If we keep using the term “all-abilities” it will always be considered “for disability” and not “normal” for everyone. This quote from the article is a case in point:

Manurewa Local Board “requested an all-ability playground, but also wanted to see Te Pua Keith Park be the best playground in Manurewa and be considered a local destination.”

Consequently, we should just use the term “inclusive” and drop “all-abilities” from our vocabulary to prevent the notions of being “special” in some way. Otherwise it isn’t inclusive thinking.

There’s lots of different terminology covering the topic of inclusion and diversity, but they all generally mean the same thing. On one hand, the very nature of inclusion and diversity should allow for different ways of understanding the concepts. On the other hand, researchers who are seeking clarity on the topic find mixed terminology difficult to work with. A literature review of playspace guides is a case in point.

The United Nations and other international organisations use the term “universal design” but it’s not universally used. Many other organisations use inclusive design and accessible design. A research team in Ireland decided to look at playspace guidelines to find out more.

Playspace guides often use the term “universal design” but they don’t always mean the same thing. A scoping review found 27 guideline documents where 13 of them referred to universal design approach for inclusive playspaces. While they referred to a universal design, they used this term interchangeably with accessible design and inclusive design.

Playspace aims are the same

The 13 guidelines referring to universal design described the general aims as:

• Moving beyond minimum accessibility to maximise varied play opportunities and social integration
• Creating a space where everyone feels welcome
• Providing the same or equivalent experiences and activities
• Designing a space with accessible, inclusive routes and infrastructure, and relevant ground and elevated level activities.

Of the remaining fourteen guideline documents not referring explicitly to universal design, 10 utilised inclusive design in combination with accessible design. However, the explanations of inclusive design were the same as those for universal design. Two documents used accessible design exclusively, with a greater focus on children with disability.

The researchers found that less than half the guideline documents referred to the classic seven principles of universal design. Instead, they articulated their own principles. They lament that this is problematic claiming it adds further confusion about what an inclusive playground is or should be.

The researchers conclude that creating inclusive playgrounds likely needs a tailored version of universal design. Their conclusion suggests they believe there is one ‘correct’ way of applying universal design – that is, using the 7 principles. It also assumes that the principles of universal design have not evolved since their inception more than 25 years ago.

The title of the review is, “Designing public playgrounds for inclusion: a scoping review of grey literature guidelines for Universal Design. The extensive reference list is good for finding playspace guides from the English-speaking world. It includes well-known Australian guides, but not the landmark Everyone Can Play guide.

It seems really difficult to create inclusive playgrounds without making them sound as if they are special places for children with disability. That was one finding from research in Switzerland. A commonly shared perspective was that a playground is only inclusive if it has special equipment.

So moving from “all-abilities” to “inclusive” might not have taken us any further forward in designer attitudes. But we don’t need a special label – a playground is a place for people of all ages – for everyone.

Invisible barriers

The researchers found that lack of relevant policies and support from politicians was a key barrier. Participants felt that inclusion is not a policy priority when designing playgrounds. Consequently, funding to improve playgrounds was not forthcoming.

Despite years of global and international campaigning by disability groups, attitudes towards children with disability remain mixed. The classic claim is that there are so few children with disability in playgrounds (because you don’t see them). So why go to such lengths to make all playgrounds inclusive: “Because no child with a disability is coming anyway.”

Negative attitudes remain in the community leading to judgmental attitudes by parents of children without disability. Consequently, parents of children with disability did not feel welcome. So physical accessibility is only part of the story of inclusive playgrounds.

The title of the article is, Designing inclusive playgrounds in Switzerland: why is it so complex? Although the research is specific to Switzerland, the findings would apply in many settings. The researchers conclude that a universal design approach, which considers social inclusion, is the way forward.

The New South Wales Government is updating their very successful guide, Everyone Can Play.

Abstract

Playgrounds designed with the intention to be inclusive are one approach to creating equal opportunities for all children, including those with disabilities, in terms of their right to play. However, when building inclusive playgrounds, the focus is often limited to the physical environment.

Yet, studies investigating children’s play in inclusive playgrounds have shown that other aspects of inclusion, such as social inclusion, are equally as important as the physical environment. Nevertheless, there is a lack of knowledge about how inclusion is considered in the design of inclusive playgrounds.

Therefore, this study aimed to explore the design and use of inclusive playgrounds among people involved in the provision of inclusive playgrounds and advocates of children with disabilities from a Swiss context. Four focus groups were conducted with 26 participants involved in providing inclusive playgrounds or having a professional or personal relationship with children with disabilities.

Results revealed no uniform understanding of inclusive playgrounds. Barriers to inclusive playground provision included negative attitudes, lack of knowledge about
inclusion and the absence of policies for inclusion.

Through the focus group discussions, it was proposed that a community network is needed, to bring together children with disabilities and their families with playground providers when designing inclusive playgrounds. In this context, user involvement can inform the design of playgrounds and support the understanding of the needs of people with disabilities in playgrounds, among other things.

To enhance inclusion for children with disabilities on inclusive playgrounds, design approaches that consider social inclusion, like Universal Design, are proposed.