How children and parents use and value play routes

An evaluation of the ‘Kindlint’ in Delft

HSO-30806 Settings for Health Promotion

May 2017

Damiel Ermen 901029228060

Amy Janssen 940824394120

Chenda Leng 940326511020

Yvon Tijhuis 941021846050

Ridhaninggar Rindu Aninda 880203015120

1

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our gratitude towards the ‘Branchevereniging Spelen en

Bewegen’ (Industry association playing and being active) for the topic of this assignment. In

addition, we would like to thank, especially Harriëtte Snoek and Elsje Oosterkamp, from the

Science Shop Wageningen University and Research for their contribution, support and

helpful feedback during the meetings.

The success and final outcome of this assignment required a lot of guidance and

assistance from many people. Therefore, we also would like to thank Lenneke Vaandrager

for reading our assignment and giving helpful feedback, our peer-students for giving helpful

advice, Etienne van der Horst for his input during an interview, and the children and parents

that gave helpful input and support.

2

Summary

Introduction Physical activity is beneficial for the development and well-being of children.

Active free-play is the most important contributor of physical activity. Play routes have been

developed in order to stimulate active free-play while children are going to playgrounds,

playing fields, parks, sport associations and schools. Methods The aim of this research is to

set a first step in discovering on how play routes are stimulating physical activity. To reach

this aim, insight is needed on how children and parents use and value the play route ‘Het

Kindlint’ in Delft. The play route itself was observed as well as how children played and

moved in relation to this route and in depth Interviews were done with 6 mothers and 12

children. Results The outcomes were categorized into the determinants of physical activity.

Individual determinants: Most of the children did not use the play route and did not know

about its existence. Also, the parents thought that the play route was not safe. Social

environment: The social cohesion in the neighbourhood is not strong and there is no social

support from the schools or parents for using the play route. Furthermore, the play route

does not stimulate social interaction between children. Built environment: Elements of the

play route were not recognisable enough for car drivers or for the children according to the

parents. The blue tiles should represent the play route, but most were damaged. Also,

children found the tiles and play route overall unattractive. Natural environment: The weather

during the observations was not ideal for children to play outside. Moreover, a school on the

play route was abolished causing the route to lead to nothing which defeats its purpose.

Also, the children said they did not use the play route because it was not located near their

homes. Discussion Most of the findings proved to be barriers for the use of the play route.

After ten years the play route is outdated and in need of an update.

3

Content

1. Introduction 5

2. Theoretical framework and background 7

2.1 Determinants of physical activity 7

2.2 Ottawa Charter 8

2.3 Physical features of play routes 9

2.4 Case Delft 9

3. Aim and Research Question 13

4. Methods 13

4.1 Observations play route 13

4.2 Interviews 14

4.3 Analysing data 15

5. Results 15

5.1 Observations 16

5.2 Interviews 16

5.3 Individual determinants 16

5.4 Social environment 17

5.5 Built environment 18

5.6 Natural environment 25

6. Discussion 25

5.1 Conclusion 25

5.2 Strengths and weaknesses 27

5.3 Recommendations for Delft 28

5.4 Recommendations for further research 30

Reference list 31

4

Appendix 36

I. Planning 36

II. Interview guidelines children 37

III. Interview guidelines parents 39

IV. Interview guidelines Etienne van der Horst: 41

project leader of the play route

V. Interview invitation 43

VI. Interview consent form 44

VII. Observation checklist 45

5

1. Introduction

Physical activity is important for children's social, mental and physical health (Veitch

et al., 2006). Physical activity refers to ‘any bodily movement produced by skeletal muscles

that results in energy expenditure’ (Sirars & Pate, 2001). It has beneficial effects on adiposity

levels, blood pressure, plasma lipid and lipoproteins levels, non-traditional cardiovascular

risk factors, such as inflammatory markers, endothelial function and heart rate variability in

normotensive youth and school-aged children. Additionally, it improves several components

of mental health, such as self-concept, anxiety and depression in children (Janssen &

LeBlanc, 2010). Furthermore, physical activity improves the social interaction and social

support between children and their families (Edwards & Tsouros, 2006).

Thus, physical activity is important for the health of children. Within The Netherlands

there is a norm for children from five years old to be physically active, called the NNGB

(Nederlandse Norm Gezond Bewegen). According to the NNGB, children should be

physically active every day at moderate intensity for at least one hour and train strength,

flexibility and coordination at least twice a week in order to meet the NNGB (Leefstijlmonitor,

RIVM, VeiligheidNL & CBS, 2015a). However, in 2015, 77% of the Dutch children between

four and twelve years old did not meet the NNGB (Leefstijlmonitor et al., 2015a) as the

average time they were sitting down was 7.3 hours per day (Leefstijlmonitor et al., 2015b).

According to the Burdette & Whitaker (2005), activities that contribute to this high score of

sitting are playing videogames, using the computer and watching television. Not only in The

Netherlands but also in other developed countries, is physical inactivity a major public health

problem (Allender et al., 2006). Therefore, stimulating physical activity for children is

important.

Physical activity for children is about participation in structured activities, such as

physical education at school and in organised sports teams as well as less structured

activities such as walking and cycling to school and active free-play. Less structured

activities are mostly outdoors. Among primary school-aged children, unstructured activities

that takes place outdoors may potentially be the major contributor to children's physical

activity. For example, an observational study in the US found greater amounts of physical

activity amongst pre-school children occurred as active free-play rather than structured

activities (Veitch et al., 2006).

Active free-play is ‘any activity which takes place outdoors in your own free time

which is not organised by an adult’ (Brockman, Fox & Jago, 2011). It can be divided into:

functional play (physical play activities, such as running, tumbling and climbing trees),

constructive play (building huts, playing with sticks and pebbles) and symbolic play (role-

play, dramatic play and social play, like play house) (Fjørtoft, 2004). According to Goldstein

(2012), these types of active free-play can contribute to children's development, since it can

6

create joy, creativity, intimacy, and self-esteem. Besides, active free-play provides the rich

experience children need to learn social skills; become sensitive to others' needs and

values, handle exclusion and dominance, manage their emotions, learn self-control, and

share power, space, and ideas with others (Isenberg & Quisenberry, 2002).

However, according to Timmermans et al. (2013) one in five children in The

Netherlands is not participating in free-play as much as they would like and 22 percent of the

children does not play outside at all, or only once a week. An important reason for this is the

decline in environments where children can engage in active free-play. A study in Australia

shows that children’s opportunity to engage in active free-play in the local environment may

be limited due to lack of parks and playgrounds around their homes as well as restricted

independent mobility (Veitch, Salmon & Ball, 2008). Modern societies seem to have

neglected the value of having enough parks and playgrounds in the local environment for the

(motor) development of children (Fjørtoft, 2004).

Therefore, the Dutch government pays more attention to the local environments that

stimulates active free-play by setting up some interventions together with municipalities,

health authorities and housing corporations within the programme ‘Nationaal Programma

Preventie’, such as ‘Sport en Bewegen in de Buurt’ and ‘Alles is Gezond’ (Rijksoverheid,

2014). This programme was initiated to motivate people to obtain a healthier lifestyle by

increasing physical activity (Rijksoverheid, 2014). These interventions contribute to the

development of the social and physical living environment by facilitating possibilities to play

active in the neighbourhood (Alles is gezond, 2015) by providing local sport- and exercise

facilities, such as playing fields and playgrounds for children (‘Sport en Bewegen in de

buurt’, 2017).

Besides these interventions, several municipalities, such as Delft, Rotterdam,

Amsterdam, Tilburg and Zaandam, also try to create opportunities in the local environments

for children to play active. They focus on improving the playability of the whole

neighbourhood by developing safe and excitatory play routes for children (Jantje Beton,

2017). A play route is “a route which is completed with play elements that enables children

to play safely on their way from point A to B” (Bouman, 2013). Creating a play route should

make it easier for children to go to playgrounds, playing fields, parks, sport associations and

schools as well as stimulating children to be physically active outside. Simultaneously, play

routes should give parents the peace of mind to let their children out on the streets without

supervision (Jantje Beton, 2017).

Offering playing fields and playgrounds alone does not seem effective (Holt et al.,

2009), because they do not take into account the ease to walk to several facilities in the

neighbourhood or the safety of the children for example. Therefore, creating play routes

seem to be a promising initiative. However, these play routes have not been evaluated yet in

7

regard to physical activity or active free-play. A greater understanding of the influences of

individual determinants and natural, built and social environment on participating in physical

activity are needed to evaluate play routes. Therefore, the aim of this research is to set a first

step in discovering on how play routes are stimulating physical activity. To reach this aim,

insight is needed on how children and parents use and value play routes.

2. Theoretical Framework and background

Play routes could stimulate children to be more physically active. Before investigating

how children and parents use and value the play route, it is important to understand the

factors that influence participation in physical activity behaviour among children. Therefore,

the determinants of physical activity are described below. In addition, more information about

the Ottawa Charter and the physical features of play routes is going to be discussed. To

conclude, the specific case we are going to evaluate is given with an overview of the

stakeholders involved.

2.1 Determinants of physical activity

Edwards and Tsouros (2006) adjusted the ecological model of Dahlgren (1994). The

new ecological model describes factors that influences participation in physical activity in

cities. These factors are natural environment, built environment, social environment and

individual determinants (Edwards & Tsouros, 2006). Figure 1 is the graphic version of the

model.

Figure 1. Factors influencing playing outside (Edwards & Tsouros, 2006)

The natural environment in and around the city can influence participation in physical

activity in several ways. First and foremost, weather conditions, can inhibit or promote

playing outside at a playground for children. Secondly, poor air quality makes being active

outside less desirable. Thirdly, access to safe, freshwater rivers and lakes could provide

8

opportunities for a variety of activities with water at the playgrounds. And finally, the

topography and geography of a city and its surroundings, such as the presence of hills,

influence the types of activities that children can enjoy at playgrounds (Edwards & Tsouros,

2006).

The built environment is the way cities are planned, designed and renewed. It is

comprised of land-use patterns and all buildings, spaces and elements that people construct

or modify. This includes playgrounds and play routes for children as well. Urban design is an

aspect of urban planning that focuses on creating a desirable environment to live and play

in. Conditions of the built environment can both negatively and positively affect levels of

physical activity. For example, play routes could stimulate children to go to the playgrounds.

Children are then more physically active because they are playing outside (Edwards &

Tsouros, 2006). On the other hand, the built environment can negatively affect levels of

physical activity because of the insufficient sport and activity possibilities for children

(Timmermans, Meinema & Snel, 2013).

The social environment includes several dimensions among which culture and social

cohesion. Culture influences attitudes and beliefs about who should be active and the types

of physical activity that are appropriate for different sexes, ages and groups. Children are

more likely to be active when they have social support and encouragement of family, friends

and others. Thus, it is important that parents stimulate the use of the play route so that

children can actively play outside. Moreover, physical activity provides opportunities to

enhance social cohesion in neighbourhoods, cities and regions. Edwards and Tsouros

(2006) defines social cohesion as ‘the capacity of a society to ensure the welfare of all its

members, minimising disparities and avoiding polarisation’.

Individual determinants that influence participation in physical activity include sex,

age, skill level, ability and disability, beliefs, attitudes and motivation. Key barriers include a

perceived lack of time, a lack of motivation and concerns about safety and security.

Addressing these barriers is critical for engaging people in physical activity. Factors

positively associated with physical activity include self-efficacy (a belief in one’s own ability

to be active), enjoyment and an expectation of benefits (Edwards & Tsouros, 2006).

2.2. Ottawa Charter

The development of play routes is in line with some of the health promotion areas of

the Ottawa Charter (WHO, 1986). Play routes create supportive environments for the

society, particularly for children. This is shown in the project ‘All On Your Way’, which

included play routes as a solution to create and retain a public space where children (age 6-

12) feel free and encouraged to play and be active (Bouwman, 2013). Thus, this project

shows that play routes try to facilitate children to be able to play safely all the way to their

9

destination, as well as to attract children to be more physically active by walking and playing

while commuting to school or other places in their daily life. In short, play routes motivates

children to be more physically active which can lead to positive benefits for their health, both

physically and mentally.

Furthermore, the difference between play routes and other routes is that play routes

are developed to stimulate children to play with each other along the way. Therefore, play

routes enhances the children’s personal skills, such as social and physical skills, which is in

line with the Ottawa Charter (WHO, 1986).

2.3 Physical features of play routes

Sprado (2011) developed a list of physical features for play routes based on a

systematic literature review. The physical features that a play route should include are

shown in Table 1.

Table 1. physical features play route

§ Cars that drive slowly or not at all in the

play route zone § Visibility of car drivers and pedestrian

walkers is clear § Avoidance of ‘passing through traffic’ § As little as possible crossings § Marking of dangerous locations § Route signals on eye height of children

and drivers § Sidewalks on sun side are more than 3

meters broad

§ Avoidance of busy intersections § No roundabouts on the play route § The play routes are recognizable and

are connected to other routes § There are as little as possible obstacles

on the sidewalks § There are resting points § Sufficient lightning § Crossings at logical places and highly

visible: heightened pedestrian crossings, traffic lights

Besides these physical features that include the practical value of the play routes,

play routes should also include features of attractiveness. These attractive features include

multiple varied and attractive playing spaces, diversity in subsurface and cheerful playable

art (Sprado, 2011).

2.4 Case Delft

In the early 2000’s the municipality started a big project named “Children safer

through Delft”. This project consisted of 7 programs that were divided throughout different

districts of Delft. These programs focused on creating safer ways to travel between schools

and other facilities for children. One of these programs is the ‘Kindlint”. This is a play route

for children from 5 to 12 years old. This route connects different facilities such as schools,

shopping areas, playing fields, and a park. The aim of the ‘Kindlint’ was to stimulate children

to travel independently to the before mentioned destinations by creating a safe and fun

10

route. The ‘Kindlint’ starts at the school “het Mozaiek”. Next to the school a new playground

was developed as part of the ‘Kindlint’. Before the ‘Kindlint’ this playground was just a grass

field. Other aspects of the ‘Kindlint’ are elevated crossings, blue tiles and visual markers (i.e.

tiles with two eyes and “pas op” [be careful] are placed before the crossing). The idea behind

the visual markers is to stimulate children to look to the left and right before crossing the

road (E. van der Horst, personal communication, 13 April 2017).

Etienne van der Horst, the project leader of the play route in Delft, explained which

stakeholders were involved in the development of the ‘Kindlint’. These stakeholders included

(active) parents, children, childcare, schools, police, traffic safety organisations, other

organisations (SOAB, VHD advies, Spelen en Bewegen, neighbourhood) and the

municipality. Etienne van der Horst told us that children and parents were involved in the

primary design of the play route, but that the neighbourhood organisations did not agree with

the first design, since the route went through private property. Therefore, the final route

makes a detour. Table 2 gives a comprehensive overview of stakeholders involved in the

development of the play routes and the differences between them in interest and influence.

The stakeholder analysis is based on the stakeholder analysis from Varvasovszky and

Brugha (2000), but is adapted for the purpose of this research.

Table 2. Stakeholder characteristics around the development and usage of play routes

(Varvasovszky & Brugha, 2000)

Stakeholder Description of

involvement

Interest Influence/power

Municipality Offering children an

opportunity to play

outside safely

Medium High

Police Offering children an

opportunity to play

outside safely

Medium Medium

Schools Two schools are

attached to the play

routes in Delft

Low Low

Childcare Offering children an

opportunity to play

outside safely

Low Low

11

Traffic Safety

organisations

Safety organisation

were included at

developing the safe

play routes

Medium Medium

Inhabitants of the

area

- Parents

Parents are actively

involved with play

routes, since they

allow, stimulate, or

forbid children to

make use of them

High Low

Inhabitants of the

area

- Children

The safe play routes

are mainly

developed to be

used by children

High Low

Organisatie

‘Spelen en

Bewegen’

Finding solutions for

increasing PA

among children

High Low

Organisation VHD

advies

- Etienne van

der Horst

Responsible for

design of the Kindlint

High High

Organisation SOAB

- Ineke Spapé

Responsible for

design of the Kindlint

High High

Neighbourhood

organisations

They are involved in

the development of

the play route

High High

The developed play route is located in the community Kuijperswijk. Communities are

‘the everyday living and working context, in which we customarily act, associate with others,

learn about life, and express our values, and in which we most strongly interact with our

culture and others’ culture’ (Bloch et al., 2014). Playgrounds and play routes are subsettings

in these communities. Delft is a city which had 101.100 inhabitants in 2016, from which 8900

12

lived in Kuijperswijk (CBS, 2016). Many families with children live in this community.

Kuijperswijk consists of spacious areas with a lot of green, water and the park ‘Hof van

Delftpark’. It also offers ample sport and recreational possibilities in the sportpark next to

‘Hof van Delftpark’ and at the playgrounds located in the neighbourhood (Gemeente Delft,

nd). The geographical location of Kuijperswijk is shown in Figure 2. At this location, the

Kindlint was officially opened by the municipality member Anne Koning on 27th November,

2008. Figure 3 shows a more detailed map of the play route in Delft. It illustrates that the

play route connects multiple locations in the neighbourhood, among which two schools,

several play fields and sport fields .

Figure 2. Geographical location Kuijperswijk in Delft.

Figure 3. The details of the ‘Kindlint’ in Delft. Red lines show the play route, green lines are

‘ontsluitingswegen’, yellow circles show the locations of schools, and light blue lines show the different

crossing of roads, and to conclude, dark blue circles show the location of spaces for children to play.

The ‘Kindlint’ has been developed to give the children in this neighbourhood an

opportunity to play outside safely. However, the perceived value and use of the ‘Kindlint’

have never been evaluated. This means that the current state of the play route now is

unknown and there is no knowledge about the use nowadays (E. van der Horst, personal

communication, 13 April 2017). An evaluation of the ‘Kindlint’ in Delft gives us insight into

why some of the children do or do not make use of the play route and how they value it.

13

3. Aim and Research Question

It was not clear whether children use the play route in Kuijperswijk nor did we know

whether children are physically active on the play route. Therefore, determining whether

children use the route will be the focus of this research.

Additionally, the ecological model can explain whether the play route stimulates

participating in physical activity for children. Therefore, a greater understanding of the play

route’s influence on the individual determinants and natural, built and social environment is

needed for a better understanding on how to promote children's physical activity through a

play route. The aim of this research is to set a first step in discovering on how play routes

are stimulating physical activity. To reach this aim, insight is needed on how children and

parents of Kuijperswijk in Delft currently use and value the play route. Therefore, the

following research question is formulated:

‘’How do children and parents of Kuijperswijk in Delft use and value the play route?’’ In order

to answer that question, we formulated the following sub-questions:

1. ‘How is the play route in Kuijperswijk used and how are children physically active in

relation to this route?’

2. ‘How are the natural environment, built environment, social environment and

individual determinants of the play route valued by children, parents and the project

leader?’

4. Methods

A mixed methods design was used to evaluate the play route in Kuijperswijk. Below

is a further description of the methods used.

4.1 Observations play route

In order to answer the first sub-question we assessed the current situation by

observing the route itself and how children play and move in relation to this route. We made

an observation checklist based on the article of Kawulich (2005) about participant

observation.

We observed children based on gender and age (for this research, only primary

school was of interest). Also, observations were made regarding the four factors related to

physical activity: individual determinants, natural environment, built environment, and social

environment. For further details about the observation checklist used in our research, see

appendix VII.

The observations took place at three separate locations that were possible places for

children to visit on Wednesday: near the shopping centre, near the school (het Mozaiek) and

near ‘Hof van Delftpark’ (see the red circles in Figure 4). Five observers were divided into

14

two groups and each half hour one group walked along the ‘Kindlint’ to increase the chances

of seeing children that were using the play route. Observations were done during two

periods of time (13:00-14:30 and 14:30-16:00). Meanwhile, on Thursday, observations were

only done at the school during one time period (15:00 - 16:30). We chose these times since

our target group is primary school children and these were after-school hours. During these

hours children were free to spend these times as they pleased, and the weather permits

them to play outside since the sun is still out. We assumed that children had to be home

around 18:00 o’clock for dinner.

Figure 4. Play route observation locations.

In addition, we had an opportunity to briefly visit Tilburg. Only observations of the

elements of the play route were conducted by taking pictures. No observations of playing

behaviour or interviews took place at this location due to lack of time. However, the visual

outline of this location is used as a comparison to the play route in Delft.

4.2 Interviews

In order to answer the second sub-question we carried out semi-structured interviews

with children and their parents. Semi-structured interviews were chosen as a method to

determine the opinions of the parents and the children about the play route. The ecological

model was used as a theoretical outline for formulating the interview questions. Under each

factor questions are formulated.

Our study population for the interviews were children from ages 6 to 12 and their

parents. To recruit these children and parents, schools that were directly connected to the

play route were contacted. They were asked to put us into contact with parents. However,

schools did not want to participate in the research. As an alternative, for the interviews,

several parents were approached with the question if they could participate in the research.

15

We handed out invitation letters to parents and children on the play route next to the school

on Wednesday. This invitation letter contained information concerning our research, and

information on where we would be the next days. We were recognizable by wearing orange

safety vests. On the backside of the information letter, a consent form was printed. The

children, who were walking without parents, were asked to take the letter home, let parents

sign them, and take the letter with them the next day.

The Interviews took place at the play route and playgrounds and were conducted by

two researchers. One of the researchers asked the questions, while the other researcher

made notes. Interview guidelines are described in appendix II and III.

In addition, we conducted an interview with the project leader Etienne van der Horst

of the play route in Delft (see appendix IV for the interview guidelines). This interview

provided us with focus points for the observations, especially for the physical features, and

more in depth background information, as for example the initial aim of the ‘Kindlint’, already

described in the background information of the case.

4.3 Analysing data

We got a general idea of the condition of the play route from the observations.

Furthermore, the various features that, according to Sprado (2011), need to be accounted

for in designing a play route, were observed. We divided the play route features of Sprado

(2011) in whether they are accounted for correctly (positive), insufficiently (negative), or only

limitedly.

The interviews served to get a more specific view of the play route and how it is

valued by the community. From the interviews, the notes of the researchers were coded

using the theoretical framework of the ecological model of Edwards and Tsouros (2006).

Codes were divided into the following factors: natural environment, built environment, social

environment and individual determinants of physical activity. These codes were further

specified. Natural environment is actually further specified to geographical location. Next, the

built environment is further divided into the subcodes: recognisability, elements, green space

and urban design. Also, the social environment is further divided into the subcodes: social

support, culture and social cohesion. The individual determinants were divided into: beliefs

of safety, age, gender, and motivation. These codes were used to describe our results

following the ecological model.

5. Results

In this section the results of the observations and the interviews will be described.

First, general results of the observations and interviews taken in Delft will be provided.

Followed by a detailed description of our results from the case in Delft, divided into the four

16

factors of the ecological model: natural environment, built environment, social environment

and individual determinants. Finally, a comparison with the play route in Tilburg will be

described.

5.1 Observations

During the first observation, four children were observed at the ‘Hof van Delft park’

and two boys and four girls were observed at the playground near school. Five of them were

cycling, four of them were playing around the play route, one of them was walking with

parents. No one played with the elements of the play route.

During the second day, we did observations immediately after school hours. 59

children were observed at the school, 31 boys and 28 girls. As the play route starts at the

school and playground that is connected to it, these children were observed on the play

route. However, after they entered the play route, all children deviated from it almost

immediately. Fifteen of them were cycling and thirty-seven were walking. The remaining

seven children were observed playing on the play route. According to our observation,

children played with simple elements like meters (picture 1) or just played without elements.

5.2 Interviews

In total, fifteen parents answered the question ‘Are you familiar with the ‘Kindlint in

this neighbourhood?’. Only two out of fifteen parents had heard about the concept before.

From the fifteen parents, six mothers agreed for a further in depth interview.

Meanwhile, approximately 60 sheets were handed out to parents and to children.

During the distribution of these research information sheets, sixteen children were asked

whether they knew the ‘Kindlint’. Out of these sixteen children, only five were familiar with

the concept.

In depth interviews were taken with five children, who brought their consent form with

them the next day. Another seven children were interviewed, after verbal permission by their

parents during the handout of our information sheets.

5.3 Individual determinants

We observed some skills, specifically during the second day of observation, such as

balancing and climbing and if children played with elements on the playground near the play

route. Only two children were observed playing with one of the elements of the play route,

which is meters (picture 1), and no one played with other elements of the play route, such as

crossings.

From the interviews we also enlisted some individual determinants. Most of the

interviewed children, mentioned that they did not use the play route. Only one child used the

17

play route. This child used the play route a few years ago when he was younger. The reason

he gave for using the play route was that he thought it was nice to follow the blue tiles. This

determinant is also linked to the built environment. In addition, most of the interviewed

parents mentioned that their children were not making use of the play route. Only one parent

confirmed that her children did use the play route. The main reason parents and children

gave for not using the play route, was the fact that they were unaware of its existence. In

addition, the parents did not know the purpose of the play route.

After mentioning that the blue tiles were part of the play route, many respondents

replied that they had seen the tiles, but never realised it was part of a play route. Some

children then realized that they use parts of the play route without realizing its function, since

the tiles lead to their houses. One child stated that she found the play route ‘stupid’, because

she did not understand the aim of the play route. Only one child of an interviewed parent

replied that the play route was used incidentally, when the parent walked with her. Another

reason given for not using the play route is the belief that the play route could not be used,

due to lack of time caused by homework. With the geographical location of the play route,

children chose the quickest way home to save time. Another belief, is that the play route

does not have enough to offer in terms of play elements. Three children mentioned that the

play route is too boring to use.

Furthermore, the belief that the play route is not safe enough is mentioned multiple

times. Five of the interviewed parents concluded that the play route does not contribute to

the safety of the neighbourhood. Especially, the crosswalks were not perceived as safe,

since many cars still drive fast. Two children mentioned safety in the interview. One child

believed that the play route is not safe, because the car drivers did not pay attention to her.

In contrast, another child perceived the play route as safe, since the pay-attention-tiles at the

crossovers made him aware of the traffic on that road.

In summary, the perception of safety and lack of time are not changed by the

development of the play route. In addition, the unfamiliarity of the play route contributes to

the fact that the route is rarely used.

5.4 Social environment

On the first observation day, five of the ten children were cycling together along the

play route and the rest were walking with parents or adults. On the second day, thirty

children were observed with parents or adults, eleven children walked together, and the rest

of them, eighteen children, were alone. During the interviews some more detailed

information of the determinants of the social environment were provided.

Firstly, it is mentioned by parents that the school and day care have to clarify the goal

of the play route, thereby stimulating the use. By doing this, the social support of the use of

18

the play route could be increased. In addition, all the parents said they are currently not

stimulating their children to make use of the play route.

Besides the social support, questions were asked about social interaction. One

parent and two children mentioned that the play route does not contribute to the social

interaction of children because the children and their friends do not live nearby the play route

and therefore do not socialize on the play route. Thus, this determinant is linked to the

geographical location of the play route, which is included in the natural environment. The

unfamiliarity of the play route, which is linked to individual determinants, among the children

and their friends may also play a crucial role in social interaction. One of the interviewed

children mentioned that she has never talked with her friends about the play route, and that

she does not know if the other children use the play route. A suggestion made by children is

to connect the play route to an app, so children use the play route in a more interactive and

fun way with each other.

Lastly, the social cohesion in the neighbourhood is not perceived as strong. There

have been a few strange events, such as: violence, drug trafficking and paedophilia. One

parent does not let her daughter play outside independently, because they live in a ‘wrong’

area of the neighbourhood. Two children only walk outside with their parents or with each

other. The play route does not change the perception of the neighbourhood.

In summary, the play route does not contribute to the social cohesion and social

interaction in the neighbourhood. Additionally, children are not being stimulated by parents

or schools to make use of the play route.

5.5 Built environment

The built environment was observed, and several pictures below are used to illustrate

the urban design. The observed elements of the play route include:

❏ The first ten meters of the play route contained paintings on the ground (picture 1)

❏ Ten crosswalks of which six were elevated (picture 2)

❏ A forty meter sprint track (picture 3)

❏ Tiles in the sidewalk signalling the play route (picture 4)

❏ Warning tiles for children at crosswalks (picture 5)

19

Picture 2. An elevated crosswalk in the play route.

Picture 1. Part of the first 10 meters of the play route.

Observations showed that cars can drive in any direction, meaning there are no one-

way roads, through the neighbourhood at 30 km/h. Of the ten pedestrian crossings that were

part of the play route, six were slightly higher and four were not higher at all, allowing drivers

to still drive fast making it unsafe for children. Picture 2 shows an elevated crosswalk that

was part of the play route. Also, several grass fields were found attached to the play route,

only one parent mentioned the positive element of the green space during an interview.

Picture 4 illustrates the tiles used to signal the play route.

Picture 3. Sprint track in play route. Picture 4. Tile in sidewalk signalling the play route.

20

Picture 5. Tiles alerting children to watch out for traffic.

Through our observations we ascertained that over half of these tiles were damaged,

some even to the point where they were almost no longer recognizable as tiles from the play

route (picture 6). Also, as can be seen in picture 3, the paint used to create the running track

was fading.

Picture 6. Damaged tiles of the play route.

We divided the play route features of Sprado (2011) in whether they are accounted

for correctly (positive), insufficiently (negative), or only limitedly.

Positive aspects of the Kindlint were the heightened crossings, the absence of

roundabouts, broad sidewalks and little to no obstacles on the sidewalk. However, two

children mentioned that the sidewalks are too small, and thereby don’t agree with our

observation. They gave the small sidewalks as a reason for not using the play route.

Negative aspects were the speed of cars in the play route area, the presence of busy

intersections and the lack of connection to other child friendly routes.

There were some aspects that were implemented in a positive way only on several

occasions or not ideally overall. Firstly, the visibility of drivers and pedestrians varied

immensely. In the Van der Goesstraat there are a lot of parking spaces around the crossing.

These hinder the visibility of drivers for pedestrians and vice versa. Along the rest of the

route, visibility was better. Secondly, the play route extended beyond the Van Foreestweg,

which is the main road to enter the neighbourhood. This creates a dangerous traffic crossing

21

within the ‘Kindlint’. Other crossings in the neighbourhood did not interfere with ‘passing

through traffic’. Thirdly, dangerous locations, like the crossings, are marked by tiles that tell

children to look both ways and by traffic signs signalling a crosswalk. These traffic signs are

commonly used and do not indicate the increased possibility of children crossing the road.

Also, these signals should be at eye height of the respective parties according to Sprado

(2011) which they are not.

We observed seven children playing, using the built environment. Four children

played without elements around the play route, two children played with an element of the

play route, namely the painted first 10 meters, and one child played with a (toy) scooter on

the play route. This kind of playing was enabled by the built environment.

During the interviews many aspects of the built environment emerged as well. The

play route was especially criticized by several parents due to its current unattractiveness.

One child thought the goal of the tiles was to make the neighbourhood look nicer, but also

stated that the tiles were damaged. The tiles should be renewed, according to one parent

and one child. In addition, a child quoted: ‘The tiles are ugly. Maybe the logo of the school

can be set on the tiles.’ One parent also offered ideas for upgrading the tiles, she named

sound elements or arrows to indicate the direction of the route. Besides the tiles, several

recommendations were made by parents and children to make the play route more

attractive. One parents wanted to make the play route more liveable, by planting flowers and

paintings. The children that were interviewed also had several ideas. They mentioned adding

play elements, like ‘Four in a row’ and playing with a ball and a roller, fun images on the tiles,

a grid, a swing, a climbing frame, hopscotch, a marble field and a rollercoaster. Other ideas

were to make the play route more fun and active, to make the play route longer and to build

a roof so the children can play outside when it rains. One child quoted: ‘To make it more fun,

playground equipment is necessary.’

In addition to the unattractiveness, recognition of the play route is mentioned by

several children and parents. Three parents think the recognition of the play route should be

improved by, for example putting poles in the ground along the play route, or adding a sign

with the display of the whole route. Subsequently, the parents think that by doing this

children would make more use of the play route. Also, one child came with the idea of

putting a sign nearby the play route. That would make it attractive to use the play route and

clear what the aim of the play route is, since many children and parents were unclear about

the goal of the play route.

Recognition of the play route was not only found important for the children and

parents, but should also include car drivers. Four parents mentioned that car drivers drive

too fast nearby the play route and mentioned that if the play route would be recognizable for

22

cars as well, they might drive slower. The parents think the car drivers do not know that

there is a play route.

In summary, many aspects of the ‘Kindlint’ were related to the build environment.

Comments made by the parents and children were mainly focussed on recommendations of

the route. The urban design needs to improve on attractiveness by adding play elements on

the route itself. Also, recognition was found important, not only for children and parents, but

also for cars, so the safety would be improved. Looking at the play route with the elements

listed by Sprado (2011), it also became clear a lot of improvements could be made. In

addition, both from the interviews and the observations it was seen that the play route is very

damaged and that it needs to be restored.

5.5.1 Built environment compared with Tilburg

The built environment of the play route in Delft was compared with the play route in

Tilburg. The play route in neighbourhood Stokhasselt, Tilburg was observed. Some

similarities were found as well as differences.

In terms of recognisability the two play routes had different approaches. Where Delft

had blue tiles in the sidewalk, Tilburg had orange flagpoles along its route (picture 7 and 8).

Picture 7. Route recognition points Delft. Picture 8. Route recognition points Tilburg.

Next to every orange flagpole was a play element painted on the sidewalk. These

elements included a running track like the one in Delft (picture 9 and 10) but also a lot of

different elements that could be used in various ways (Picture 11).

23

Picture 9. Start of running track in Delft. Picture 10. Start of running track in Tilburg.

Picture 11. Different play elements next to flagpoles in Tilburg.

The play route in Tilburg also contained pedestrian crossings. These crossings were

not elevated like in Delft (picture 12). They did, however, have large orange fences and

signs that were very recognizable for both pedestrians and car drivers (picture 13). Also,

one crossing in Tilburg crossed a very broad road. At this crossing, the sidewalk was

extended on the road, narrowing the room for cars to pass and reducing the distance

pedestrian need to walk on the road (picture 14).

24

Picture 12. Pedestrian crossing of the play route in Delft.

Picture 13. Pedestrian crossing of the play route in Tilburg.

Picture 14. Narrowed pedestrian crossing of the play route in Tilburg.

Overall, both routes had elements to indicate its presence. The elements of the route

in Tilburg were more recognisable and more usable to play with.

25

5.6 Natural environment

The last determinant of the ecological model is described here; the natural

environment. Several canals were located near the play route, however, they were not part

of the route. The weather on the first day was chilly (about 12 degrees Celsius) and windy,

the sky was cloudy though there was no rain. On the second day, the weather was slightly

warmer and the sky was brighter than the day before.

During the interviews most elements of the natural environment were not mentioned.

However, geographical location is related to some things mentioned before in the social and

individual determinants. Four children mentioned that the play route is not being used due to

its geographical location. Since their houses are not near the play route. Furthermore, two of

the interviewed children mentioned they think it is sad the play route immediately stops at a

basketball field. They would have enjoyed it if the play route was a little bit longer.

To summarise, only the geographical location was found important as a natural

determinant by the respondents. The play route was not extended enough, to meet the

needs of the respondents. The play route had no effect on weather, water and air.

6. Discussion

The discussion is divided into a conclusion of the results, strengths and weaknesses

of this research and the recommendations for Delft and further research.

6.1 Conclusion

How children and parents in Kuijperswijk use and value the play route was

investigated by answering the sub-questions of this research. The first sub-question of how

the route is used and how the children are physically active in relation to the route was

answered mainly by our observations. Through these observations we could conclude that

the play route was used barely to not at all. The interviews helped to further nuance this

conclusion, as the questions were focused on answering the second sub question about how

the factors of the ecological model regarding the play route were valued by the children,

parents and the project leader Etienne van der Horst. The following individual determinants:

belief of unsafety, unfamiliarity of the route and perceived lack of time were found to be

barriers in the use of the play route. The social environment also did not promote and was

not promoted by the use of the play route. Social cohesion and social interaction were not

increased by the existence of the play route and children were not supported enough socially

to make use of the play route. Aspects of the built environment, especially urban design,

were the most prominent in our findings. Increases in attractiveness and recognisability are

needed as the elements of the route are damaged and in need of restoration. Further

findings about the built elements of the play route were based on the list by Sprado (2011)

26

and showed that some elements of the play route were implemented as recommended by

her research, and some were not. The geographical location, especially the distance and

area of the play route, was the only natural determinant found to be a barrier.

The belief of unsafety of parents about the current play route, was mainly due to cars

driving too fast through the neighbourhood. This finding is in contradiction with the aim of the

play route. Project leader Etienne van der Horst mentioned that the aim of the ‘Kindlint’ was

to create a safer route between the schools and playgrounds, so children can play outside

independently. However, the lack of safety could explain the relatively low use of the play

route (Carver, 2010).

Research has shown that a lack of social opportunities is a barrier to a child’s

participation in physical activity, this highlights the importance of social cohesion and

interaction (Hume, Salmon & Ball, 2010). Since the play route is not found to be offering an

increase of social interaction, it might explain why the play route is rarely used.

In addition, during the interviews it became clear that the play route is not attractive

enough for children. As Zhang and Li (2010) found that environmental attractiveness is

conducive to raising children’s interest to play, it becomes clear that the play route is not

attractive enough. As also seen in the observations, the play route is lacking high variability,

challenge and complexity (Staempfli, 2009).

The issues concerning recognisability are, next to a direct obstruction in use, also

linked to safety. Knowledge of traffic regulations do not always improve children’s traffic

safety behaviour (Duperrex et al., 2002; Zeedyk et al., 2001). This makes children’s

behaviour around traffic unpredictable at times (Morrongiello & Barton, 2009). To ensure no

crashes occur at the play route the recognisability and visibility are important aspects at the

crossings. The visibility improves the children’s ability to judge car speed (Johansson, 2004)

and we presume that recognizable objects, like the orange fences at crossings in Tilburg, will

reduce car speed, however, no studies have been found to support this presumption.

Currently, the crossings of the Kindlint are not sufficient in terms of visibility and

recognisability, which most likely causes the perceived unsafety.

At first sight, the use of the ecological model from Edwards and Tsouros (2006)

seemed appropriate, for developing a first insight in the contribution of play routes to

physical activity in urban areas. However, not all determinants of the ecological model

(Edwards & Tsouros, 2006) were found to be important in the context of this research. For

example, air quality is not being mentioned, as the air quality in The Netherlands meets the

air quality guidelines for Europe (World Health Organization, 2000). The main determinants

found to be influencing the use of the play route were: perceived safety, accessibility,

maintenance of the play route, attractiveness, recognisability and sociability. This is

27

confirmed by the model of Zhang and Li (2010), who takes these determinants into account.

6.2 Strengths and weaknesses

This research has several strengths and weaknesses. To start, Delft was chosen as

a specific case, and could therefore be examined in depth. This examination was done using

a mixed methods design. Thereby, the perceptions of the parents and children could be

combined with observations. The results gathered are more elaborated, and could clarify

more clearly explanations for the (lack of) use of the play route.

It was unfortunate that the school did not want to cooperate in this research by

reaching parents and children for interviews. This made random selection of research

participants impossible. The alternative of handing out consent forms was not ideal as the

few parents who did fill in the form were more likely to be more concerned or engaged in the

neighbourhood (Anderman, 1995) and therefore more opinionated which could be reflected

on the children (Brustad, 1993). We did, however, manage to interview children who were

allowed to go home independently as well as children who were being picked up allowing for

a more diverse research population. The interviews were not recorded, since that was being

perceived as uncomfortable by respondents. Therefore, notes were taken. This means that

analysis of the data is, subjected to recollection of the researchers.

Many parents and children did not know about the play route, this created a

challenge in performing the interviews since many questions could no longer be asked. Due

to lack of time, we did not have time to adapt the interviews to this unexpected situation, and

therefore we missed the opportunity to improve the interview guidelines, with specific

questions on what the play route should consist of to be used more.

Since the play route in Delft is ten years old, a lot of children nowadays are not aware

of the existence of the play route. Thus, it would be a solution to interview the people who

used the play route ten years ago when it was created. They could tell more about the play

route than the children and parents nowadays. Subsequently, it could illuminate reasons for

the difference in use of then versus now.

The weather could quite possibly have had a large influence on our observation

findings. On the first day it was chilly outside although it did not rain. This was not ideal for

playing outside. This could contribute to the low number of children observed playing

outside. It does, however, show that the play route is not appealing enough for children to go

outside even when the weather is not sunny. On the second day the weather was a bit

better. It was sunnier and the temperature was slightly higher. That day we observed more

children playing outside. This created a general idea on whether children play outside or not

in Kuijperswijk. However, to determine what role the weather has on playing on the play

route, more than two days of observations is necessary with different weather conditions.

28

To conclude, visiting Tilburg was not part of the original plan, it arose spontaneously

out of interest and possibility. However, it did help to further illuminate our findings.

Recognisability of the route was better. Invitation to play while walking along the route was

experienced to be higher as the route in Tilburg had many play elements as opposed to the

play route in Delft. However, strong conclusions about comparisons could not be made as

the visit was brief and not accompanied by interviews with inhabitants or observations of

playing behaviour.

6.3 Recommendations for Delft

In order to meet the aim of the play route in Delft, we recommend some

improvements for the play route based on our findings in this research. First, safety for

children needs to be improved. Carver et al. (2008) found in their literature review that

interventions aimed at traffic calming, which involves measures to reduce speed, were

successful. Speed humps in particular, are associated with slower traffic. By lifting the

existing pedestrian crossings around the play route higher, safety may be improved.

It is unclear whether the creation of the play route has actually improved the

perception of safety. Therefore, when adapting this play route, we recommend to assess the

safety perception at baseline and its perception after adaption. Especially, the perception of

safety from parents should be taken into account. As Carver et al. (2010) found that the

perception of parents is related to restriction of children’s active transport and physical

activity in their neighbourhood. Changing the parent’s perception is therefore most important.

In addition, some missing elements need to be added, specifically to make the play

route more recognizable for the car drivers, as well as for the children. It will be more

noticeable for both children and car drivers if the warning tiles for children at crosswalks are

more brightly coloured or if various warning poles are added as we saw in Tilburg. Since

Delft has a University that is specialized in urban design, students of the University can be

involved in designing the missing elements.

Besides, the attractiveness of the play route needs to be increased through the

addition of play elements. According to our findings, the few elements along the play route

that the children could play with were used. Creating more of these elements, as seen in

Tilburg, should stimulate physical activity. We strongly recommend to add multiple elements

such as climbing systems of nets, frames, or poles, various painted elements and fun

images on the ground, grid, marble field, and walking, running, or cycling tracks in order to

make the play route more challenging, variable and complex (Staempfli, 2009).

In addition, we found that one school is removed but the route still passes its

previous location. This causes the route to make an unnecessary detour. The use of the

route to go to the ‘Hof of Delftpark’ would be stimulated if the route was rerouted so it no

29

longer passes the place where the other school used to be. We recommend to update the

route so it leads more directly to the ‘Hof van Delftpark”. Besides rerouting, we also

recommend the play route to be extended in order to reduce the perceived geographical

location barrier, which was the lack of extension. However, when designing the new play

route, it is recommended to make sure parents, children and neighbourhood organisations

are participating the design of the new route. This guarantees that the geographical location

of the play route is logical.

Furthermore, within children’s unstructured time, there are sedentary and passive

activities such as watching television, using the computer, and playing video games that

compete with active play (Burdette & Whitaker, 2005). Regarding to this, we recommend to

connect the play route to an application which can be accessed by children and parents via

their smartphones. This could be added as an informative play element, with maps and

location detection, which also stimulates the social interaction through social media. This can

attract children to use the play route for active playing with friends, while at the same time

the parents can use it to keep an eye on their children. One of the interviewed children also

recommended this as a way to stimulate children to use the play route.

Additionally, we recommend to raise awareness among children and parents to

stimulate the use of the play route. For children the awareness can directly lead to increased

use and creating awareness among parents can cause them to stimulate their children to

use the play route. Children are namely more likely to be active when they have social

support and encouragement of family, friends and others (Edwards and Tsouros, 2006).

Moreover, physical activity provides opportunities to enhance social cohesion in

neighbourhoods, cities and regions (Edwards and Tsouros, 2006).

Several parents mentioned that the play route should be advertised more in order to

gain familiarity. Etienne van der Horst told us that when the route was opened, a game was

developed that could be played at the school that stimulated the use of the play route. As the

school did not want to participate in our research we did not inquire whether this game had

been reused in following years. We presume it is not. Reinstating this game could promote

the use of the play route. Therefore, we recommend the school to play an active role in

promoting the play route among children as well as parents. The resulting peer and family

support will make the children more likely to walk or cycle (Panter et al., 2010).

To conclude, it became clear that the play route has not been maintained properly.

The play route is almost ten years old, and as it would seem, without updating or rebuilding

the play route, it has an expiration date. While developing or adapting play routes in the

future, it seems like a good idea to point someone responsible for the maintenance.

However, the effects of pinpointing responsibilities to someone on the use of the play route

has not been investigated yet.

30

6.4 Recommendations for further research

Very few children were observed playing on the play route. This could be due to the

weather, as poor weather is a barrier for outside playing (Tucker & Gilliland, 2007). In order

to account for the weather’s effect on outside playing behaviour, we recommend

observations to be done across several days during different weather conditions. This will

ensure reliable results that can illuminate whether playing behaviour is stimulated by a play

route despite several weather conditions.

Furthermore, this research mainly focussed on the determinants of the ecological

model that influence physical activity. The main determinants found to be influencing the use

of the play route were: perceived safety, accessibility, maintenance of the play route,

attractiveness, recognisability and sociability. These determinants can also be used to

further investigate the play route. But ultimately, to examine if play routes contribute to

physical activity among children, more elaborated research is needed, wherein physical

activity itself is measured.

In addition, this research found that the play route in Delft is relatively unknown by

the surrounding community, especially children and parents. We hypothesise that other play

routes may have more impact on children’s physical activity. To investigate the effect of

other play routes on stimulating physical activity and active free-play among children, further

studies should be conducted for other play routes in different cities. A comparison of those

studies could yield knowledge on what makes play routes successful and how they could

properly be implemented elsewhere.

31

Reference list

Allender, S., Cowburn, G., & Foster, C. (2006). Understanding participation in sport and

physical activity among children and adults: a review of qualitative studies. Health education

research, 21(6), 826-835.

Alles is gezond. (2015). Een gezond leven in een gezonde wijk. Retrieved on 06-04-2017

from http://www.allesisgezondheid.nl/sites/default/files/media/Factsheet%20Alles%20is%20

gezondheid...%20Wijk%20%28juni%2015%29.pdf

Anderman, C., Cheadle, A., Curry, S., Diehr, P., Shultz, L., & Wagner, E. (1995). Selection

bias related to parental consent in school-based survey research. Evaluation Review, 19(6),

663-674.

Bloch, P., Toft, U., Reinbach, H. C., Clausen, L. T., Mikkelsen, B. E., Poulsen, K., & Jensen,

B. B. (2014). Revitalizing the setting approach–supersettings for sustainable impact in

community health promotion. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical

Activity, 11(1), 118.

Bouman, M. (2013). Play on Your Way: Researching and Developing Play Routes Concepts

for Children in The Public Space (Master's thesis, Delft University of Technology, The

Netherlands). Retrieved on 06-04-2017 from

http://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:71af5e48-2514-419d-adc7-

8eb80e799d9b?collection=education

Brockman, R., Fox, K. R., & Jago, R. (2011). What is the meaning and nature of active play

for today's children in the UK?. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical

Activity, 8(1), 15.

Brustad, R. J. (1993). Who will go out and play? Parental and psychological influences on

children’s attraction to physical activity. Pediatric Exercise Science, 5(3), 210-223.

Burdette, H. L., & Whitaker, R. C. (2005). Resurrecting free play in young children: looking

beyond fitness and fatness to attention, affiliation, and affect. Archives of pediatrics &

adolescent medicine, 159(1), 46-50.

32

Carver, A., Timperio, A., & Crawford, D. (2008). Playing it safe: The influence of

neighbourhood safety on children's physical activity—A review. Health & place, 14(2), 217-

227.

Carver, A., Timperio, A., Hesketh, K., & Crawford, D. (2010). Are children and adolescents

less active if parents restrict their physical activity and active transport due to perceived

risk?. Social science & medicine, 70(11), 1799-1805.

CBS (2016). Wijk- en buurtkaart 2016. Retrieved on 24-03-2017 from https://www.cbs.nl/nl-

nl/dossier/nederland-regionaal/geografische%20data/wijk-en-buurtkaart-2013

Cross, R. (1988). Application of children's concepts of speed at the kerbside: Accident

vulnerability and implications for the teaching of science to young children. In International

Conference on Road Safety, 2nd, 1987, Groningen, Netherlands.

Dahlgren, G. (1994). The need for intersectoral action for health. In European Health Policy

Conference: opportunities for the future, Copenhagen, 2, 1994-97.

Duperrex, O., Bunn, F., & Roberts, I. (2002). Safety education of pedestrians for injury

prevention: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Bmj, 324(7346), 1129

Edwards, P., & Tsouros, A. D. (2006). Promoting physical activity and active living in urban

environments: the role of local governments. WHO Regional Office Europe.

Fjørtoft, I. (2004). Landscape as playscape: The effects of natural environments on

children's play and motor development. Children Youth and Environments, 14(2), 21-44.

Gemeente Delft (nd). Wijkbeschrijving - omschrijving van de wijk voordijkshoorn. Retrieved

on 28-03-2017 from

https://www.delft.nl/Inwoners/Wonen_en_leven/Wonen/Delftse_wijken/Voordijkshoorn/Wijkb

eschrijving

Goldstein, J. (2012). Play in children’s development, health and well-being. Toy Industries of

Europe. Brussels.

33

Holt, N. L., Cunningham, C. T., Sehn, Z. L., Spence, J. C., Newton, A. S., & Ball, G. D.

(2009). Neighborhood physical activity opportunities for inner-city children and youth. Health

& place, 15(4), 1022-1028.

Hume, C., Salmon, J., & Ball, K. (2005). Children’s perceptions of their home and

neighborhood environments, and their association with objectively measured physical

activity: a qualitative and quantitative study. Health Education Research, 20(1), 1-13.

Isenberg, J. P., & Quisenberry, N. (2002). A position paper of the Association for Childhood

Education International PLAY: Essential for all Children. Childhood Education, 79(1), 33-39.

Janssen, I., & LeBlanc, A. G. (2010). Systematic review of the health benefits of physical

activity and fitness in school-aged children and youth. International Journal of Behavioral

nutrition and physical activity, 7(1), 40.

Jantje Beton. (2017). Verbeteren of behouden speelplek. Geraadpleegd van

http://www.jantjebeton.nl/veelgestelde-vragen-verbeteren-behouden-speelplek/

Johansson, C. (2004). Safety and mobility of children crossing streets as pedestrians and

bicyclists (Doctoral dissertation, Luleå tekniska universitet)

Kawulich, B. B. (2005). Participant Observation as a Data Collection Method. Forum:

Qualitative Social Research, 6 (2), 43. Retreived from http://www.qualitative-

research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/466/996

Leefstijlmonitor, CBS, VeiligheidNL, & RIVM. (2015a). Beweeggedrag kinderen (4 tot 12

jaar). Retrieved on 06-04-2017 from

https://www.volksgezondheidenzorg.info/onderwerp/sport-en-bewegen/cijfers-

context/huidige-situatie#node-beweeggedrag-kinderen-4-tot-12-jaar

Leefstijlmonitor, CBS, VeiligheidNL, & RIVM. (2015b). Zitgedrag kinderen (4 tot 12 jaar).

Retrieved on 06-04-2017 from

https://www.volksgezondheidenzorg.info/onderwerp/sport-en-bewegen/cijfers-

context/huidige-situatie#node-zitgedrag

Morrongiello, B. A., & Barton, B. K. (2009). Child pedestrian safety: Parental supervision,

modeling behaviors, and beliefs about child pedestrian competence. Accident Analysis &

34

Prevention, 41(5), 1040-1046.

Panter, J. R., Jones, A. P., van Sluijs, E. M. F., & Griffin, S. J. (2010a). Attitudes, social

support and environmental perceptions as predictors of active commuting behaviour in

school children. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 64(1), 41-48.

Rijksoverheid. (2014). Nationaal Programma Preventie. Retrieved on 06-04-2017 from

https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/gezondheid-en-preventie/inhoud/nationaal-

programma-preventie

Sirard, J. R., & Pate, R. R. (2001). Physical activity assessment in children and adolescents.

Sports medicine, 31(6), 439-454.

Sport en Bewegen in de Buurt. (2017). Retrieved on 06-04-2017 from

http://www.sportindebuurt.nl/

Sprado, M. (2011). Onderzoek naar fysieke kenmerken van veilige, herkenbare en

aantrekkelijke looproutes voor kinderen van 7-9 jaar (Master's thesis, Delft University of

Technology, The Netherlands). Retrieved on 24-03-2017 from

https://core.ac.uk/display/13930350

Staempfli, M. B. (2009). Reintroducing Adventure Into Children’s Outdoor Play

Environments. Environment and Behavior, 41(2), 268-280.

Timmermans, P., Meinema, W., & Snel, N. (2013). Onderzoek buitenspelen 2013.

Amsterdam: TNS-NIPO

Varvasovszky, Z., & Brugha, R. (2000). A stakeholder analysis. Health policy and planning,

15(3), 338-345.

Veitch, J., Bagley, S., Ball, K,. & Salmon, J. (2006). Where do children usually play? A

qualitative study of parents’ perceptions of influences on children’s active free-play. Health &

Place , 12, 383 - 393.

World Health Organization, (2000). Air quality guidelines for Europe. Second edition.

35

World Health Organization. (1986). Health promotion: Ottawa charter. Geneva: World Health

Organization.

Zeedyk, M. S., Wallace, L., Carcary, B., Jones, K., & Larter, K. (2001). Children and road

safety: Increasing knowledge does not improve behaviour. British Journal of Educational

Psychology, 71(4), 573-594.

Zhang, H., & Li, M. (2011). Environmental characteristics of children’s neighbourhood

activities. Asian Journal of Environment-Behaviour Studies, 2(4), 40-50

36

Appendix

I. Planning

37

II. Interview guidelines children

Questions:

❏ Leeftijd:

❏ Ken je de speelroute?

❏ Gebruik je de speelroute? Kun je me vertellen waarom je de speelroute gebruikt (wel

of niet)?

❏ Wil je wel eens gebruik maken van de speelroute maar ga je dan toch niet? Waarom

dan niet?

❏ Heb je genoeg tijd om de speelroute te gebruiken?

❏ Welke onderdelen van de speelroute gebruik je?

❏ Kun je alle onderdelen van de speelroute gebruiken of zijn er onderdelen die je niet

kan gebruiken?

❏ Mis je nog bepaalde onderdelen van de speelroute? Wat zou je graag terug willen

zien? Wat zou je leuk vinden?

❏ Waarvoor gebruik je de speelroute? (eindbestemming)

❏ Wanneer gebruik je wel of niet de speelroute? (weersomstandigheden)

❏ Voel je je veilig wanneer je gebruik maakt van de speelroute? Van verkeer, andere

kinderen, etc

❏ Gebruik je onderdelen van de speelroute om de wegen over te steken?

❏ Ben je actief als je gebruik maakt van de speelroute? Hoe ben je actief?

38

❏ Wat vind je van de speelroute?/ Wat vind je het leukst aan de speelroute?/ Wat vind

je het stomst aan de speelroute? En waarom vind je dat leuk/stom?

❏ Wat vind je van het uiterlijk van de speelroute? Hoe vind je de speelroute eruit zien?

Kun je me eens vertellen waarom je dat vindt?

❏ Gebruik je alleen of met andere kinderen samen de speelroute? Als je met anderen

de route gebruikt, spreek je daar dan af, ga je daar samen heen?

❏ Wat vinden jouw leeftijdsgenootjes/vriendjes/vriendinnetjes van de speelroute?

❏ Heb jij andere kinderen leren kennen via de speelroute?

❏ Wie gebruiken de speelroute?

❏ Hoe oud denk je dat de andere kinderen zijn die gebruik maken van de speelroute?

❏ Wat vinden jouw ouders van de speelroute?

39

III. Interview guideline parents

Algemeen:

We hebben een aantal algemene vragen om me te beginnen, daarna gaan we het

vrij specifiek over de speelroute hebben.

❏ Leeftijd van uw kind:

❏ Speelt uw kind vaak buiten?

❏ Kent u de speelroute?

❏ Wat is uw mening over de speelroute?

❏ Gebruikt uw kind de speelroute? Kunt u verder toelichten waarom wel of niet? (Wat

vindt uw kind van de speelroute?)

❏ Op welke momenten gebruikt uw kind de speelroute?

❏ Met wie maakt uw kind dan gebruik van de speelroute?

❏ Heeft u het idee dat de speelroute genoeg te bieden heeft?

❏ Wat vindt u van de veiligheid van de speelroute?

❏ Mist u nog bepaalde onderdelen van de speelroute? Wat zou u graag terug willen

zien?

❏ Zijn er meer sociale contacten ontstaan door het gebruik van de speelroute voor u of

uw kind?

❏ Denk je dat de speelroute bijdraagt aan de fysieke activiteit van uw kind?

We hebben nog enkele vragen over de buurt van de speelroute:

❏ Is het een kindvriendelijke buurt waar de speelroute zich bevindt?

❏ Is het een drukke of rustige wijk?

40

❏ Is het een groene wijk?

❏ Welke faciliteiten liggen er in de buurt van de speelroutes?

41

IV. Interview guidelines Etienne van der Horst: project leader of the play route

❏ Could you tell us why you started a project concerning play routes (Is it because

before the play routes the children did not play in the playgrounds)? What was the

main aim of the Kindlint? Is the aim achieved?

❏ Can you tell us your current point of view on the Kindlint and prospect of expansion /

duplication?

❏ Why did you decide to develop the Kindlint in Kuyperswijk in Delft?

❏ What did you account for during the development of the play routes?

❏ What kind of neighbourhood is Kuyperswijk? Childfriendly, quiet, busy, traffic

❏ Tell us more about the design of the play route?

❏ Why did you choose these elements (land use patterns) in the play route?

❏ Did you consider the nature of the neighbourhood when you developed this play

route?

❏ Did you consider the weather conditions in regard to the play route?

❏ Did you consider the geographical location in regard to the play route?

❏ Who are the key players that are contributing to the play routes?

❏ How did these key players contribute to the project, and why got these key players

get involved?

❏ To what extent were children involved in the development of the play routes?

❏ What is the target group (age of the children) of the play route?

42

❏ Do you know if children use the play routes? (What is the current situation?) Do you

know how it can be improved considering the use of children and to be physically

active? (Improvements)

43

V. Interview invitation

Goedendag,

Wij zijn vijf eerstejaars masterstudenten van de Wageningen Universiteit, die

gevraagd zijn de effectiviteit van speel routes zoals het Kindlint in Kuijperwijk te evalueren.

Hiervoor zouden wij graag ouders én kinderen uit de wijk interviewen. Met uw bijdrage

kunnen wij suggesties aandragen voor het verbeteren van het Kindlint.

Deelnemen aan dit onderzoek bestaat uit het beantwoorden van een interview. Het

interview bestaat uit een aantal open vragen en zal ongeveer 10 minuten duren. De vragen

zullen voornamelijk gaan over het gebruik en de waardering van het Kindlint.

Uiteraard zullen uw gegevens met zorg worden behandeld en blijft u geheel

anoniem. U kunt zich op elk moment van het onderzoek terugtrekken mocht u dat nodig

schatten. Op de volgende tijden zijn wij aanwezig in Kuijperwijk voor interviews en

observaties:

● Woensdag 12 april 12:00 - 18:00

● Donderdag 13 april 15:00 - 18:00

Wij zien in dat dit erg kort dag is, maar u zou ons er enorm helpen door ons uw

inzicht (en/of dat van uw kind) te verschaffen. Als u wilt deelnemen aan ons onderzoek kunt

u ons hiervoor bellen, sms’en of eventueel whatsappen via: 06-30835068 of 06-53552069.

Of kunt een email sturen naar damiel.ermen@wur.nl

Via deze contactgegevens kunt u een afspraak maken zodat wij kunnen langskomen

wanneer het u uitkomt. U kunt ons ook herkennen aan felgekleurde verkeersjasjes op de

speelroute.

Alvast hartelijk dank,

Namens de Wageningen University

Amy, Chenda, Damiel, Rindu en Yvon

44

VI. Interview consent form

Bij deze verklaar ik te zijn geïnformeerd over de inhoud van deelname aan dit

onderzoek.

Ik geef toestemming mijn antwoorden op vragen anoniem te verwerken in het

rapport.

…………………………………………….

Ik geef toestemming de antwoorden van mijn kind anoniem te verwerken in het

rapport.

…………………………………………….

45

VII. Observation checklist

Below is the checklist based on the article by Kawulich (2005).