Therapeutic Playground: Typology of Solutions and Analysis of Selected Public Playgrounds as Places with Therapeutic Potential
Department of Contemporary Architecture, Theory and Methodology of Design, West Pomeranian University of Technology, 70–310 Szczecin, Poland
Sustainability 2024, 16(15), 6414; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156414
Submission received: 13 June 2024
/
Revised: 24 July 2024
/
Accepted: 25 July 2024
/
Published: 26 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Well-Being and Urban Green Spaces: Advantages for Sustainable Cities)
Abstract
:The article highlights the need for a change in the approach to playground design toward creating spaces with therapeutic qualities that are fully inclusive and therefore meet the principles of sustainable design. The aim of the research was to identify different types of therapeutic playgrounds, to identify components that build the therapeutics of playgrounds, and to evaluate selected contemporary playgrounds in terms of therapeutic potential based on the author’s evaluation tool. The research methodology was based on interpretive, qualitative, and comparative studies. As a result of the research, the author’s typology of therapeutic playgrounds was created, solutions responsible for specific therapeutic effects were identified, and selected realizations of new playgrounds located in Szczecin (Poland) were evaluated in terms of adaptation of these solutions. The conducted research demonstrates the great possibilities of introducing the therapeutic function of play into public spaces and adapting to public playgrounds the solutions characteristic of the five types of therapeutic playgrounds identified. Unfortunately, the research also shows that the evaluated playgrounds use the therapeutic potential of play to a very limited extent. The research connects the issue of playground design with therapeutics, going beyond the accessibility problem, and leading to the identification of desirable directions in playground design. It is necessary to implement an integrated approach, based on the implementation of the identified components of therapeutics and three paths to the implementation of a therapeutic playground. This can contribute to improving not only the quality of playgrounds but also public spaces in cities and realizing the idea of a city that is friendly to all residents.
1. Introduction
The value of play for a child’s development in the motor, emotional, social, and cognitive aspects is indisputable. Children deprived of opportunities to play suffer and their development is impaired [1,2,3]. Play is fundamental to ensuring a child’s health and well-being [2,4], and outdoor play plays a special role in this context and has many benefits [5]. Among these are the formation of problem-solving skills [6], creative thinking [7], the development of social skills, integration with peers [8], and the building of positive relationships with the environment based on interaction with nature [9]. Moreover, the play has natural therapeutic potential due to its characteristics—it is free, voluntary, alternative, and spontaneous. Studies of children with behavioral difficulties and children with disabilities indicate that it has therapeutic properties. It has been found that play can be a means by which a child has a chance to relieve negative feelings or tiresome stresses [10]. Play also plays a role in reducing stress and preventing and treating Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) [11,12,13].
A properly designed playground can, therefore, be an important place for children to experience challenges, develop sensory experiences, and be involved in imaginative play [14]. The spaces that children experience and the interactions with their peers are crucial to their health and social development [15].
Unfortunately, places created for children to play in public spaces—playgrounds—rarely harness the therapeutic potential of play. Typically designed as a fenced-in square equipped with a few standard play equipment and a safe surface [16], they usually stimulate a few, at best dozen, predetermined activities based on motor activity. Such playgrounds are not attractive for play since they do not meet the needs of children [17].
Play on such playgrounds does not generally last long. The effect observed on them, the formation of a specific social hierarchy based on physical fitness, not only does not lead to the integration of children playing but also promotes exclusion and aggravation of group functioning problems [18,19]. Moreover, traditionally, playgrounds do not usually provide opportunities to choose the place and form of play in terms of the degree of socialization and are not designed considering neurodiversity. Children with special needs or disabilities, and neuroatypicals, as well as those who are undiagnosed but withdrawn and have problems functioning in groups, find it difficult to adapt to them.
The shortage of playgrounds that can serve users with a variety of needs is an issue that goes beyond the design of children’s playgrounds and relates directly to the implementation of the idea of a child-friendly city and enhancing the quality of life [20], and indirectly to the design of sustainable public spaces. This is because considering the diversity of social needs in the design of playgrounds is part of the idea of sustainable development, one of the three pillars of which is ensuring social inclusion. The basis of inclusivity in architecture is equity, diversity, and a sense of belonging. This involves both the need to include public participation in the design process and to promote solutions for space accessibility and universal design. Although the principle of accessibility of space, being part of the principles of sustainable development, is widely known and successfully applied in many cities around the world, there is a need to develop principles of playground design in which accessibility would be understood more broadly, taking full advantage of the potential of play as a therapeutic, integrative, and counteracting exclusion tool. This is all the more important because playgrounds designed for children with various needs can be attractive to all users, and universally accessible play equipment has higher levels of use by children [21].
The research presented in the article is an attempt to draw attention to the need for new principles of playground design, considering the effective use of the therapeutic potential of play, which is important for the implementation of the idea of a city friendly to all residents. In this context, the research reflects a humanistic and sustainable approach to playground design. The article, on the one hand, presents forms of playgrounds as places with different therapeutic effects and identifies solutions responsible for specific therapeutic effects, and, on the other hand, verifies selected realizations of new playgrounds in terms of adaptation of these solutions.
The research was directed at three main objectives:
- To identify different types of therapeutic playgrounds, different in terms of location, design solutions, and the resulting specific therapeutic action;
- To identify the components that build therapeutic playgrounds as a basis for their evaluation;
- To evaluate selected contemporary playgrounds in terms of therapeutic potential based on the author’s evaluation tool.
The first goal led to the compilation of the author’s typology of therapeutic playgrounds, along with the identification of examples of them. The second goal led to the development of criteria for evaluating playgrounds in the context of their therapeutic action, and the third, was to verify to what extent contemporary public playgrounds realize their therapeutic potential. The final result of the research was to identify desirable directions in the design of playgrounds for the realization of places corresponding to children with different needs, combining the value of accessibility with therapeutic value. Research combining the issue of playground design with therapeutics and going beyond the issue of space accessibility can be considered largely innovative. Combining the issue of therapeutics with playground design is not an issue with many well-documented studies. Moreover, for such a defined research area, no playground evaluation studies have been conducted to date.
2. The Playground in the Light of Research
2.1. The Playground and Its Attractiveness
Previous research has shown that a certain way of shaping the playground space has an impact on the quality of play—its forms, socialization, and duration [18], and therefore also on the physical and social development of the child [22]. The type of playground, that is, the ideological concept and the way the space is resolved, is important for stimulating forms of play and activity. Playgrounds, which are usually defined as traditional, contemporary, and adventure, have been repeatedly analyzed in terms of children’s behavior and the play value of the space [23,24,25,26]. The play and integration value of traditional and contemporary playgrounds (based on playground equipment) is generally low, as they stimulate few forms of play, limited mainly to motor play. The results of many studies confirm that these types of playgrounds can perpetuate social and spatial marginalization and exclusion, especially for children with disabilities and their families, due to poor playground accessibility, limited forms of play, low play value, and insufficient opportunities for social interaction [27,28,29,30,31,32,33]. In contrast, adventure playgrounds (using materials and tools) or playgrounds that combine elements of adventure and contemporary playgrounds stimulate more theme and cooperative play [25].
However, not all researchers believe that the type of playground determines its play potential and question the correlation between playground type and children’s behavior [24]. Many researchers have carried out research to identify the playground characteristics responsible for certain children’s behavior [34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41] and even to determine the strength of their impact [18]. Certain spatial features of a playground influence its play and integration potential more than the type of playground [18,19]. Physical elements present in a playground can enhance or undermine children’s social proximity to their peers and orient children’s experience [42], stimulating specific forms of activity [43]. Also, the size of the playground affects the functioning of the playground, particularly its inclusiveness—in smaller spaces, children are more likely to play together, forming small cooperative groups [18,44]. The inclusiveness of play is also reinforced by enclosing and defining spaces [18]. The presence of natural elements, water, and plants [43] also has a role in stimulating play with peers. Natural play spaces offer a greater range of play experiences and a better quality of play [45]. Environments that provide less typical play equipment foster inclusive play and interaction with peers [46]. In the higher-quality outdoor area, children spent less time alone and more time in social proximity with their peers [47]. If specific spatial features are responsible for behaviors, forms of activity, and play, and therefore the value of the playground, then a properly arranged contemporary playground can also be an attractive place for play and a space for intergenerational integration [19,48].
2.2. The Playground and Its Therapeutic Value
Research on the design of playgrounds for children with disabilities has focused on two main issues—opportunities for playground use and specific play equipment [14,49,50,51] and opportunities to improve social interaction and provide more play opportunities [14,33]. It has been noted that playground inclusivity requires a broader view of playground development than just improving accessibility and barrier-free design [33,52]. According to Wenger et al. [53], inclusion on a playground is complex and must be considered as a transaction among different environments. Factors supporting inclusion are not only physical but also include good social and organizational practices [52]. The social environment is important in the design of inclusive playgrounds [27,31]. It is necessary to design playgrounds across age groups, create a local community [54], and provide opportunities for a variety of play forms [55], not just motor play [14]. In such a context, the issue of the inclusive playground merges with that of the therapeutic playground, as both relate to social integration, anti-exclusion, and well-being. Unfortunately, the availability of such playgrounds is limited [51].
Therapeutic play spaces are most often discussed in the context of the garden-like nature of the space, as a result of the well-documented positive effects of nature on human behavior and well-being—including the landmark research of Stephen Kaplan [56], Stephen Kaplan and Janet F. Talbot [57] or Robert Ulrich [58]. According to some researchers, therapeutic space for children should even be a replica of the natural environment [59,60], because the natural landscape positively influences children’s motor [61] and social skills [62]. However, as indicated by R. Moore and N. Cosco [63], all landscapes designed with children in mind can be therapeutic landscapes at the same time, since space can also stimulate the therapeutic process through learning, play, and exploration. This is a rationale for therapeutic playgrounds to be established not only as playgrounds at hospitals and other health facilities but also as public playgrounds, such as adventure playgrounds or children’s farms [64].
The therapeutic value of the space was also recognized in a completely different place intended for children—the adventure playground. The concept of the adventure playground was developed by Danish landscape architect Carl Th. Sorensen who established the first adventure playground in Emdrup in 1943. Based on the idea of building, and equipped with tools and materials, the adventure playground was a kind of antithesis of the traditional playground and was popularized on the wave of its criticism [19]. Its therapeutic potential is inherent in the concept of children being able to create their piece of the world and their community through building play was developed by Lady Allen of Hurtwood in several London communities severely affected by the war. The British landscape architect, enthralled by a visit to the Emdrup Adventure Playground in 1944, decided to apply the idea of an adventure playground locally [65]. The therapeutic potential she saw stemmed from building play, during which children create something out of nothing, bringing order in place of chaos [66]. According to her, the playground became a healing narrative for postwar reconstruction, in which the physical and psychological damage caused by the war would be healed through play [67,68]. The creation of space provides a sense of certainty, and the adventurous playground becomes, in this context, an essential place for releasing stress and post-aggression [69]. This phenomenon explains the Theory of Compound Flexibility, according to which flexibility stimulates and develops children’s abilities [2].
The therapeutic potential of play that requires creativity has also been recognized in edible playgrounds, children’s farms, ecological parks, and naturalized school grounds [70] and playgrounds that provide access to loose parts [34,71]. The therapeutic nature of these places is related to the observation that in any environment, the degree of ingenuity and creativity is directly proportional to the number and type of variables [34]. An additional factor that can have a positive impact on children may be the social nature of the space and the opportunity to participate in its design [72].
The recently growing awareness of the needs of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), has influenced the development of research on playground development from this angle as well. Previous research has shown that for children with ASD, time spent on the playground is of great importance, as it allows them to practice social competencies and group functioning [73] and interact with peers [74,75]. However, this requires that the space be arranged in a restful way so that there are intimate and quiet places to which children can escape when social situations and sensory overload are too much for them [76,77]. It is also important to provide contact with nature and a wide selection of stimulating elements for a variety of motor play [77]. This variety of play is crucial because each child with ASD is unique and has different abilities. It will be helpful for them to create a more intuitive space, incorporating sensory cues for the use of each zone [78]. Play zones should be clearly defined, which contributes to providing a sense of control and knowledge [79]. It is also beneficial to include lower spatial density in playground design [80] and to introduce high observation points so that children can observe and more easily anticipate certain situations [81].
2.3. Need for Further Research
The analysis of the state of research carried out indicates that there is a growing interest in the problem of playground design, considering children with different needs, including disabilities. However, there is a need for further research in this area to popularize solutions and introduce them into public spaces as universally accessible playgrounds. It should be noted that while the research conducted to date has identified individual characteristics that promote the mental and physical regeneration of space users, and their integration or stimulation of specific forms of play, a universal list of characteristics combining the aforementioned issues and adapted to public playgrounds has not been defined. There is also a lack of evaluation criteria for playgrounds in terms of their therapeutic potential. The lack of evaluation criteria contributes to the low quality of the solutions used and little awareness of how to exploit the therapeutic potential of a playground. It is not entirely clear what elements or solutions should be used as a certain standard in playground development to fully exploit the therapeutic potential of playgrounds and create play spaces that suit children with different needs.
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Subject and Area of Research
The subject of the study is new realizations of playgrounds in Szczecin—a city located in northwestern Poland, in the western part of the West Pomeranian Voivodeship, near the Polish–German border (Figure 1).
The development of the city and its strategic and operational goals are defined by the Szczecin Development Strategy 2025. According to the mission included in the document, Szczecin is to become an open and tolerant city, an attractive place to live and work—a community of residents taking advantage of the cultural heritage, natural environment values, and the Baltic and riverside location for sustainable development [82]. One of the adopted strategic goals is Szczecin, a city with a high quality of life. Its implementation is related to the initiation of such activities as ordering the elements of urban space that require a change in function or optimization of use and highlighting the most valuable elements in the spatial structure of the city. Within the framework of this objective, support is also given to the development of culture and the development of physical culture and sports, aimed at increasing the activity of residents. This translates directly into the revitalization of public spaces, the establishment of new recreation sites, including playgrounds, and the modernization of existing ones. Successively, in news sites and social networks, there are reports of new investments and modernization plans. Analysis of websites made it possible to identify 12 playgrounds that have been built over the past few years, from which 6 investments were selected for detailed analysis, meeting the adopted selection criteria: accessibility (public playgrounds, freely available), functional diversity (playgrounds with at least 5 play elements), and time of construction (investments completed no earlier than 2018) (Figure 2).
3.2. Research Methods and Tools
The research methodology was based on interpretive, qualitative, and comparative research corresponding to the formulated three main objectives and subsequent stages of research (Figure 3).
In stage one of the research, the primary method was interpretive research based on desk research (including literature studies and a review of the implementation of contemporary playgrounds) and field studies, which were used to identify different types of therapeutic playgrounds. The literature studies provided the necessary theoretical foundation at this stage for identifying different types of therapeutic playgrounds. Field studies and analysis of playgrounds selected as representing a specific type of activity were aimed at identifying the components of therapeutic space. It was assumed that the components of therapeutic space represent a kind of ideological basis for the therapeutic action of the space, and their action is conditioned by the presence of certain solutions and development elements.
Stage two of the research was based on qualitative studies of selected new realizations of playgrounds located in Szczecin. Qualitative research, also called evaluation, is always aimed at qualitative recognition of the built environment from the point of view of the needs of its users. In architecture, they have been methodologically framed in the form of Post-Occupancy Evaluation, a method of assessing (the built environment) during use. The basis of the designed research based on POE is the identification of qualitative criteria of interest, in this case, criteria for evaluating playgrounds from the point of view of their therapeutic effect. For the evaluation of selected playgrounds in Szczecin, an evaluation form was developed that allows for expert evaluation of individual elements that build the so-called components of therapeutic space. A 3-point evaluation scale was established, in which a score of 3 meant a fully satisfactory level of solution. Playgrounds that were built in the last 5 years (since 2018) were evaluated. The following websites were used to select playgrounds: city hall, local media, and community websites, which were searched for information on new investments in the city. It should be noted that there is no local or national registry of playgrounds, where one could find an inventory of existing implementations in the city. The only way to gather information was to search various websites and verify them in the field. This ultimately allowed the selection of 6 playgrounds that had been built since 2018. All the playgrounds selected for analysis meet the adopted criteria: accessibility, functional diversity, and time of construction. Sites that are difficult to access (e.g., school playgrounds), not functionally complex enough, older than 5 years, or located within the city area were excluded from the analysis.
The final, third stage of the study consisted of comparing the results of the research. The comparative research carried out made it possible to assess and diagnose the quality of the space and to identify the desired design solutions, as well as to make recommendations for the formulation of playground utility programs.
Among the research techniques used during the study were field trips—viewing of the studied playgrounds, photography, description, explanation, and interpretation, observation without the participation of users, and rating scaling (ranking, summation of points).
4. Results
4.1. Types of Therapeutic Playgrounds and Their Model Examples
Play, in all its forms, acts as a kind of tool for communication with the outside world and a platform for integration with and in space. In its essence, therefore, the play has therapeutic potential, which can be manifested in its various forms, including construction, creative, manipulative, or motor play. Forms of play are combined with various forms of therapy, including art therapy, horticultural therapy, animal therapy, nature therapy, sensory integration, occupational therapy, or physical therapy. Certain types of playgrounds, due to their functional program and forms of development, should be considered particularly predisposed to the therapeutic function, due to the stimulation of a wide range of play, including play combined with a specific form of therapy, inclusiveness, and counteracting exclusion, encouraging cooperation and collaboration, building self-esteem and a sense of agency, and gradual immersion of inclusiveness giving a choice to join in group play. These are as follows:
- Playgrounds based on a specific form of active therapy (e.g., hospital play gardens, children’s sensory gardens, children’s healing gardens, water playgrounds);
- Playgrounds based on the idea of creating space (e.g., adventure playgrounds, playground in a box, edible schoolyards, nature playgrounds);
- Playgrounds based on contact with nature (e.g., children’s healing gardens, edible schoolyards, children’s farms, nature playgrounds);
- Playgrounds based on community action (e.g., community-built playgrounds, edible schoolyards);
- Playgrounds based on inclusivity and integration (e.g., family playgrounds for users of all ages and needs).
The children’s playgrounds characterized below differ in their therapeutic effect and their ability to stimulate specific forms of play resulting from their ideas, forms of development, and ideological and functional programs (Table 1).
They are united by the function of play and therapeutic value, which is not always an obvious, purposeful program element of the establishment. Some playgrounds realize their therapeutic potential in passing or even by accident, while others realize it in a deliberate and strictly defined manner.
Playgrounds based on active therapy are most often garden-like spaces located next to hospitals and other health facilities, which allow children to reduce post-treatment stress, distract them from pain, and reduce their sense of fear. Their management depends on the specifics of the patients and the needs of their treatment and recovery. These spaces are distinguished by a functional program that considers not only passive but also active therapy, carried out in the form of various games such as creative, motor, or manipulative, with a structured or free-form character. The garden character of the space, the abundance of vegetation, colors, materials, and textures help to create the impression of an interesting but safe, often “familia” space, encouraging exploration. Typically, these spaces provide a range of interiors with varying degrees of openness, both intimate and calming, as well as more open and inclusive, which fosters a sense of security, taming the “situation”, and building confidence and mental balance. Playgrounds based on active therapy are often implemented in the form of so-called sensory playgrounds or sensory play gardens for children—playgrounds of a mostly garden nature, which are designed to stimulate specific senses and provide a variety of sensory experiences that support learning and development. The method of sensory integration therapy, usually conducted in therapeutic facilities, involves synchronizing the sensory systems, i.e., visual, auditory, sensory, and vestibular (otherwise known as the sense of balance). Developing sensory integration on the playground is possible through children’s contact with diverse surfaces, as well as playing on equipment. Standard playgrounds based on motor play equipment generally develop only motor skills but do not support the development of senses such as hearing, touch, and sight, which are essential for harmonious development. Sensory playgrounds, through the use of color contrasts and a variety of textures and textures in the materials and plant species used, as well as specially selected elements and equipment to stimulate play that activates specific senses (e.g., sensory paths, music panels, whiteboard equipment developing logical thinking skills, shape, color and texture recognition, sand and water play equipment, etc.) have a positive impact on various spheres of child development, enabling its integrated development. Sensory playgrounds can be located both at health facilities, e.g., in the form of meditation gardens, and in public spaces as public playgrounds and gardens (Figure 4a,b).
The therapeutic value of playgrounds based on the idea of space creation derives its potential from construction and creative play, primarily building play. A model example of space realizing them is an adventure playground—a self-created space using available materials and tools, as well as its variations such as a playground in a box—a playground with specially designed blocks, or a nature playground—a naturalistic version of adventure playground, and even edible playgrounds and edible schoolyard, which enable space creation through self-created plants. The adventure playground, as a place based on building play, is primarily a place for construction and creative play. Construction play develops praxis, or motor planning, and improves small motor skills. While playing construction games, the child can feel his power to make things. This positively influences the development of his sense of self-worth. Unfortunately, the adventure playground, despite the spread of the idea, especially in Scandinavian and Western European countries, does not find acceptance and understanding everywhere. Responsible for this are economic (the need to replenish materials, the appropriate size of the space, or the presence of animators) and aesthetic (the lack of acceptance of the “junk” aesthetics and the lack of permanent design). Moreover, the 1980s and 1990s brought the progressive standardization of playgrounds associated with the introduction of safety regulations (the first safety standards for playgrounds were published in 1981 by the U.S Consumer Product Safety Commission) and the use of computers and CAD tools in the design process. Custom-designed equipment and alternative playgrounds like the adventure playground were practically eliminated from the landscape. However, the idea of building play has found a continuation in the much more urban-compatible concept of imagination playground based on the use of specially designed lightweight modular play blocks, which work well both outdoors and indoors. All forms of playgrounds based on the idea of self-creation of space, in addition to the structural play, can also stimulate exploratory and theme play, as well as exercise social skills, problem solving, making choices, and cooperation, which makes them places with therapeutic effect not only through building a sense of agency but also good group functioning (Figure 5a,b).
Nature-based playgrounds are generally a type of play environment and complex play spaces, where natural materials, features, and plants combine with creative forms of terrain to provide a wealth of play and activity forms. They most often come in the form of nature playgrounds but can also be implemented as garden forms of playgrounds such as children’s healing gardens, edible schoolyards, or children’s farms. Each nature playground is unique, as they are designed to fit the context of the site, and the local landscape. Traditional playground equipment can be found in their development, but they are always integrated into the surrounding landscape, fused with the landform, and surrounded by vegetation. The therapeutic nature of these spaces comes directly from contact with nature, the world of plants and animals, as well as from the variety of stimuli, opportunities for creative and constructive play, and even conducting organized horticultural therapy. Biophilia-based playgrounds are characterized by a therapeutic effect resulting not only from passive contact with nature. In general, these spaces provide opportunities for independent space shaping through gardening and arranging a small garden or creative and constructive play, which are stimulated by the generally high availability of loose parts and natural elements. In addition to building a sense of ability and providing manual exercise, gardening play, like construction play, teaches cooperation and collaboration (Figure 6a,b).
The idea of community action-based playgrounds is based on the belief that a playground can be a kind of cornerstone of the local community, reflecting the personality of its residents and creating a kind of physical and mental community platform for children and adults. Their therapeutic potential stems from the inclusive nature of the space, which is created through the joint action of the local community, inclusive and unifying around a common goal. This type of space is represented by a community-built playground—a type of participatory playground built by and according to the idea of the local community. Such a playground may resemble a traditional playground with equipment made of wood. However, as a rule, there are also original elements, which give the space an individual character. The possibilities for stimulating specific forms of play and integrative activities after the completion of the playground depend on the specific solutions adopted by the community. The most important value of the space, in this case, is the inclusiveness of the place, which is created during the process of establishment. A joint venture unites, and the community built based on joint work constitutes permanent social capital, the symbol of which becomes the playground (Figure 7a,b).
Inclusion- and integration-based playgrounds are a type of family playgrounds that may look somewhat like traditional playgrounds with equipment. As a rule, however, they are much more carefully landscaped and thought-out in terms of a functional program that considers all age groups, provides a choice of forms of play and activities, and the degree to which they are socialized. Their development usually includes at least several zones that stimulate different forms of play, and interiors of graduated inclusiveness (suitable for solo time, observation, or integration in a narrow and wide group). The space is characterized by accessibility and inclusiveness, so that everyone, regardless of their needs, can find a place for themselves in it. They are places for organizing neighborhood and family outdoor events and play that brings generations together. The assumptions are characterized by openness in the spatial and social sense—the space is available to everyone, regardless of age or other needs. When properly developed, playgrounds become a kind of social center, the therapeutic effect of which stems primarily from the social function of the place, an activity that integrates and counteracts exclusion, although their development often includes elements that serve specific forms of therapy, such as sensory or motor therapy, and facilitate the use of the space for people with disabilities, such as information boards for the visually impaired (Figure 8a,b).
4.2. Components of Therapeutic Playgrounds
The listed types of playgrounds with specific therapeutic action base their action on several components, such as the following:
- Forms of active therapy (forms and elements of development intended to intentionally serve specific forms of therapy, e.g., for hortitherapy, raised flowerbeds or tables for gardening, for sensory therapy—paths and sensory panels, for art therapy—elements for sound play and drawing boards, etc.);
- Sensory value of the space (variety of materials, colors, textures, plants, and elements to stimulate different senses);
- Accessibility of the space (lack of urban barriers and consideration of the possibility of using the space for people with different needs and varying degrees of disability);
- Creation of space (possibility to transform space, playful construction, availability of materials and tools, so-called loose parts);
- Neurodiversity—graded inclusiveness of space (possibility to choose the zone according to the degree of socialization and include in the layout of the space both noisy zones suitable for group play and quiet zones suitable for quiet and solo time);
- Graded motor skills (possibility to choose the zone for movement games in terms of the degree of difficulty of physical activity);
- Biophilia—contact with nature (natural forms are an integral part of land development);
- Cooperation and collaboration (the presence of forms and elements of development that encourage inclusive play, and activities that require joint action);
- Alternativity—a wide choice of activity forms and types of play (the possibility of choosing activities due to the presence of several types of play zones, e.g., motor, creative, theme, construction, manipulative, exploratory, free play, leisure, and others).
The indicated components in the listed types of therapeutic playgrounds occur in various configurations, often acting synergistically with each other. Some of them have a priority action—crucial for a given type of place and defining its way of functioning, while others have a supportive action, acting synergistically with the priority components, or supplementary, when they are not essential, and their presence causes an expansion of the program (Table 2). The presence of the identified components of therapeuticity in the playground through the use of specific solutions in the space creates the conditions for realizing the therapeutic potential of the playground.
4.3. Evaluation of Contemporary Playgrounds as Places with Therapeutic Potential
The Szczecin playgrounds selected for evaluation represent the classical trend in playground design, which is characterized by the use of equipment as a key element of development. All the analyzed realizations can be described as a contemporary playground—a type of playground whose development is based on standard certified playground equipment. However, the apparent differences in the approach to the solution of the space as a whole, connecting it to the environment and creating links between the various elements of the development, allow us to classify the analyzed playgrounds as a contemporary classical playground, contemporary theme playground—based on a theme or motif, and contemporary street playground—forming an integral part of the urban public space. All of the playgrounds are located in public spaces, but among them are places located in the following: a park, a green square, a city plaza, and neighborhood areas (Appendix A).
Playground A, located in the green area of the Zawadzki housing estate, is an example of a modern playground of the classic variety. Its development includes a dozen or so typical motor play equipment, more or less functionally complex, such as trampolines, linarium, multifunctional equipment with slides, and a system of platforms. The equipment was located on a sand surface without any divisions into activity zones. The whole area has been fenced, which makes the playground functionally and visually isolated from the surrounding green area. This limits the functioning of the playground strictly to a separate place with predetermined types of activity. Both the selection of equipment oriented strictly to physical activity and the way the space is arranged give very limited possibilities for using the playground as a therapeutic place. There are also concerns about the color scheme of the equipment, as the black color can evoke negative feelings and associations, and, moreover, can cause excessive heating of the equipment and surfaces. Unfortunately, the site is not protected from the sun in any way. In addition, the space is characterized by limited accessibility due to the type of surface used. The entire playground was covered with a sandy surface, which does not allow for use by people in wheelchairs and with limited mobility. The limited amount of seating and the lack of a separate seating and equipment-free zone severely limit the playground’s multifunctionality, its use by different age groups of users, and the possibilities for flexible use of the play space (Figure 9a,b).
Playground B, located in the Krzekowo-Bezrzecze housing estate, represents an educational and family-themed playground with a clear ideological theme and an extensive functional program, connecting different age groups. The leitmotif of the playground is the figure of Wojtek Bear, who, together with the soldiers of the Anders Army, walked the entire combat trail, including through Monte Cassino during World War II. Functional zones and landscaping elements have been carefully composed and subordinated to the bear’s story. A sculpture of Wojtek Bear was placed in the central part of the square, which can be climbed, and educational boards telling his story were placed in the entrance area. In addition, the functional program includes a trampoline zone, a linarium zone, a zone for younger children with a “stork’s nest” swing and a merry-go-round, touch panels, a gym, rest and observation areas, and zones of composed vegetation. The premise gives the impression of a coherently and carefully composed space, offering choices in terms of forms of play and the nature of activities. The space is characterized by accessibility and inclusiveness—the development elements allow families to spend time together and people of all ages and fitness levels to use it. An added value of the space is its sensory qualities resulting from the variety of plant species and materials (Figure 10a,d).
Playground C, located in the very center of the city on Zgody Square as part of the reconstruction of Wojska Polskiego Avenue, represents a street version of the modern playground, being part of the public space. As part of the investment carried out, the revitalized Agreement Square has become a kind of square with play as its leitmotif. This fits in with the concepts of a playable city and a children-friendly city, which promote solutions that tame urban space by introducing play into it. Among the functional zones and development elements are a trampoline zone, a hill zone with telephone play equipment, a swing zone, rest, and observation areas, and composed vegetation. The space is a kind of urban leisure oasis, offering a choice of forms and types of activity. There is room for both quiet rest and observation as well as more active forms of play, including those encouraging cooperation and interaction in and with the space. This is a result of providing a certain amount of sensory experience, resulting from the variety of plant species, materials, and textures, as well as the terrain. The square is characterized by a lack of urban barriers and inclusiveness, influenced by flexibility in the use of space (Figure 11a,b). Unfortunately, although there are large trees in the plaza, part of it is devoid of any protection from the sun, which may limit use on hot days.
Playground D, located on Dworcowa Street, is one of the classic modern playgrounds. Its development includes several typical pieces of equipment stimulating mainly physical play, such as a multifunctional piece of equipment for younger children, a multifunctional piece of equipment for older children, a weight swing, two rockers, and a swing for small children. The area is fenced and entirely covered with a sand surface. Its development does not include greenery, although the area is surrounded by trees. The area is very shaded and practically deprived of sunlight. There is also a lack of a clear idea and a coherent composition linking the individual elements of the equipment. The limited way and selection of development elements do not allow effective use of the therapeutic properties of play, and its accessibility for people with mobility problems is very limited due to the type of surface. Worthy of note may be the sandbox, which provides seating for several children. This is the only element that can (to a limited extent) stimulate inclusive play. The playground offers elements that stimulate only motor activities. It is not an integration and inclusive place (Figure 12a,b).
Playground E, located in Telesfor Badetko Square, represents a type of contemporary playground of the classic variety, which is distinguished by an expanded program for play and motor activity for people of all ages, including those with disabilities. The functional program includes a training playground zone with exercise equipment, a play zone for young children with a swing, rocker, and slide, a play zone for older children with a linarium and a “stork’s nest” swing, and a sidewalk games zone. Entrances, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and some elements are accessible to people with disabilities. The zones are inscribed in the communication and composition system of the square. Play zones are integrated with greenery, which, however, is poorly diversified. The square has numerous tree and shrub plantings but lacks composed low greenery. Such landscaping provides a good basis for carrying out rehabilitation exercises and movement therapy. It also provides a basis for games and communal play. A favorable location in a square with numerous plantings of old trees provides a potential for developing a functional program in terms of biophilia, sensory enrichment, and sensory therapy, which, unfortunately, was not fully exploited in the design concept of the establishment (Figure 13a,b).
Playground F is a contemporary classical playground with certified equipment with an extensive program of motor play and integration located in the Gen. T. Kutrzeba inter-neighborhood park. The playground is distinguished by its favorable location among greenery and the inclusion of old and new plantings in the development. Among the playground zones are a zone with an integration sandbox equipped with a shade cover, a zone for movement games with a rope, Tyrolean, two sets of swings and multifunctional equipment, a trampoline zone with a set of trampolines, including an integration trampoline, an integration zone with a place for sidewalk games, and two resting gazebos. The selection of equipment primarily provides a variety of physical activities, but also sidewalk games, and manipulative and construction games. The playful attractiveness of the space would benefit from the introduction of water into the sand play area. The space, despite the presence of various equipment, including those suitable for people with disabilities, and a favorable location among greenery, has limited therapeutic impact. This is due to the limited sensory qualities of the space, the lack of composed low greenery and flower beds, water play elements, and restrictions on the accessibility of some equipment. The area is very exposed to the sun, although trees surround it. The playground equipment remains exposed to the sun all the time (the only exception is the sandbox), which severely limits its use on hot days and is a health hazard. In favor of the space is the inclusion of landscaping elements that stimulate activities other than motor activities, such as a sandbox with a canopy or an equipment-free zone dedicated to sidewalk games or observation and relaxation (Figure 14a,b).
4.4. Evaluation and Comparative Analysis of Playgrounds
The characteristics of the indicated components in the context of the specific development elements desired for their implementation formed the basis for the evaluation of the playgrounds and their therapeutic potential (Appendix B). Even though the playgrounds selected for analysis are among the new ones realized over the past few years, their social value and possibilities for therapeutic potential as a place of play are limited. Among the listed components of therapeutic value (accessibility of space, forms of active therapy, sensory value of space, creation of space, neurodiversity, graded motor skills, biophilia, cooperation and collaboration, and choice of forms of play and types of activity), some are not realized at all, and others are realized only partially (Table 3).
The weakest implementation opportunities relate to components such as space creation and forms of active therapy other than movement therapy. The analyzed playgrounds do not offer opportunities for play to build, make space changes, and transform. Only one of the playgrounds offers an area dedicated to playing with sand although without water. Those who use sand as a kind of shock-absorbing surface around motor play equipment can hardly be considered a place that stimulates construction play. A serious shortcoming is that natural elements like vegetation are most often elements that remain outside the boundaries of the playground or elements of secondary compositional and utilitarian importance. Only two of the analyzed playgrounds were designed so that vegetation was an integral part of the establishment. At the same time, these are the realizations that are characterized by the sensory value thanks to the composed, species-diverse vegetation and diversity of the materials and textures used. This also translates, in the case of these realizations, into good use of the therapeutic component, which is biophilia. The analyzed playgrounds appear to offer relatively good conditions for movement therapy due to the presence of numerous motor play equipment. However, detailed field inspections have revealed serious limitations in this regard. These are due to the lack of thought given to the selection of equipment in terms of providing graded difficulty and stimulating specific muscle parts. The limited availability of some elements is also a problem. Those playgrounds that make use of a loose surface as a cushioning for falls in their entirety of development, at the same time, create a barrier to use for people with disabilities. Implementation limitations are also evident in meeting the criterion for alternativity and providing choice in the type of activity. A common shortcoming is the lack of a play zone free of equipment, an area for exploratory, creative, and even theme play. There is also an apparent problem with the realization of the integration and inclusion role in the deployment of creating conditions and circumstances for joint activities and cooperation.
The analysis conducted focused on the therapeutic qualities of the playgrounds, but it should be noted that such obvious issues as safety have not been sufficiently considered in their design. Although the sites analyzed meet the requirements for the use of certified equipment, the apparent lack of conscious composition of the space with regard to sunlight conditions means that the equipment can become too hot and be dangerous on sunny days.
The results of the analysis indicate that the use of the therapeutic potential of play in playground design is rare. New realizations of playgrounds, unfortunately, are still too rarely designed in a comprehensive manner—considering various aspects of child development and the diverse needs of children. It is necessary to increase public awareness and educate designers about the value of playgrounds as places with therapeutic, integrative, and anti-social exclusion potential. Playgrounds should be designed following the idea of sustainable development as fully accessible places in the spatial and social sense—without barriers and realizing the ideas of inclusiveness and friendliness of space for all, regardless of the degree of fitness and needs. The basis for the implementation of such an approach can be the implementation of the three paths formulated below, relating to the identified eight components of the therapeutic space, leading, in effect, to the realization of the playground as a place of therapeutic value:
- Playscape—the playground should be a kind of playscape, a space with a garden-like character, where the composed vegetation, landscaping, and natural elements are an integral part of the development and form, together with the play areas, a single whole, having sensory qualities and characterized by a variety of colors, textures, materials, and variety of plants. It is crucial in this context to implement therapeutic components such as Sensory value and Biophilia.
- Integration—the playground should be an inclusive, accessible, and barrier-free space with program elements attractive to different user groups, including an equipment-free zone and elements that stimulate cooperative games, cooperation, and collaboration, and program elements that meet different needs, including those of people with disabilities. This requires the inclusion of therapeutic components such as the Creation of space, Cooperation and collaboration, and Accessibility.
- Inclusion—the playground should be an inclusive space, containing elements relating to one or more forms of therapy, e.g., sensory therapy, movement therapy, horticulture therapy, and art therapy, providing choice and freedom of use, including in terms of the form and degree of socialization of the activity and the degree of fitness. Key in this context is the implementation of therapeutic components such as Alternativity—choice of forms of activity, Forms of active therapy, and Neurodiversity and graded motor fitness.
Such an integrated approach in the design of playgrounds, based on the implementation of the indicated paths leading to an increased therapeutic value of playground spaces, is a desirable direction of action that can contribute to raising not only the quality of these spaces but also the quality of public spaces in cities, fostering the implementation of the idea of a city friendly to all residents (Figure 15).
5. Discussion
Children’s playgrounds whose development is based on standard equipment have gained enormous popularity. Although they are widely criticized for being repetitive, schematic, boring, and unsuitable for children’s needs [16,17,40,83], we can see them almost all over the world, in different countries and cultures [19,84]. Alternative solutions, based on the use of materials and tools instead of ready-made equipment, using nature, designed holistically, as a playscape and creating a specific play environment and integral element of the surrounding landscape, and above all, giving a sense of creative invention of play, have not gained such popularity. This is related to a pragmatic approach to playgrounds—the search for cheap and easily accessible solutions that ensure safety by stimulating controlled (predetermined) forms of activity [19]. Szczecin’s new playgrounds, unfortunately, do not deviate significantly from the prevailing post-universal trends in the design of these assumptions.
Meanwhile, the research carried out on the types of therapeutic playgrounds shows the great potential for adapting their characteristic solutions to public playgrounds. The five types of therapeutic playgrounds identified provide a good basis for the implementation of therapeutic, integrative, and inclusive solutions in public spaces, improving the quality of these spaces. By combining classical therapeutic methods with specific forms of experiencing and interacting with the space during play, therapeutic playgrounds can offer unique forms of therapy and, above all, significantly increase the possibilities for use by children with different needs, including those with disabilities and neurodiversity. Each of the identified types of therapeutic playgrounds having a therapeutic effect in a slightly different scope and form allows us to identify spatial solutions important for its functioning—components of therapeutic value, which became the basis for the evaluation of playgrounds in Szczecin.
The results of the survey confirm that, still, the most commonly implemented playground in Szczecin is the classic contemporary playground with typical, standard equipment, with little play and integration value. Such playgrounds use the therapeutic potential of play to a very limited extent. They have little potential to stimulate inclusive behavior and are not suitable for children with disabilities. This corresponds with the observations of other researchers according to whom, for children with disabilities, playgrounds generally have limited accessibility and usability and do not support interaction with peers [14,51,85]. The playgrounds analyzed are mostly not well embedded in the landscape, connected to nature and the context of their surroundings. Meanwhile, providing contact with nature by treating it as an integral part of the playground increases the variety of play and activities has a positive impact on physical, cognitive, and social development, among other things, and is even therapeutic [61,62]. This is of great importance, especially for children with disabilities, for whom access to forms of therapy is often limited to specialized facilities [86]. A kind of paradox is the presence in the analyzed squares of equipment dedicated to children with disabilities while access to them is limited. This is reflected in the results of Prellwitz M., Tamm M., and Lindqvist R. [51], who identified limitations in the accessibility of playground equipment due to inadequate surfacing. This indicates that there are serious deficiencies in the awareness of playground designers and managers regarding the needs of people with disabilities. It also allows us to conclude that while local decision-makers generally strive to ensure that all children have access to playgrounds, insufficient knowledge of universal design affects the quality of solutions and limits the accessibility of individual playground elements. As studies by other researchers indicate, children with disabilities experience exclusion from playgrounds, despite local authorities’ commitment to inclusion [31]. Unfortunately, this is not only due to accessibility issues but also relates to the focus on generally one type of children’s activity—motor play—while ignoring other aspects of children’s development and needs. Components of therapeutic value in the creation of space, integration, neurodiversity, or sensory value are not taken into account in the design of public playgrounds or are taken into account sporadically and insufficiently. This has the effect of reducing the quality of the space, its use, and social value.
The components included in the evaluation and their criteria correspond to a large extent with the insights of other researchers. However, it should be noted that some of them are not included in the research and recognized as relevant to the therapeutic value of the playground. This applies to the less obvious components of playground therapeutic value like space creation, cooperation, and collaboration—components that relate to integration through joint activities, providing a sense of community and counteracting the effect of exclusion. This is because the playground is associated with a therapeutic space, most often within a narrow scope—limited by the availability of space, less often the provision of alternatives to the activities undertaken, considering a certain number of challenges and different degrees of fitness [87]. Meanwhile, it seems that the best therapeutic effects are provided by playgrounds combining the advantages of accessibility and specialized equipment (providing selected forms of therapy) with landscape values and a social program, while at the same time offering a choice in terms of type of activity, degree of difficulty, or socialization. This is not impossible, as evidenced, for example, by the playgrounds implemented by the Magical Bridge Foundation in California—play spaces for everyone—children, adults, and seniors—regardless of their motor, perceptual and intellectual abilities, providing opportunities for people with very different disabilities and limitations to experience through proprioception and kinesthesia. Unfortunately, unless the understanding of the concept of a playground changes, such places will not become common.
The limited understanding of the playground as a place with therapeutic potential is related to the fact that the attention of manufacturers, designers, and managers of playgrounds is focused more on safety issues and legal consequences that may result from an accident than on the quality and value of play [52,88]. Changing the approach in playground design to one that is more flexible and open to the diversity of children’s needs is a welcome social policy direction in this context. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Children (UN CRC) states that accessible and inclusive environments and facilities must be made available to children with disabilities, to enable them to enjoy their rights [89] (Article 31). The realization of the UN CRC’s goals provides a basis for changes in the approach to playground design. However, only by making local decision-makers aware of the need to realize public playgrounds based on identified therapeutic components will they become fully child-friendly spaces for all children. It may be helpful to implement the principle of city funding only for those implementations for which the realization of therapeutic playground assumptions is demonstrated in the project. This could provide a good basis for realizing sustainable public spaces [20].
6. Conclusions
The conducted research showed that a playground can and should be a space with therapeutic value. Five types of therapeutic playgrounds were identified, different in terms of location, design solutions, and the resulting specific therapeutic action. The diversity of therapeutic playgrounds indicates the possibility of their implementation in public spaces as universally accessible places of play. Unfortunately, the evaluation of selected new playgrounds located in Szczecin, made based on the identified components of therapeutic value, showed that the therapeutic potential is mostly realized to a very limited extent. It is necessary to implement an integrated approach in the design of playgrounds, based on the implementation of the identified components of therapeutic value and the three paths leading to the realization of a therapeutic playground. The defined components of therapeutic value and paths towards the therapeutic value of playground space seem to comprehensively illustrate desirable directions in playground design. In turn, the developed criteria for the evaluation of playgrounds can be a useful tool for knowledge and promotion of good design solutions in the hands of designers, therapists, educators, and social activists.
This is a desirable course of action that can contribute to improving not only the quality of these spaces but also the quality of public spaces in cities. Unfortunately, the implementation of the indicated direction in the design of playgrounds will not be effective until mechanisms are implemented to promote the fulfillment of good-quality projects. It would be advisable to finance with public funds only those projects that will be characterized by therapeutic qualities. This would be valuable in terms of improving the accessibility and usability of these spaces for all children. It would also improve the quality of public spaces and implement the idea of a child-friendly city, which, by prioritizing children’s needs and rights, lays the groundwork for equalized development and enables children to realize their potential and make a positive contribution to their communities.
The methodological limitation of the study was to analyze the development and its elements in a static way, without interaction with users or any interference with the space. In the future, it would be advisable to conduct the study in the form of experiments introducing certain modifications to the space and observing behavior. This could clarify how the creation of playgrounds with the use of therapeutic components improves social interaction, diversification of play forms, and accessibility for children with disabilities.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable. Ethical approval was not required for this study as it does not contain any human or animal participants.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Data on the analyzed playgrounds are available in Appendix A and Appendix B.
Acknowledgments
The inspiration for this article came from my personal experience of having to treat my daughter. Observation of my daughter’s behavior in specific places and situations allowed me to experience from both the perspective of the young patient and the caregiver the possibilities of how space affects people. This became the basis for my interest in the topic of the effects of space on children’s behavior and for initiating research on playgrounds as a place for therapy. Thank you to all doctors and designers who recognize the importance of the environment to our health and well-being.
Conflicts of Interest
The author declares no conflicts of interest.
Appendix A
Figure A1.
Analyzed playgrounds in the urban structure. Source: Author’s work based on the map retrieved from the website Portal of the Spatial Information System of the City of Szczecin https://geoportal.szczecin.eu/mapa (accessed on 10 July 2024).
Figure A1.
Analyzed playgrounds in the urban structure. Source: Author’s work based on the map retrieved from the website Portal of the Spatial Information System of the City of Szczecin https://geoportal.szczecin.eu/mapa (accessed on 10 July 2024).
Appendix B
Playground card.
| Facility | Field survey information | Location of playground | ||
| Playground A | Date 1: 13 April 2024 | Date 2: 30 April 2024 | ||
| Location: Zawadzki housing estate | Survey Conditions: sunny weather, warm | |||
| Concept: A contemporary playground with certified physical play equipment on a sand surface, fenced. The playground is located in the estate’s green area known as Psi Pole, which includes a play area for dogs, extensive lawns, and perennial beds. | Functional zones: 12 typical motor play equipment, more or less functionally complex, such as trampolines, linarium, multifunctional equipment with slides, and a system of platforms; lack of clear separation of play zones, lack of logical composition of space, lack of greenery in the development. | |||
| Year of construction: 2023 | Investment: Municipal Services Department (ZUK) | Cost: PLN 3.8 million | Total points: 6 | |
Components of therapeutic value—Accessibility of space.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Absence of urban barriers | x | The playground covered with a sandy surface | ||
| 2. Development elements for people with different needs, including disabilities | x | A few elements with limited access | ||
Components of therapeutic value—Forms of active therapy.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Elements of development for art therapy | x | |||
| 2. Elements of development for physical therapy | x | Several elements for various physical activities | ||
| 3. Elements of development for horticulture therapy | x | |||
| 4. Elements of development for sensory therapy | x | |||
Components of therapeutic—Sensory space.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Variety of materials, textures, colors | x | |||
| 2. Water and specially composed vegetation | x | |||
Components of therapeutic value—Creation of space.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Loose parts | x | |||
| 2. Materials and tools | x | |||
| 3. Water and sand | x | Sand as a surface (no sand play zone) | ||
Components of therapeutic value—Neurodiversity and Gradual motor skills.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Zones with varying degrees of socialization and openness | x | |||
| 2. Zones for motor play with varying degrees of difficulty | x | |||
Components of therapeutic value—Biophilia.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Natural forms as an integral part of development | x | |||
| 2. Richness of plant species, including edible plants | x | |||
| 3. Animals (e.g., petting zoo, bird houses, bird feeders) | x | |||
Components of therapeutic value—Cooperation and collaboration.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Elements of development that stimulate group play | x | |||
| 2. Elements of development that require cooperation | x | Limited | ||
Components of therapeutic value—Alternativity—Choice of activity forms.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Free play zone (without equipment) | x | |||
| 2. Creative play zone | x | |||
| 3. Zone of play with rules | x | |||
| 4. Exploratory play zone | x | |||
| 5. Motor play zone | x | Several elements for physical play | ||
| 6. Theme play zone | x | |||
| 7. Rest and observation zone | x | Only a few benches set up by the fence | ||
Playground card.
| Facility | Field survey information | Location of playground | ||
| Playground B | Date 1: 13 April 2024 | Date 2: 30 April 2024 | ||
| Location: Krzekowo-Bezrzecze housing estate | Survey Conditions: sunny weather, warm | |||
| Concept: An educational, family-themed playground with a clear ideological theme and an extensive functional program, connecting different age groups. | Functional zones: Carefully composed zones including a central square point with a sculpture of Wojtek the Bear, a trampoline zone, a linarium, a zone for younger children with a “stork’s nest” swing and carousel, touch panels, a gym. | |||
| Year of construction: 2019 | Investment: Municipal Services Department (ZUK) | Cost: PLN 1.2 million | Total points: 27 | |
Components of therapeutic value—Accessibility of space.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Absence of urban barriers | x | Well accessible space | ||
| 2. Development elements for people with different needs, including disabilities | x | |||
Components of therapeutic value—Forms of active therapy.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Elements of development for art therapy | x | |||
| 2. Elements of development for physical therapy | x | Elements for various activities, including motor exercises | ||
| 3. Elements of development for horticulture therapy | x | |||
| 4. Elements of development for sensory therapy | x | |||
Components of therapeutic—Sensory space.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Variety of materials, textures, colors | x | |||
| 2. Water and specially composed vegetation | x | Vegetation carefully composed and varied | ||
Components of therapeutic value—Creation of space.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Loose parts | x | Natural elements (e.g., pebbles, bark) | ||
| 2. Materials and tools | x | |||
| 3. Water and sand | x | Water as a drinking water fountain | ||
Components of therapeutic value—Neurodiversity and Gradual motor skills.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Zones with varying degrees of socialization and openness | x | The arrangement of the space provides the opportunity to choose the zone. | ||
| 2. Zones for motor play with varying degrees of difficulty | x | |||
Components of therapeutic value—Biophilia.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Natural forms as an integral part of development | x | |||
| 2. Richness of plant species, including edible plants | x | |||
| 3. Animals (e.g., petting zoo, bird houses, bird feeders) | x | |||
Components of therapeutic value—Cooperation and collaboration.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Elements of development that stimulate group play | x | |||
| 2. Elements of development that require cooperation | x | Limited | ||
Components of therapeutic value—Alternativity—Choice of activity forms.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Free play zone (without equipment) | x | |||
| 2. Creative play zone | x | |||
| 3. Zone of play with rules | x | |||
| 4. Exploratory play zone | x | |||
| 5. Motor play zone | x | |||
| 6. Theme play zone | x | |||
| 7. Rest and observation zone | x | |||
Playground card.
| Facility | Field survey information | Location of playground | ||
| Playground C | Date 1: 13 April 2024 | Date 2: 30 April 2024 | ||
| Location: Zgody Square | Survey Conditions: sunny weather, warm | |||
| Concept: The playground is based on the idea of a playable city and a children-friendly city—play as an integral element of public space. The redevelopment of the square is part of the revitalization of Wojska Polskiego Avenue, which aims to create a green living room in the city. | Functional zones: a trampoline zone, a hill zone with telephone play equipment, a swing zone, rest, and observation areas, and composed vegetation. | |||
| Year of construction: 2023 | Investment: Szczecin Municipal Investments | Cost: Over PLN 43 million (cost of reconstruction of Wojska Polskiego Avenue) | Total points: 23 | |
Components of therapeutic value—Accessibility of space.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Absence of urban barriers | x | Well accessible space | ||
| 2. Development elements for people with different needs, including disabilities | x | |||
Components of therapeutic value—Forms of active therapy.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Elements of development for art therapy | x | |||
| 2. Elements of development for physical therapy | x | Elements for various physical activities | ||
| 3. Elements of development for horticulture therapy | x | |||
| 4. Elements of development for sensory therapy | x | |||
Components of therapeutic—Sensory space.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Variety of materials, textures, colors | x | |||
| 2. Water and specially composed vegetation | x | Carefully composed and varied | ||
Components of therapeutic value—Creation of space.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Loose parts | x | Some natural elements (e.g., pebbles, bark) | ||
| 2. Materials and tools | x | |||
| 3. Water and sand | x | |||
Components of therapeutic value—Neurodiversity and Gradual motor skills.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Zones with varying degrees of socialization and openness | x | Opportunity to observe and passively rest or engage in physical activity and integration | ||
| 2. Zones for motor play with varying degrees of difficulty | x | |||
Components of therapeutic value—Biophilia.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Natural forms as an integral part of development | x | |||
| 2. Richness of plant species, including edible plants | x | |||
| 3. Animals (e.g., petting zoo, bird houses, bird feeders) | x | |||
Components of therapeutic value—Cooperation and collaboration.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Elements of development that stimulate group play | x | |||
| 2. Elements of development that require cooperation | x | |||
Components of therapeutic value—Alternativity—Choice of activity forms.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Free play zone (without equipment) | x | |||
| 2. Creative play zone | x | |||
| 3. Zone of play with rules/cooperation | x | |||
| 4. Exploratory play zone | x | |||
| 5. Motor play zone | x | |||
| 6. Theme play zone | x | |||
| 7. Rest and observation zone | x | |||
Playground card.
| Facility | Field survey information | Location of playground | ||
| Playground D | Date 1: 13 April 2024 | Date 2: 30 April 2024 | ||
| Location: Dworcowa Street | Survey Conditions: sunny weather, warm | |||
| Concept: A traditional playground with several typical pieces of equipment stimulating mainly physical play, fenced and covered with a sand surface. There is a lack of a clear idea and a coherent composition. | Functional zones: No functional zoning. Several pieces of equipment not related in composition or theme: multifunctional equipment for younger children, multifunctional equipment for older children, a weight swing, two rockers, and a swing for small children. The development does not include greenery, plantings, and natural elements. | |||
| Year of construction: 2018 | Investment: Szczecin Municipal Investments | Cost: more than PLN 120 thousand | Total points: 4 | |
Components of therapeutic value—Accessibility of space.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Absence of urban barriers | x | Sandy surface limits accessibility for people with disabilities | ||
| 2. Development elements for people with different needs, including disabilities | x | |||
Components of therapeutic value—Forms of active therapy.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Elements of development for art therapy | x | |||
| 2. Elements of development for physical therapy | x | A few pieces of equipment for typical physical activities | ||
| 3. Elements of development for horticulture therapy | x | |||
| 4. Elements of development for sensory therapy | x | |||
Components of therapeutic—Sensory space.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Variety of materials, textures, colors | x | |||
| 2. Water and specially composed vegetation | x | |||
Components of therapeutic value—Creation of space.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Loose parts | x | |||
| 2. Materials and tools | x | |||
| 3. Water and sand | x | |||
Components of therapeutic value—Neurodiversity and Gradual motor skills.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Zones with varying degrees of socialization and openness | x | |||
| 2. Zones for motor play with varying degrees of difficulty | x | Equipment for young children and older children | ||
Components of therapeutic value—Biophilia.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Natural forms as an integral part of development | x | |||
| 2. Richness of plant species, including edible plants | x | |||
| 3. Animals (e.g., petting zoo, bird houses, bird feeders) | x | |||
Components of therapeutic value—Cooperation and collaboration.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Elements of development that stimulate group play | x | |||
| 2. Elements of development that require cooperation | x | |||
Components of therapeutic value—Alternativity—Choice of activity forms.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Free play zone (without equipment) | x | |||
| 2. Creative play zone | x | |||
| 3. Zone of play with rules/cooperation | x | |||
| 4. Exploratory play zone | x | |||
| 5. Motor play zone | x | |||
| 6. Theme play zone | x | |||
| 7. Rest and observation zone | x | Only a few benches near the playground fence | ||
Playground card.
| Facility | Field survey information | Location of playground | ||
| Playground E | Date 1: 13 April 2024 | Date 2: 30 April 2024 | ||
| Location: Telesfor Badetko Square | Survey Conditions: sunny weather, warm | |||
| Concept: A contemporary playground of the classic variety with certified equipment with an extensive program of physical activities for people of all ages. | Functional zones: a training playground zone with exercise equipment, a play zone for young children with a swing, rocker, and slide, a play zone for older children with a linarium and a “stork’s nest” swing, and a sidewalk games zone. The zones are inscribed in the communication and composition system of the square. Play zones are integrated with greenery. | |||
| Year of construction: 2018 | Investment: Municipal Services Department (ZUK) | Cost: PLN 1,294,300 | Total points: 20 | |
Components of therapeutic value—Accessibility of space.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Absence of urban barriers | x | Space mostly accessible (sandy surface limits access to some equipment) | ||
| 2. Development elements for people with different needs, including disabilities | x | |||
Components of therapeutic value—Forms of active therapy.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Elements of development for art therapy | x | |||
| 2. Elements of development for physical therapy | x | Equipment for different muscle parts | ||
| 3. Elements of development for horticulture therapy | x | |||
| 4. Elements of development for sensory therapy | x | |||
Components of therapeutic—Sensory space.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Variety of materials, textures, colors | x | |||
| 2. Water and specially composed vegetation | x | A significant amount of greenery—trees and shrubs in the surroundings of the playground | ||
Components of therapeutic value—Creation of space.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Loose parts | x | |||
| 2. Materials and tools | x | |||
| 3. Water and sand | x | |||
Components of therapeutic value—Neurodiversity and Gradual motor skills.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Zones with varying degrees of socialization and openness | x | |||
| 2. Zones for motor play with varying degrees of difficulty | x | Equipment that activates various muscles, suitable for people with different levels of fitness | ||
Components of therapeutic value—Biophilia.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Natural forms as an integral part of development | x | |||
| 2. Richness of plant species, including edible plants | x | Trees and shrubs in the surrounding area, but no flower beds, perennial beds, etc. | ||
| 3. Animals (e.g., petting zoo, bird houses, bird feeders) | x | |||
Components of therapeutic value—Cooperation and collaboration.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Elements of development that stimulate group play | x | Ping-pong table, sidewalk games | ||
| 2. Elements of development that require cooperation | x | |||
Components of therapeutic value—Alternativity—Choice of activity forms.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Free play zone (without equipment) | x | Zones with greenery connect to play zones | ||
| 2. Creative play zone | x | |||
| 3. Zone of play with rules/cooperation | x | |||
| 4. Exploratory play zone | x | |||
| 5. Motor play zone | x | |||
| 6. Theme play zone | x | |||
| 7. Rest and observation zone | x | A few benches | ||
Playground card.
| Facility | Field survey information | Location of playground | ||
| Playground F | Date 1: 13 April 2024 | Date 2: 30 April 2024 | ||
| Location: Gen. T. Kutrzeba inter-neighborhood park | Survey Conditions: sunny weather, warm | |||
| Concept: a contemporary classical playground with certified equipment with an extensive program of motor play and integration. | Functional zones: a zone with an integration sandbox equipped with a shade cover, a zone for movement games with a rope, Tyrolean, 2 sets of swings and multifunctional equipment, a trampoline zone with a set of trampolines, including an integration trampoline, an integration zone with a place for sidewalk games and 2 resting gazebos. | |||
| Year of construction: 2023 | Investment: Szczecin Citizen’s Budget/Municipal Services Department (ZUK) | Cost: PLN 670,000 | Total points: 15 | |
Components of therapeutic value—Accessibility of space.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Absence of urban barriers | x | Sandy surface limits access to much of the equipment | ||
| 2. Development elements for people with different needs, including disabilities | x | Integration trampoline, two stork’s nest swings | ||
Components of therapeutic value—Forms of active therapy.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Elements of development for art therapy | x | |||
| 2. Elements of development for physical therapy | x | Numerous elements requiring high motor skills | ||
| 3. Elements of development for horticulture therapy | x | |||
| 4. Elements of development for sensory therapy | x | |||
Components of therapeutic—Sensory space.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Variety of materials, textures, colors | x | |||
| 2. Water and specially composed vegetation | x | Numerous tree plantings, but no composed low greenery | ||
Components of therapeutic value—Creation of space.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Loose parts | x | |||
| 2. Materials and tools | x | |||
| 3. Water and sand | x | Sand play zone but no water | ||
Components of therapeutic value—Neurodiversity and Gradual motor skills.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Zones with varying degrees of socialization and openness | x | |||
| 2. Zones for motor play with varying degrees of difficulty | x | Lots of equipment, but all require significant physical ability | ||
Components of therapeutic value—Biophilia.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Natural forms as an integral part of development | x | |||
| 2. Richness of plant species, including edible plants | x | Trees and shrubs in the surrounding area, but no flower beds, perennial beds, etc. | ||
| 3. Animals (e.g., petting zoo, bird houses, bird feeders) | x | |||
Components of therapeutic value—Cooperation and collaboration.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Elements of development that stimulate group play | x | Zone for sidewalk games | ||
| 2. Elements of development that require cooperation | x | |||
Components of therapeutic value—Alternativity—Choice of activity forms.
| The elements building the component | Rating | Comments | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1. Free play zone (without equipment) | x | |||
| 2. Creative play zone | x | |||
| 3. Zone of play with rules/cooperation | x | |||
| 4. Exploratory play zone | x | |||
| 5. Motor play zone | x | |||
| 6. Theme play zone | x | |||
| 7. Rest and observation zone | x | |||
References
- Brown, F. (Ed.) Playwork—Theory and Practice; Open University Press: Buckingham, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, F. Compound flexibility: The role of playwork in child development. In Playwork—Theory and Practice; Brown, F., Ed.; Open University Press: Buckingham, UK, 2003; pp. 51–65. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, F.; Webb, S. Children without play. J. Educ. 2005, 35, 139–158. [Google Scholar]
- Lynch, H.; Moore, A.; Prellwitz, M. From policy to play provision: Universal design and the challenges of inclusive play. Child. Youth Environ. 2018, 28, 12–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loebach, J.; Sanches, M.; Jaffe, J.; Elton-Marshall, T. Paving the way for outdoor play: Examining socio environmental barriers to community-based outdoor play. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Burdette, H.L.; Whitaker, R.C. Resurrecting free play in young children: Looking beyond fitness and fatness to attention, affiliation, and affect. Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. 2005, 159, 46–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clements, R. An investigation of the state of outdoor play. Contemp. Issues Early Child. 2004, 5, 68–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dowdell, K.; Gray, T.; Malone, K. Nature and its influence on children’s outdoor play. J. Outdoor Environ. Educ. 2011, 15, 24–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bixler, R.D.; Floyd, M.F.; Hammitt, W.E. Environmental socialization: Quantitative tests of the childhood play hypothesis. Environ. Behav. 2002, 34, 795–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bendych, E.; Nowak, J. Przygotowanie Dzieci Niewidomych do Nauki Szkolnej; WSiP: Warszawa, Poland, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Kinoshita, I.; Woolley, H. Children’s Play Environment after a Disaster: The Great East Japan Earthquake. Children 2015, 2, 39–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lisul, I. Play as a coping strategy during a time of bombing and destruction. In The Child’s Right to Play; Clements, R.L., Fiorentino, L., Eds.; Greenwood Publishing Group: Westport, CT, USA, 2004; pp. 55–61. [Google Scholar]
- Tucker, J. Kids with PTSD Find Help through Adventure-Based Therapy. Available online: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Kids-with-PTSD-find-help-through-adventure-based-5436668.php (accessed on 20 December 2023).
- Prellwitz, M.; Skar, L. Usability of Playgrounds for Children with Different Abilities. Occup. Ther. Int. 2007, 14, 144–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaudhury, M.; Hinckson, E.; Badland, H.; Oliver, M. Children’s Independence and Affordances Experienced in the Context of Public Open Spaces: A Study of Diverse Inner-City and Suburban Neighbourhoods in Auckland, New Zealand. Child. Geogr. 2019, 17, 49–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, D.; Ross, T.; Leo, J.; Buliung, R.; Shirazipour, C.H.; Latimer, A.E.; Arbour-Nicitopoulos, K.P. A scoping review of evidence-informed recommendations for designing inclusive playgrounds. Front. Rehabil. Sci. 2021, 2, 664595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jansson, M.; Persson, B. Playground planning and management: An evaluation of standard-influenced provision through user needs. Urban For. Urban Green. 2010, 9, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Czalczynska-Podolska, M. The impact of playground spatial features on children’s play and activity forms: An evoluation of contemporary playgrounds’ play and social value. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 38, 132–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Czałczyńska-Podolska, M. Architektura Miejsca Zabawy. Zabawa Jako Czynnik Integracji (w) Przestrzeni Miejskiej [Architecture of the Play Site. Play as a Factor of Integration (in) Urban Space]; Wydawnictwo Uczelniane Zachodniopomorskiego Uniwersytetu Technologicznego w Szczecinie: Szczecin, Poland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Sapsağlam, Ö.; Eryılmaz, A. Building Child-Friendly Cities for Sustainable Child Development: Child-Friendly City Scale-Child Form. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hurst, K.R.; Lee, C. A Case Study of Playground Accessibility, The Universal Attractiveness of Universally Accessible Play Environments: A Pilot Study. Landsc. Res. Rec. 2014, 2, 191–200. [Google Scholar]
- Barbour, A.C. The impact of playground design on the play behaviors of children with differing levels of physical competence. Early Child. Res. Q. 1999, 14, 75–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayward, D.G.; Rothenberg, M.; Beasley, R.R. Children’s play and urban playground. A comparison of traditional, contemporary and adventure playground types. Environ. Behav. 1974, 6, 131–167. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, J.G.; Burger, C. Playground designs and preschool children’s behaviors. Environ. Behav. 1984, 16, 599–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell, S.D.; Frost, J.L. The effects of playground type on the cognitive and social play behaviors of grade two children. In When Children Play; Frost, J.L., Sunderlin, S., Eds.; ACEI: Wheaton, MD, USA, 1985; pp. 81–88. [Google Scholar]
- Naylor, H. Outdoor play and play equipment. Early Child Dev. Care 1985, 19, 109–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeanes, R.; Jonathan Magee, J. Can We Play on the Swings and Roundabouts?: Creating Inclusive Play Spaces for Disabled Young People and Their Families. Leis. Stud. 2012, 31, 193–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woolley, H. Now Being Social: The Barrier of Designing Outdoor Play Spaces for Disabled Children. Child. Soc. 2012, 27, 448–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burke, J. Just for the Fun of It: Making Playgrounds Accessible to All Children. World Leis. J. 2013, 55, 83–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stafford, L. Journeys to Play: Planning Considerations to Engender Inclusive Playspaces. Landsc. Res. 2017, 42, 33–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lynch, H.; Moore, A.; Edwards, C.; Horgan, L. Advancing Play Participation for All: The Challenge of Addressing Play Diversity and Inclusion in Community Parks and Playgrounds. Br. J. Occup. Ther. 2020, 83, 107–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, A.; Lynch, H.; Boyle, B. Can universal design support outdoor play, social participation, and inclusion in public plagrounds? A scoping review. Disabil. Rehabil. 2022, 44, 33043325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, A.; Lynch, H.; Boyle, B. A national study of playground professionals universal design implementation practices. Landsc. Res. 2022, 47, 611–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicholson, S. The theory of loose parts: How not to cheat children. Landsc. Archit. Q. 1971, 62, 30–34. [Google Scholar]
- Nicholson, S. The theory of loose parts. In Alternative Learning Environments; Coates, G., Ed.; Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross: Stroudsbourgh, PA, USA, 1974; pp. 370–381. [Google Scholar]
- Dattner, R. Design for Play; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1974. [Google Scholar]
- Frost, J.L.; Klein, B.J. Children Play and Playgrounds; Playscapes International: Austin, TX, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
- Wardle, F. Are we taking the fun out of playgrounds? Daycare Early Educ. 1990, 18, 30–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, R.C.; Goltsman, S.M.; Iacofano, D.S. Play for All Guidelines: Planning, Designing and Management of Outdoor Settings for All Children; MIG Communications: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Frost, J.L.; Wortham, S.; Reifel, S. Play and Child Development; Merrill Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Herrington, S.; Lesmeister, C. The design of landscapes at child-care centres. Landsc. Res. 2006, 31, 63–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berti, S.; Cigala, A.; Sharmahd, N. Early Childhood Education and Care Physical Environment and Child Development: State of the art and Reflections on Future Orientations and Methodologies. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2019, 31, 991–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brussoni, M.; Ishikawa, T.; Brunelle, S.; Herrington, S. Landscapes for play: Effects of an intervention to promote nature-based risky play in early childhood centres. J. Environ. Psychol. 2017, 54, 139–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, G.; Cohen, U. Exceptional education and the physical environment: Toward behaviorally-based design principles. In New Directions in Environmental Design; Rogers, W., Ittelson, W., Eds.; Environmental Design Research Association: Washington, DC, USA, 1978; Volume 9. [Google Scholar]
- Woolley, H.; Lowe, A. Exploring the Relationship between Design Approach and Play Value of Outdoor Play Spaces. Landsc. Res. 2013, 38, 53–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petrakos, H.; Howe, N. The influence of the physical design of the dramatic play center on children’s play. Early Child. Res. Q. 1996, 11, 63–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moreira, M.; Cordovil, R.; Lopes, F.; Da Silva, B.M.S.; Veiga, G. The Relationship between the Quality of Kindergartens’ Outdoor Physical Environment and Preschoolers’ Social Functioning. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Czałczyńska-Podolska, M. Contemporary playground as attractive space. Space Form 2016, 26.B-01, 27–38. [Google Scholar]
- Miller, L.J.; Schoen, S.A.; Camarata, S.M.; McConkey, J.; Kanics, I.M.; Valdez, A.; Hampton, S. Play in natural environments: A pilot study quantifying the behavior of children on playground equipment. J. Occup. Ther. Sch. Early Interv. 2017, 10, 213–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, A.; Lynch, H. Accessibility and usability of playground environments for children under 12: A scoping review. Scand. J. Occup. Ther. 2015, 22, 331–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prellwitz, M.; Tamm, M.; Lindqvist, R. Are playgrounds in Norrland (northern Sweden) accessible to children with restricted mobility? Scand. J. Disabil. Res. 2001, 3, 56–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woolley With, H.; Armitage, M.; Bishop, J.; Curtis, M.; Ginsborg, J. Going outside together: Good practice with respect to the inclusion of disabled children in primary school playgrounds. Child. Geogr. 2006, 4, 303–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wenger, I.; Schulze, C.; Lundström, U.; Prellwitz, M. Children’s perceptions of playing on inclusive playgrounds: A qualitative study. Scand. J. Occup. Ther. 2021, 28, 136–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wenger, I.; Prellwitz, M.; Lundström, U.; Lynch, H.; Schulze, C. Designing inclusive playgrounds in Switzerland: Why is it so complex? Child. Geogr. 2023, 21, 487–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parker, R.; Al-Maiyah, S. Developing an integrated approach to the evaluation of outdoor play settings: Rethinking the position of play value. Child. Geogr. 2022, 20, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaplan, S. Cognitive maps, human needs and the designed environment. In Environmental Design Research; Preiser, W.F.E., Ed.; Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross: Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 1973; pp. 275–283. [Google Scholar]
- Kaplan, S.; Talbot, J.F. Psychological benefits of a wilderness experience. Hum. Behav. Environ. Adv. Theory Res. 1983, 6, 163–203. [Google Scholar]
- Ulrich, R. View Through a Window May Influence Recovery from Surgery. Science 1984, 224, 420–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greenman, J. It ain’t easy being green. Beginnings workshop. Child Care Inf. Exch. 1993, 91, 336–337. [Google Scholar]
- Ulrich, R. Effects of gardens on health outcomes: Theory and research. In Healing Gardens: Therapeutic Benefits and Design Recommendations; Marcus, C.C., Barnes, M., Eds.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1999; pp. 27–86. [Google Scholar]
- Fjørtoft, I.; Sageie, J. The natural environment as a playground for children: Landscape description and analyses of a natural playscape. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2000, 48, 83–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, R.C.; Wong, H. Natural Learning: Creating Environments for Rediscovering Nature’s Way of Teaching; MIG Communications: Berkley, CA, USA, 1997; ISBN 0-944662-17-3. [Google Scholar]
- Moore, R.C.; Cosco, N.G. A children’s place: Developing an earth-bound culture. Nativ. Plants 2001, 8, 8–11. [Google Scholar]
- Moore, R.C. Healing gardens for children. In Healing Gardens: Therapeutic Benefits and Design Recommendations; Marcus, C.C., Barnes, M., Eds.; John Wiley and Sons, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1999; pp. 323–383. [Google Scholar]
- Glasheen, L. Bombsites, Adventure Playgrounds and the Reconstruction of London: Playing with Urban Space in Hue and Cry. Lond. J. 2019, 44, 54–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hurtwood, L.A.O. Planning for Play; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1968. [Google Scholar]
- Kozlovsky, R. Adventure Playgrounds and Postwar Reconstruction. In Designing Modern Childhoods: History, Space, and the Material Culture of Children, An International Reader; Gutman, M., de Coninck-Smith, N., Eds.; Rutgers University Press: New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 2008; pp. 171–190. [Google Scholar]
- Kozlovsky, R. The Junk Playground: Creative Destruction as Antidote to Delinquency. Available online: http://threatnyouth.pbworks.com/f/Junk%20Playgrounds-Roy%20Kozlovsky.pdf (accessed on 5 March 2024).
- Bengtsson, A. Adventure Playgrounds; Praeger Publishers, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1972. [Google Scholar]
- Moore, R.C. Compact Nature: The Role of Playing and Learning Gardens on Children’s Lives. J. Ther. Hortic. 1996, 8, 72–82. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44025358 (accessed on 20 December 2023).
- Bundy, A.C.; Luckett, T.; Naughton, G.A.; Tranter, P.J.; Wyver, S.R.; Ragen, J.; Singleton, E.; Spies, E. Playful Interaction: Occupational Therapy for All Children on the School Playground. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 2008, 62, 522–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, R.C.; Cosco, N.G. Using behaviour mapping to investigate healthy outdoor environments for children and families: Conceptual framework, procedures, and applications. In Innovative Approaches to Researching Landscape and Health; Thompson, C.W., Aspinall, P., Bell, S., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 9–32. [Google Scholar]
- Terpstra, J.E.; Higgins, K.; Pierce, T. Can I Play?: Classroom-based interventions for teaching skills to children with autism. Focus Autism Other Dev. Disabil. 2002, 17, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell, M.; Schopler, E.; Cueva, J.E.; Hallin, A. Treatment of autistic disorder. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 1996, 35, 134–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kohler, F.W.; Anthony, L.J.; Steighner, S.A.; Hoyson, M. Teaching social interaction skills in the integrated preschool: An examination of naturalistic tactics. Top. Early Child. Spec. Educ. 2001, 21, 93–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinson, F.; Browning, L. Naturally Inclusive—A New Approach to Design for Play; Learning Through Landscapes: Winchester, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Doak, L. Realising the ‘right to play’ in the special school playground. Int. J. Play. 2020, 9, 414–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harris, K.; Rosinski, P.; Wood-Nartker, J.; Renirie, R.H. Developing Inclusive Playgrounds That Welcome All Children—Including Those with Autism. Rev. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 2022, 11, 433–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stanton-Chapman, T.; Schmidt, E. Creating an inclusive playground for children of all abilities: West Fork Playground in Cincinnati, Ohio. Child. Youth Environ. 2017, 27, 124–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, M.; Vouchilas, G. Residential design for families with children on the autism spectrum. J. Fam. Consum. Sci. 2013, 105, 33–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuill, N.; Strieth, S.; Roake, C.; Aspden, R.; Todd, B. Brief report: Designing a playground for children with autistic spectrum disorders—Effects on playful peer interactions. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 2007, 37, 1192–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strategia Rozwoju Szczecina 2025. Uchwała Nr XIV/320/11 Rady Miasta Szczecina z dnia 19 Grudnia 2011 r. w Sprawie Przyjęcia Strategii Rozwoju Szczecina 2025. Available online: https://bip.um.szczecin.pl/UMSzczecinFiles/file/_Strategia_Rozwoju_Szczecina_2025.pdf (accessed on 1 April 2024).
- Herrington, S.; Studtmann, K. Landscape interventions: New directions for the design of children’s outdoor play environments. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1998, 42, 191–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Solomon, S.G. American Playground. Revitalizing Community Space; Lebanon University of Press: New England, ME, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Talay, L.; Akpinar, N.; Belkayali, N. Barriers to playground use for children with disabilities: A case from Ankara-Turkey. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2010, 5, 848–855. [Google Scholar]
- UNICEF. Good Practice Guide on Building an Inclusive Playground. 2021. Available online: https://www.unicef.org/serbia/media/18911/file/Gude%20for%20the%20Construction%20of%20Inclusive%20Children’s%20Playgrounds.pdf (accessed on 20 April 2024).
- Rodger, S.; Ziviani, J. Play-based occupational therapy. International Journal of Disability. Dev. Educ. 1999, 46, 337–365. [Google Scholar]
- Moorcock, K. Swings and Roundabouts: The Danger of Safety in Outdoor Play Environments; Sheffield Hallam University Press: Sheffield, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. General Comment no.17 on the Right of the Child to Rest, Leisure, Play, Recreational Activities, Cultural Life and the Arts (Art. 31). 2013. Available online: https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRC%2fC%2fGC%2f17&Lang=en (accessed on 22 April 2024).
Figure 1.
Location of Szczecin in Europe. Source: Author’s work based on the map created by Commons user Alexrk2, CC BY-SA 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0>, via WikimediaCommons.
Figure 1.
Location of Szczecin in Europe. Source: Author’s work based on the map created by Commons user Alexrk2, CC BY-SA 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0>, via WikimediaCommons.
Figure 2.
Location of playgrounds selected for analysis. A—Playground at Zawadzki housing estate, B—Playground in the Krzekowo-Bezrzecze housing estate, C—Playground on Zgody Square, D—Playground on Dworcowa Street, E—Playground in Telesfor Badetko Square, F—in the Gen. T. Kutrzeba park. Source: author’s work based on OpenStreetMap location map of Szczecin, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Szczecin_location_map.png/1043px-Szczecin_location_map.png (accessed on 2 May 2024).
Figure 2.
Location of playgrounds selected for analysis. A—Playground at Zawadzki housing estate, B—Playground in the Krzekowo-Bezrzecze housing estate, C—Playground on Zgody Square, D—Playground on Dworcowa Street, E—Playground in Telesfor Badetko Square, F—in the Gen. T. Kutrzeba park. Source: author’s work based on OpenStreetMap location map of Szczecin, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Szczecin_location_map.png/1043px-Szczecin_location_map.png (accessed on 2 May 2024).
Figure 3.
Diagram of the research methodology. Source: author’s work.
Figure 4.
Playgrounds based on active therapy: sensory playground in Swinoujscie—a sand zone (a), sensory playground in Swinoujscie—a sensory path (b). Source: author’s work.
Figure 4.
Playgrounds based on active therapy: sensory playground in Swinoujscie—a sand zone (a), sensory playground in Swinoujscie—a sensory path (b). Source: author’s work.
Figure 5.
Playgrounds based on the idea of space creation: adventure playground in Berkeley (CA) (a) and adventure playground in Koserov (Germany) (b). Source: author’s work.
Figure 5.
Playgrounds based on the idea of space creation: adventure playground in Berkeley (CA) (a) and adventure playground in Koserov (Germany) (b). Source: author’s work.
Figure 6.
Biophilia-based playgrounds: edible schoolyard in Berkeley (CA) (a) and nature playground in Rapperswill (Switzerland) (b). Source: author’s work.
Figure 6.
Biophilia-based playgrounds: edible schoolyard in Berkeley (CA) (a) and nature playground in Rapperswill (Switzerland) (b). Source: author’s work.
Figure 7.
Community-based playgrounds: community-built playground in Davies (CA) (a,b). Source: author’s work.
Figure 7.
Community-based playgrounds: community-built playground in Davies (CA) (a,b). Source: author’s work.
Figure 8.
Playgrounds based on inclusiveness and integration: family playground in Campbell (a) and Mountain View (CA) (b). Source: author’s work.
Figure 8.
Playgrounds based on inclusiveness and integration: family playground in Campbell (a) and Mountain View (CA) (b). Source: author’s work.
Figure 9.
Playground A (a,b). Source: author’s work.
Figure 10.
Playground B (a–d). Source: author’s work.
Figure 11.
Playground C (a,b). Source: author’s work.
Figure 12.
Playground D (a,b). Source: author’s work.
Figure 13.
Playground E (a,b). Source: author’s work.
Figure 14.
Playground F (a,b). Source: author’s work.
Figure 15.
Three paths to increase the therapeutic value of the playground—an idea diagram. Source: author’s work.
Figure 15.
Three paths to increase the therapeutic value of the playground—an idea diagram. Source: author’s work.
Table 1.
Comparison of the performance of different types of therapeutic playgrounds. Source: author’s work.
Table 1.
Comparison of the performance of different types of therapeutic playgrounds. Source: author’s work.
| Type of Therapeutic Playground | Development Features | Location | Therapeutic Activity | Forms |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Playgrounds based on a specific form of active therapy | A development tailored to the needs of children with various needs (e.g., wheelchair-bound, blind, deaf, autism spectrum, and others), enabling specialized therapy tailored to specific patients. A garden-like space providing a sense of familiarity, and joy, encouraging interaction and exploration. Interiors with varying degrees of openness, including an intimate character, giving a sense of security, tranquility, and isolating from the outside world. Sensory, eye-catching elements, distinctive forms that focus attention, the impression of a “magical” space | Hospitals, rehabilitation centers, sanatorium hospitals, educational institutions of an integrative nature with a therapeutic program, parks in spa towns, spa parks, parks, and public gardens | Offer a specific type of active therapy, (e.g., sensory therapy, art therapy, movement therapy, horticultural therapy), treat actively and passively, provide mental regeneration, distract from the “hospital” reality, have a calming or activating effect on the senses | Hospital play gardens, children’s sensory gardens, healing gardens |
| Playgrounds are based on the idea of the creation of space | Development based on the idea of own creation of space, elements allowing the transformation of space (materials, tools, blocks), space often containing natural elements, water, sand, plants. Space is subject to change and modification | Inclusive schools and kindergartens, other educational institutions, gardens at museums and other cultural sites | Counteracts exclusion through play that encourages cooperation, working together towards a common goal (e.g., building play), builds self-esteem and a sense of ability | Adventure playgrounds, playground in a box, edible schoolyards, nature playgrounds |
| Playgrounds based on contact with nature | Development based on natural elements, garden-like in nature, including providing opportunities for independent space design and active horticultural therapy (community garden, petting zoo), with places of graded inclusiveness (places for solo time, observation, integration in a narrow and wide circle), flowerbeds at different heights, gardening tables, variety of plant species | Therapeutic centers, inclusive schools and kindergartens, other educational institutions, gardens at cultural facilities, also parks, and neighborhoods | Counteract exclusion, integrate, and stimulate the construction of a strong community, develop social ties, teach responsibility for the space, to be its host and member of the community | Children’s healing gardens, edible schoolyards, children’s farms, nature playgrounds |
| Playgrounds based on community action | Development based on community activities, including temporary, occasional events, participation is the basis for the creation of space; hence, the development elements often have a unique form, the space is unique, “familiar”, “our” | Public space, parks, and neighborhoods, schools, and kindergartens | Counteract exclusion, integrate and stimulate the building of a strong community, develop social ties, teach responsibility for the space, to be a member of the community | Community-built playgrounds, edible schoolyards |
| Playgrounds based on inclusivity and integration | The development provides a wide choice of activities (zones for free play (without equipment), creative play (e.g., sand and water, musical instruments), play with rules (e.g., outdoor checkers, sidewalk games), exploratory play, relaxation. Zones provide a choice of activities in terms of the degree of fitness and socialization—interiors with graded inclusiveness (places for solo time, observation, narrow and wide integration), accessible space (for all regardless of the degree of fitness) | Public spaces, parks, and neighborhoods Inclusive schools and kindergartens, other educational institutions | Stimulate community building, cooperation, and creativity, counteract exclusion by playing together and working together towards a common goal, while providing choices and places for solo time, tranquility, and observation, bring generations together and encourage activity regardless of age | Family playgrounds for users of all ages and needs |
Table 2.
Comparison of the role of elements that build individual components of therapeutic value in different types of therapeutic playgrounds. Source: author’s work.
Table 2.
Comparison of the role of elements that build individual components of therapeutic value in different types of therapeutic playgrounds. Source: author’s work.
| Components of the Therapeutic Value | The Elements Building the Component | Playgrounds Based on the Form of Active Therapy | Playgrounds Based on the Creation of Space | Playgrounds Based on Contact with Nature | Playgrounds Based on Community Action | Playgrounds Based on Inclusiveness and Integration |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accessibility of space | Absence of urban barriers | |||||
| Elements for people with different needs, including disabilities | ||||||
| Forms of active therapy | Elements of development for art therapy | |||||
| Elements of development for physical therapy | ||||||
| Elements of development for horticulture therapy | ||||||
| Elements of development for sensory therapy | ||||||
| Sensory space | Variety of materials, textures, colors | |||||
| Water and specially composed vegetation | ||||||
| Space creation | Loose parts | |||||
| Materials and tools | ||||||
| Water and sand | ||||||
| Neurodiversity and graded motor skills | Zones with varying degrees of socialization and openness | |||||
| Zones for motor play with varying degrees of difficulty | ||||||
| Biophilia | Natural forms as an integral part of development | |||||
| The richness of plant species, including edible plants | ||||||
| Animals (e.g., petting zoo, bird houses, bird feeder) | ||||||
| Cooperation and collaboration | Elements of development that stimulate group play | |||||
| Elements of development that require cooperation | ||||||
| Alternatives—a choice of activities | Free play zone (without equipment) | |||||
| Creative play zone (sand and water, musical instruments, etc.) | ||||||
| Zone of play with rules (e.g., outdoor checkers) | ||||||
| Exploratory play zone | ||||||
| Motor play zone | ||||||
| Theme play zone | ||||||
| Rest and observation zone |
Dark gray color—priority role, key to the type of place; light gray color—supporting role for priority elements; white color—complementary role, expanding the functional program.
Table 3.
Expert evaluation of selected playgrounds in Szczecin in the context of their therapeutic potential.
Table 3.
Expert evaluation of selected playgrounds in Szczecin in the context of their therapeutic potential.
| Components of the Therapeutic Value | The Elements Building the Component | Playground | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | D | E | F | ||
| Accessibility of space | Absence of urban barriers | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Elements for people with different needs, including disabilities | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
| Forms of active therapy | Elements of development for art therapy | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Elements of development for physical therapy | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | |
| Elements of development for horticulture therapy | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Elements of development for sensory therapy | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Sensory space | Variety of materials, textures, colors | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Water and specially composed vegetation | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
| Space creation | Loose parts | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Materials and tools | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Water and sand | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| Neurodiversity and graded motor skills | Zones with varying degrees of socialization and openness | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Zones for motor play with varying degrees of difficulty | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | |
| Biophilia | Natural forms as an integral part of development | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| The richness of plant species, including edible plants | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
| Animals (e.g., petting zoo, bird houses, bird feeder) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Cooperation and collaboration | Elements of development that stimulate group play | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Elements of development that require cooperation | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| Alternatives—a choice of activities | Free play zone (without equipment) | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Creative play zone (sand and water, musical instruments, drawing boards, etc.) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| Zone of play with rules (e.g., outdoor checkers) and cooperation | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
| Exploratory play zone | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| Motor play zone | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| Theme play zone | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Rest and observation zone | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
| Total | 6 | 27 | 23 | 4 | 19 | 15 | |
Criterion fully met (elements included and properly used)—2; Criterion partially met—1; Criterion not met (elements not included or use not possible)—0.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Czalczynska-Podolska, M. Therapeutic Playground: Typology of Solutions and Analysis of Selected Public Playgrounds as Places with Therapeutic Potential. Sustainability 2024, 16, 6414. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156414
AMA Style
Czalczynska-Podolska M. Therapeutic Playground: Typology of Solutions and Analysis of Selected Public Playgrounds as Places with Therapeutic Potential. Sustainability. 2024; 16(15):6414. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156414
Chicago/Turabian StyleCzalczynska-Podolska, Magdalena. 2024. "Therapeutic Playground: Typology of Solutions and Analysis of Selected Public Playgrounds as Places with Therapeutic Potential" Sustainability 16, no. 15: 6414. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156414
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
