Participatory Schoolyard Design for Healthand Well-Being: Policies that Support Playin Urban Green Spaces

Victoria L. Derr and Alessandro Rigolon

Contents1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Children’s Health and Well-Being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Ways to Increase Children’s Health and Well-Being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3.1 Green Schoolyards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.2 Schoolyard Design and Children’s Play and Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.3 Children’s Participation in Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

4 Participatory Schoolyard Design: The Horizons K-8 Playground andAdmiral Arleigh A. Burke Park Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.1 Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84.2 Goals and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84.3 Design Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104.4 Participation Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

5 Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125.1 Grassroots Efforts and Supportive Partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125.2 Shared Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155.3 A Framework for Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165.4 Openness to Shared Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175.5 State- and District-Level Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175.6 Desire for Continued Collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

6 Conclusion: Supportive Policies and Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

V.L. Derr (*)Program in Environmental Design, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USAe-mail: victoria.derr@colorado.edu

A. RigolonDepartment of Urban Studies and Planning, California State University, Northridge, Los Angeles,CA, USAe-mail: alessandro.rigolon@csun.edu

# Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2015C. Freeman et al. (eds.), Risk, Protection, Provision and Policy, Geographies of Childrenand Young People 12, DOI 10.1007/978-981-4585-99-6_21-1

1

AbstractInformal play in nature is fundamental to children’s health and well-being,providing physical, social, and psychological benefits. Yet children in urbanenvironments frequently lack access to natural spaces for free play. Participatoryplanning similarly is important across many domains in contributing to children’swell-being. This chapter reviews the benefits and threats to children’s informalplay in nature in cities today. It then examines the role of green schoolyards as onemeans of providing opportunities for such play. Finally, it explores a case study ofa participatory planning and design process to expand nature play opportunities ina schoolyard and adjacent park in Boulder, Colorado, USA. Interviews withprofessionals involved in the project are used to identify themes, programs, andpolicies at municipal, state, and international levels that promote children’sinformal play in urban green spaces.

KeywordsGreen schoolyards • Parks • Children • Informal play • Nature • Participatoryplanning • Health • Well-being • Policies • Child-friendly cities

1 Introduction

Children living in urban environments frequently lack access to quality naturalspaces for informal play. Yet informal play in nature is an important contributor tochildren’s health and well-being. This chapter explores local and state-level pro-grams and policies that support children’s informal play in urban green spaces. To doso, it first identifies the benefits children derive from informal play in nature andcurrent threats to this play and then it examines the role of green schoolyards inproviding opportunities for informal play, thus increasing equitable access to healthand well-being.

Building on a previous study conducted by the authors (Rigolon et al. 2015), thischapter focuses on the case of a joint-use green schoolyard in Boulder, Colorado,USA, to discuss how different policies and programs can help promote children’sinformal play in nature. To design this schoolyard, a participatory process involvedschoolchildren, parents, school staff, local residents, park staff, and faculty andstudents from the local university’s design program. Among the many partners,Growing Up Boulder (GUB), a child- and youth-friendly city initiative, facilitatedthe participatory design process in partnership with the city and school. GreatOutdoors Colorado (GOCO) provided funding for playground construction. Basedon interviews with professionals involved in this project, lessons are extracted aboutthe way programs and policies can support children’s informal nature play in urbangreen spaces, with guidance that could be used by schools, cities, and states.

2 V.L. Derr and A. Rigolon

2 Children’s Health and Well-Being

Children’s health and well-being is linked to independent mobility (Carrollet al. 2013; Tranter 2006), access to unstructured play in nature (Wells 2014), andopportunities for participation and meaningful contributions to society (Chawla andHeft 2002; Driskell 2002; Malone and Hartung 2010). Access to informal play innature is important for mental restoration (Wells 2014), positive and creative socialplay (Bundy et al. 2013), physical activity and health (Dyment et al. 2009), andenvironmental care and competence (Chawla and Derr 2012). Informal play, inparticular, is significant in that it promotes fields of free action, where children canindependently explore (Reed 1996). Through spontaneous play, children connect tonatural cycles, satisfy curiosities, and learn about their own capabilities in relation tothe natural world, thus fostering a sense of place (Chawla and Derr 2012; Derr 2006;Tranter 2006). Children themselves recognize the importance of natural features forplay and learning (Chawla et al. 2014). Children in participatory planning commonlyrequest natural features, including water elements, animal habitats, and wildlife(Chawla 2002; Francis and Lorenzo 2006; Malone 2013; Moore and Wong 1997;Rigolon et al. 2015).

As cities become more densely populated, children’s independent mobility andaccess to informal play may decrease because of increased traffic, dangerous inter-sections, and parental fears (Freeman and Tranter 2011). The amount of physicalspace devoted to play may also decrease, thus reducing diversity of and access toplay spaces in cities (Carroll et al. 2013). Children’s ability to take risks as part oftheir informal play has been greatly constrained by the design of the physicalenvironment, including the ability to experience risks important for development,such as by climbing a tree or scaling a fallen log. School environments also placelimits on children’s play opportunities by removing play structures from schoolyardsand by reducing recess time (Freeman and Tranter 2011). Some suggest that whenchildren’s ability to take risks is inhibited in their informal play environments,children may seek out more dangerous uses of play equipment (Hart 2002) orsocially inappropriate opportunities for risk-taking, such as bullying (Bundyet al. 2013; Freeman and Tranter 2011).

Furthermore, children living in cities today frequently have less access to wildnature, and the nature they do experience tends to be common species that coexistwell with denser human populations and infrastructure (Astbury 2013; Freeman andTranter 2011). Thus, city children experience environmental inequities when theylive in built environments that lack natural areas with diverse species and habitats(Davis 2014). Quality of habitat is not only important for the experience of diverseand stimulating natural environments but also for the diversity of play, learning, andadaptive behaviors these environments afford (Chawla et al. 2014; Kahn and Kellert2002).

Access to nature also differs for children from different socioeconomic and ethnicbackgrounds. A growing body of literature has shown that in the United States,

Participatory Schoolyard Design for Health and Well-Being: Policies that. . . 3

neighborhoods with higher concentrations of low-income and ethnic minoritygroups have less access to parks than high-income areas (National Recreation andPark Association 2011; Wolch et al. 2014). These inequities in access to nature areparticularly felt in urban areas, where children rely on parks and school grounds toaccess nature. In particular, a recent study conducted in Denver, Colorado, showedthat low-income neighborhoods have particularly low access to parks that includeformal and informal play amenities or that provide sufficient vegetation for shadeand enclosure (Rigolon and Flohr 2014). This is particularly important in relation tochildren’s health, as children with access to parks that include playgrounds havehigher levels of physical activity than children with access to parks that lackplaygrounds (Potwarka et al. 2008).

This lack of access to nature, informal play and independent mobility hassignificant impacts on children’s physical health and well-being. Children todayshow higher incidence of obesity, insufficient exposure to vitamin D, high rates ofstress, anxiety and attention disorders (McCurdy et al. 2010), and high incidence ofbullying (Bundy et al. 2013). When children’s independent mobility is restricted, sotoo are the benefits associated with it including development of social connections,wayfinding skills, and environmental competencies (Carroll et al. 2011). Children inrural environments are often more able to access such informal nature play than theirurban counterparts (Derr 2006). Yet in urban environments, children also seek outnatural places for play and exploration (e.g., Derr 2006; Kong 2000).

Finally, the United Nations General Comment on Article 31 of the Convention onthe Rights of the Child suggests that children’s right to informal play has yet to beconsidered seriously by local or national governments (UNICEF 2014). Focus onobesity prevention and other physical health factors have to a certain degreeovershadowed the importance of informal play on cognitive and mental develop-ment, social skills, imagination, and restoration (Sipe et al. 2006). Yet both physicaland mental factors are essential to children’s overall health and well-being.

3 Ways to Increase Children’s Health and Well-Being

A recent issue of the Journal of Planning Education and Research focusing on“Green Health” showed a variety of strategies that cities and school districts can useto reduce the risks that children face today (Botchwey et al. 2014). Among thesestrategies, this chapter focuses on schoolyard greening through children’s participa-tion in design.

3.1 Green Schoolyards

Children around the world consistently seek out unstructured play in nature wherethey can freely explore, invent their own activities, and imagine (Derr 2006; Kong2000; Sipe et al. 2006). While children have the right to access playspaces through-out the city, many children are increasingly pushed to playgrounds and parks as the

4 V.L. Derr and A. Rigolon

only spaces sanctioned for their use. Public spaces are asked to support more intenseuse while simultaneously providing risk-averse play environments that do notsupport children’s free play (Francis and Lorenzo 2006; Walsh 2006). At the sametime, the amount of time allocated for recess and free play during school hours hasbeen reduced in many parts of the world (e.g., Gill 2007). Green schoolyards thusbecome spaces to redress school policies that restrict play (Freeman and Tranter2011) and to offer sites for environmental learning and exploration during schooltime (Danks 2010; Freeman and Tranter 2011; Ito 2014). Because most school-agedchildren have access to school grounds on a regular basis, these spaces have thepotential to provide young people with daily contact with nature during nonschooltimes as well. In recent years, policy makers, non-governmental organizations andscholars thus have increased attention to the promotion of green schoolyards.

Among a growing number of schoolyard greening programs in the United Statesare the Natural Learning Initiative (NLI) in North Carolina (NLI 2009), the EdibleSchoolyard (Waters 2008) and Collective Roots (2014) in California, and the NationalWildlife Foundation (NWF) Schoolyard Habitats program (NWF 2014). In order tobroaden the reach of natural playscapes, the NWF and NLI recently published nationalguidelines for greening school grounds and other areas for children’s play and learning(Moore and Cooper 2014). A similar program implemented in the United Kingdom isLearning through Landscapes, focusing on outdoor education and play in greenschoolyards (Learning through Landscapes, n.d.). In the south of Japan, landscapearchitects have used a participatory framework to create ecological learning spaces inschoolyards or city parks (Ito 2014). In Sweden, the city of Malmö initiated a greenschool grounds project in 2010 to revitalize impoverished schoolyards through aparticipatory process. This was one of the first municipalities to promote citywidegreening of school grounds (Jansson and Mårtensson 2012).

The contrast between a single school project in Fukuoka City and multiple andsimultaneous projects in Malmö point to some of the lessons learned through trialand error of green school grounds. In Malmö, project evaluators found that despitesustained interest, teachers struggled with maintenance and upkeep of schoolyards(Wales 2014). When new teachers arrive at a school, they do not always understandthe goals or purposes of the schoolyard (Wales 2014). Finally, challenges emergewhen following schoolyards over time. Children who were involved in initialplanning do not always understand or support changes in design or maintenance ofthe space, including small changes such as the cutting of tall grass (Janssonet al. 2014). Similarly, new students at the schools do not always hold the sameattachments to the schoolyards (Wales 2014). In Fukuoka City, the slow process andcontinued involvement of external project leaders over 12 years have providedsupport for maintenance and have eased transitions in teaching staff and adminis-trators (Ito 2014). The continued engagement of school children in workshops andadaptations to the school ground also provides ongoing connections to the naturalarea, even if the same students were not involved in the initial process (Ito 2014).Malmö has recently transitioned its initiative to the elementary school system toencourage linkages between green grounds and child development and to supportmaintenance by schools (Wales 2014).

Participatory Schoolyard Design for Health and Well-Being: Policies that. . . 5

3.2 Schoolyard Design and Children’s Play and Learning

Concurrent to the development of initiatives to green schoolyards is an emergingbody of literature articulating the relationship between schoolyard and park designand children’s play and learning. These studies have shown that green schoolyardsfoster more vigorous and creative play than barren schoolyards (Dyment and Bell2008; Dyment et al. 2009; Malone and Tranter 2003) and better support socio-emotional development (Herrington and Studtmann 1998). Children’s play environ-ments should afford a diversity of multisensory experiences that facilitate free play(Moore and Marcus, 2008).

In a recent review, Czalczynska-Podolska (2014) identified playground designelements that foster physical activity and creative play and classified them in threecategories, including playground appearance, usage, and arrangement. In terms ofappearance, distinct characteristics and variations in texture and color can makeplaygrounds recognizable, which is important for place attachment. Different levelsof physical challenge and loose parts for manipulation tend to foster higher physicalactivity levels. Playground layouts should comprise partly enclosed intimate settingsfor calm and dramatic play and open lawns for active and tumble play, all connectedby pathways.

Natural features can foster all of these play types in green schoolyards or parks(Czalczynska-Podolska 2014; Danks 2010; Malone and Tranter 2003). Childrenfrequently play with natural features and loose parts, such as plants, sticks, flowers,fruits, water, and mud (Derr and Lance 2012; Moore and Wong 1997; Moore andMarcus, 2008). Children also explore a variety of spaces including small groves(Malone and Tranter 2003); open spaces and undulating hills for running, sledding,or rolling; and bushes or tall grasses for secretive play (Derr and Lance 2012). Allthese features have repeatedly been found to foster children’s informal play.

3.3 Children’s Participation in Design

Participation can positively contribute to children’s health and well-being acrossmany domains. Participation increases children’s sense of competence, self-esteem,self-confidence, resilience in overcoming obstacles, and ability to communicate(Chawla and Heft 2002; Malone and Hartung 2010; Sutton and Kemp 2002).Participation also helps strengthen children’s sense of community, as they take partin a common effort with others (Hart 1997). Engagement in design processes, inparticular, can help children become active citizens through participatory democracy(Chawla 2002; Sutton and Kemp 2002). Design activities also can help bridgedifferent academic subjects (Hart 1997), support different learning styles(Lozanovska and Xu 2013), and increase spatial competence (Sutton and Kemp2002).

Participation is also a means to create places that are meaningful for children(Hart 1997; Rigolon 2011). When children are given opportunities to shape theireveryday spaces, they become places imbued with meaning and attachments (Derr

6 V.L. Derr and A. Rigolon

2006; Rigolon 2011). This is important because when people are involved in thecreation of places, they are more likely to use and care for them (Chawla and Derr2012). Research has also shown that children have the desire to actively care for andsteward places, especially those they design or help create (Derr 2006; Malone 2013;Moore and Wong 1997; Rigolon et al. 2015). The ability to transform places isimportant both for children’s informal play as well as during the participatoryprocess in order to create inviting landscapes that people care for (Astbury 2013;Derr 2006; Hart 2002; Rigolon 2011).

Participation has also been linked to the development of social capital andresilience (Astbury 2013; Chawla 2002; Freeman and Tranter 2011). Astbury(2013) describes conditions for social-ecological resilience that bring togetheropportunities to both understand and positively influence ecosystem services withinurban environments while also developing social capital through the care andmaintenance of green infrastructure. This bridge between the ecological and socialcomponents of participation in urban environments highlights important health andwell-being outcomes for children.

Effective participation allows children to participate in projects of personalinterest; provides opportunities for children to develop competencies in settinggoals and making decisions; provides opportunity for dialogue and contribution totangible outcomes; and provides opportunities for children, adults, and professionalsto learn together and from each other (Chawla 2009; Chawla and Heft 2002; Francisand Lorenzo 2006; Freeman 2006). In a recent review of literatures linking chil-dren’s resiliency and green school grounds, Chawla and colleagues (2014) foundprotective factors leading to children’s resiliency including social competence,problem-solving abilities, and a sense of self-efficacy and purpose in life. Effectiveparticipation in the design of places of interest to children, such as their own schoolgrounds, thus can be an important contributor to psychological well-being (Chawlaand Heft 2002).

4 Participatory Schoolyard Design: The Horizons K-8Playground and Admiral Arleigh A. Burke Park Project

Children’s risks today can be mitigated by green schoolyards, naturalized parks, andengagement in participatory design processes. While effective designs and methodsfor participation are found within the literature, less has been said about the waythese designs and participatory processes have been implemented and about thepolicies that support their implementation. While the benefits are documented,barriers often inhibit expansion of green schoolyards as well as children’s participa-tion in their planning and design. This section explores a number of questions relatedto implementation of participatory planning of green schoolyards: What are theopportunities and barriers in the implementation of schoolyards that can fosterchildren’s informal play? How can policies facilitate the implementation of greenschoolyards? And how can participatory design facilitate the creation of greenschoolyards that are meaningful to children? The case of a joint-use green

Participatory Schoolyard Design for Health and Well-Being: Policies that. . . 7

schoolyard and city park in Boulder, Colorado, is analyzed as an exemplary case forthe convergence of state and local policies in promoting the design and constructionof a setting that supports children’s informal play.

4.1 Context

The Horizons K-8 Charter School and Admiral Arleigh A. Burke Park (Burke Park)are located in one of the most densely populated neighborhoods within Boulder,Colorado. The park serves a neighborhood bounded on all sides by major freewaysand roads. The two parcels are conjoined through a joint-use agreement between theCity of Boulder and Boulder Valley School District. A series of changes in land useand management led to an opportunity for the two land holders to collaborate in aparticipatory design and planning project. Historically, the site was owned by aranching family, who installed a stock pond. When the land was donated to the city,the stock pond became a lake amenity that was used by the neighborhood forpicnicking and wildlife viewing. Over time, lake levels dropped from developmentand drought, and the city began the unsustainable practice of pumping treated waterinto the lake. While long-time residents wished to continue pumping water, the citywanted to develop a more ecologically sustainable park. At the same time, HorizonsK-8 School had expanded its building, taking over the previous school playground.Both parties thus had a need for and saw opportunity in a collaborative process todesign and build an innovative school ground that would bring together participatoryprocesses with amenities to increase children’s access to informal play (Rigolonet al. 2015).

4.2 Goals and Methods

The goals of the project were to collaboratively plan the school playground and citypark; to explore opportunities for nature play in the city park and school grounds; toengage children and youth with adults and professionals in planning and decision-making about the park; and to bring together diverse perspectives in the planningprocess, from children and parents to neighborhood residents and city staff. Duringthe autumn of 2012, children ages 9–13 participated in playground and park designthrough a series of school-based activities and community meetings. Methods ofengagement included drawing, found-object model-making, photogrids, a bioblitz(Fig. 1), and community workshops (Figs. 2 and 3; Rigolon et al. 2015). Growing UpBoulder, a child- and youth-friendly city initiative in Boulder, facilitated much of theparticipatory planning process with children (Growing Up Boulder 2014). Thefollowing semester, the project also brought in a University of Colorado(CU) Boulder undergraduate studio to design and build elements of the parkidentified by children and community members in the fall. Later that spring, theschool and city were jointly awarded a Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) grant for

8 V.L. Derr and A. Rigolon

Fig. 1 Students explored the wetlands and identified as many species of plants and animals as theycould find (Photo Credit, Lynn M. Lickteig)

Fig. 2 Children shared their design ideas at a community open house (Photo credit, LynnM. Lickteig)

Participatory Schoolyard Design for Health and Well-Being: Policies that. . . 9

the construction of the school playground (Rigolon et al. 2015). Playground con-struction was completed 18 months later in September 2014 (Fig. 4).

4.3 Design Outcomes

Desired design outcomes included pathways through nature and high levels ofbiodiversity to facilitate nature play, nature observations, and mental restoration(Rigolon et al. 2015). Both senior citizens and children were interested inungroomed wild areas to support wildlife and sensory qualities, including seasonalchange. In addition, both children and seniors requested well-maintained landscapefeatures, such as community gardens, shade arbors, and water features (Rigolonet al. 2015). Design elements were developed into a master plan by city architectsand were further elaborated for the park by university students. The master planincluded a dry river bed and grassy knoll within the playground, mounds (Figs. 4and 5), diverse tree species, and biomes within the park. Additional elementsrequested by seniors and children, including a community garden, will be added inlater phases of the project (Rigolon et al. 2015).

4.4 Participation Outcomes

Typically, barriers to participatory planning come from a lack of institutional sup-port, lack of value or capacity among professionals to engage with children, lack of

Fig. 3 Students and senior citizens participated in a design workshop with CU students (PhotoCredit, Lynn M. Lickteig)

10 V.L. Derr and A. Rigolon

Fig. 4 Digging and rock moving are two of the most common activities on the playground (PhotoCredit, Stephen Cardinale)

Fig. 5 Children run up and down the mound installations in Burke Park (Photo Credit, VictoriaDerr)

Participatory Schoolyard Design for Health and Well-Being: Policies that. . . 11

time or resources, or failure to view children as competent participants (Cele and vander Burgt 2013; Freeman 2006). In the case of Burke Park, a supportive schoolcurriculum, interested and supportive city agencies and community members, and anentity (Growing Up Boulder) that could facilitate community and school engage-ment were significant in promoting participatory planning (Rigolon et al. 2015).Faculty and student interns in the Environmental Design Program at CU Boulderhelped coordinate and facilitate much of the youth engagement.

Participatory planning was important to all project partners from the outset of theproject. Many involved in the Burke Park project felt that the community meetingswere one of the greatest strengths of the project (Rigolon et al. 2015). Reasons citedfor this include the opportunity for shared learning and visioning, understandingdifferent needs, and the opportunity for children to present and share their ideas. Asthe 4th grade teacher explained, presenting their ideas to professionals and commu-nity members was empowering because it showed students that their ideas could beimpactful. These findings are consistent with ideas of effective participation in theliterature (Chawla 2009; Chawla and Heft 2002; Francis and Lorenzo 2006; Free-man 2006).

5 Lessons Learned

In order to learn from the Burke Park project, the authors interviewed professionalsinvolved with the project as well as representatives from Great Outdoors Coloradoand Boulder Valley School District. Interviews explored the design process andoutcomes, greatest strengths from the project, lessons learned, and desired next steps(Rigolon et al. 2015). Interviews with Great Outdoors Colorado and Boulder ValleySchool District focused on supportive policies and challenges in implementing greenschoolyards. Many of the lessons learned relate to how to improve the participatoryprocess to increase inclusivity and translation of ideas into final designs (Rigolonet al. 2015). In this chapter, these findings are presented and analyzed for programsand policies that facilitate informal play in nature and the participatory process forschoolyard design (Table 1).

5.1 Grassroots Efforts and Supportive Partners

While participatory planning for schoolyard design might take many forms, onefactor of success in the Burke Park project was the level of grassroots efforts byparents and school staff that were then supported by existing programs and policies.Support for the project was provided by a highly mobilized parent network, anadministration that saw the educational value of participatory planning and greenschoolyards, a city parks department that is promoting nature play in its parksplanning, a child-friendly city initiative that could support participatory planning,and a state-level funding entity that shared the values and goals of the communityand funded the playground’s construction. Supportive programs and policies had a

12 V.L. Derr and A. Rigolon

synergistic effect and contributed to a shared sense of purpose; shared learningamong children, adults, and professionals; and a desire to enhance the naturalfeatures of the schoolyard and park (Rigolon et al. 2015). As previously described,effective participation provides a shared sense of purpose and shared learning(Chawla 2002; Francis and Lorenzo 2006). Finding the right partners and beingopen to the synergies and greater vision that could come from this process werecritical components of success (Rigolon et al. 2015).

Table 1 Lessons learned from Burke Park

Theme Key lessons

Grassroots efforts andsupportive partners

Highly mobilized parent and school network willing to coordinateand maintain the spaceSchool administration supported participatory planning and valueof nature play in educationCity parks department promoted nature playLocal child-friendly city initiative already establishedUniversity involvement helped create a bridge with seniors incommunityState-level entity provided funding for natural play yards

Shared goals Green play spaceCommunity hubStrengthened communityParticipatory process

Supportive MunicipalGovernment

Vision to promote intergenerational participatory planning for apark that promotes health and wellnessCommitment of resources through staff time and funding forpark’s design-buildWillingness to experiment and promote social interactionsthrough the process

Framework for participation Local child-friendly city initiative based on the Convention on theRights of the Child and UNICEF’s Child-Friendly Cities InitiativeAn established partnership between municipal government,school district, and university facilitated effective participationShared learning about best practices in participation

Openness to shared learning All partners open to participation and learning from each otherStarting with small scale (playground only) and expanding out topark allowed children to engage meaningfullySlow process helped build trust and collaborationEven more inclusive process at early and late stages of designwould help all parties feel more a part of the process

State- and district-levelpolicies

A state entity provided funding and advocacy for participatoryplanning and implementation of green school groundsThe state entity required all grant recipients to provide communityaccess to playgrounds during school-designated timesThe local school district had existing policies that supportedplayground access during nonschool hours

Desire for continuedinteraction

The participatory process developed community cohesion and adesire for continued collaboration and interactionNeed for shared and potentially institutionalized maintenance

Participatory Schoolyard Design for Health and Well-Being: Policies that. . . 13

In the case of Burke Park, the project was initiated by a group of parents whothought the Horizons/Burke Park project would be a successful collaboration withthe city’s parks department. Parents presented their vision for the project to parksstaff knowing that the department had limited funds and many requests for projects.In the words of the parent representative: “We wanted to give them an opportunitythey couldn’t walk away from.”

From the perspective of the city, the school and parents understood the goals andvision of the parks department, and that the city had limited resources for renovation.By being so comprehensive, it allowed the city to make the project a priority. In turn,the head of parks provided the resources and time for parks staff to go into theschool, to develop partnerships, and to work with the community in a participatoryway. A consulting landscape architect on the project felt that it was not only theresources but the openness to experimentation that helped facilitate the partnership:“This city, particularly the parks department, is willing and able to experiment, andthe community is hungry for activities, social interactions, intergenerationalcollisions.”

From the perspective of the school district, active parents and school communityare critical for green schoolyards. The district draws its maintenance budget from thesame general fund as teacher and staff salaries and transportation. According to asenior planner for the district, this leaves virtually no funding for maintenance. In hisview, the only way green schoolyards are feasible is if the parent community isactively involved and if the district provides the construction manager so thatdesigns are translated into maintainable spaces. Clustering large rocks and vegetativefeatures and allowing larger green spaces, for example, help streamline mowing. Itwas the school administration and parents’ vision that the school community wouldhelp maintain the playground and park. According to the parent representative, the“school is always looking for ways to contribute,” from weeding to planting, toinstallation of walkways.

The district planner mentioned many school grounds projects in which enthusi-astic parents developed a project and then a few years later moved on and left thedistrict with dilapidated greenhouses or gardens. An additional response could be toinstitutionalize maintenance through school-community agreements. The first authorpreviously worked with a low-income charter school in California that requiresfamily volunteer hours for student enrollment. The school promotes this volunteer-ism with evidence that student achievement is higher when families are activelyengaged in school culture. The most popular volunteer activity in the school isconsistently garden maintenance. In schools such as Horizons, active parental rolesmay be part of school culture. In other schools, this culture may need to beestablished and nurtured in order to sustain it.

Both the district planner and school community talked about wanting to “giveback.” For the school district, this means providing access to playgrounds whenthere are no school functions (including after school activities). For the Horizonsschool community, it means helping to design and maintain school grounds for thebenefit of the entire neighborhood. All partners in the project recognized thepotential of the collaboration and, in so doing, were able to identify resources,

14 V.L. Derr and A. Rigolon

through existing programs, policies, and partnerships, to support the project. Theparent representative who started this process reflected, “what is great about thisproject is that no one person could have done this on their own.”

5.2 Shared Goals

At the outset of the project, there were many shared goals for the park. It could be amulti-generational place for children, families and grandparents. It could provide agreen play space for families in the neighborhood and in the nearby public housingsite, and it could be a community hub. This was further supported by the HorizonsK-8 school vision in providing service to the community, learning to care for thepark, learning to become good stewards of a place, and providing a space for outdooreducation and independent learning. The city also saw it as a potential model forparks that promote health and wellness.

Not all community members shared these goals at the outset. The senior com-munity had staged a 100-person sit-in to protest proposed changes to lake manage-ment in the park (Rigolon et al. 2015). They held strong memories of the lake as amanicured green space for family picnics. Yet it was the process itself that helpedbring more of the school and community into this shared vision. A turning point forthe seniors was when the Horizons students, city staff, and CU Boulder students allcame to the retirement home for a visioning meeting (Rigolon et al. 2015).According to the retirement homes’ outreach coordinator:

Then issues of animosity started to change. After this, residents at Frasier Meadows wantedto do more activities in the park, including events for the community. It helped remindresidents that the park is theirs, too, that it is for them with their families, their grandchildrenand great-grandchildren.

While children do not always share the same needs or desires as seniors inplanning (Freeman 2006), once children and seniors were brought together, therewas great synchronicity between what children and other residents wanted for thepark and playground (Rigolon et al. 2015). This may be in part because of thecollaborative design process employed, with children and seniors both listening toand responding to each other’s desires, and in so doing, creating a more collaborativevision.

In the end, both groups expressed a desire for wild, ungroomed nature as well asfor higher maintenance features such as community gardens and water features(Rigolon et al. 2015). Other participatory planning projects with children havesimilarly found that children seek out natural features not only for their own benefitbut also for the benefit of the entire community (Moore and Wong 1997). Whilemany have argued the importance of nature for children (e.g., Chawla et al. 2014;Kahn and Kellert 2002; Moore and Wong 1997), to the authors’ knowledge, GOCOis one of the first to use a statewide funding initiative to promote wild zones forinformal play in green schoolyards. In this way, the funding entity helped crystallize

Participatory Schoolyard Design for Health and Well-Being: Policies that. . . 15

shared goals already present among community partners. In reflecting on the main-tenance challenges expressed by the district, a funding mechanism that would alsosupport maintenance would be helpful in sustaining green schoolyards.

5.3 A Framework for Participation

The Convention on the Rights of the Child is significant for the health and well-being of children in all nations in that its articles promote children’s rights to safe,clean, and healthy environments, with access to free play, independent mobility, andrecreation (UNICEF 2013). The convention also calls for children’s active partici-pation and decision-making. Child-friendly city research consistently finds thatchildren want to participate in city planning and be respected within their commu-nities (e.g., Chawla 2002; Malone 2013).

Growing Up Boulder (GUB) is a child- and youth-friendly city initiative thatbegan in 2009 (Derr et al. 2013). GUB is based on the methods and approaches ofGrowing Up in Cities (Chawla 2002; Driskell 2002) but also draws from newinnovations in participatory design (Derr et al. 2013). The initiative is a partnershipbetween the City of Boulder; Boulder Valley School District; CU Boulder’s Chil-dren, Youth, and Environments Center; and local youth-serving organizations and isinstitutionalized through a memorandum of understanding (Derr et al. 2013). TheCity of Boulder includes an engaged citizenry in its sustainability goals (City ofBoulder 2010). As part of this strategy, city staff actively support and engage withchildren in planning activities through the Growing Up Boulder initiative.

GUB has been successful in promoting participation in projects such as BurkePark because it brings together important partners, builds competence of youngpeople to effectively participate, and brings in-depth focus and dialogue that wouldnot otherwise be possible to planning with children and youth. In the case of BurkePark, it accomplished this through a 4-week intensive course in which undergraduateand graduate students in environmental design, university faculty, and city staff allshared in the teaching of ecology and design. During the process, GUB also created awebsite to allow families, community members, and city staff to participate in theproject virtually (http://explorationsinburkepark.weebly.com/). Updates were madealmost daily (Rigolon et al. 2015). One city architect reflected on the significance ofthe website for the staff and broader community, remembering how he emailedhundreds of people, saying, “Look at this, look at what a school in our community isdoing, look at how it is breaking down ideas of what city government is.”

While many studies provide support for children’s participation in city planning,Growing Up Boulder is one of a few initiatives in the United States that providesconsistent support for this through an ongoing partnership. Having an establishedpartnership, which is institutionalized through a formal agreement, facilitates thislevel of engagement for important planning projects in the city. The ongoingrelationship also builds and expands the culture of participation as all partnerslearn and grow from experimentation and dialogue.

16 V.L. Derr and A. Rigolon

5.4 Openness to Shared Learning

As others have discussed, it is not enough to have institutionalized participation(Lansdown 2010). It is also important to have a willingness and understanding of thevalue of participation, as reflected by the Director of Parks:

Money isn’t what makes this happen, but a dedication to listening to kids, listening to thecommunity. These techniques need to be linked to outcomes, such as the school curriculum,health and wellness.

All partners saw the value in this aspect of the process, from efficiencies ofinvestment to the shared learning the process provided. Many felt that the slowdesign process, over the course of three seasons, allowed trust to form between thedifferent partners. Starting at a small scale with children focused on the playgroundand then expanding to the park and community also helped. One of the teachersreflected on this as a strength of the project: during the first phase, students weregiven the freedom to imagine and draw from their own experiences; then studentsworked with two landscape architects to think more formally about playgrounddesign; and finally, the students worked with the city and community to thinkmore broadly about different users’ needs and interests. He elaborated that “kidslearned that it is great to dream, but they have to work within the realities of theproject. That there has to be negotiation – you are not the only one using the space”(Rigolon et al. 2015).

In discussion of lessons learned, many participants felt that though much timewas given to participatory planning, more communication at the beginning and endof the planning phase could have helped people to feel more included (Rigolonet al. 2015). The school principal also reflected on the shift in the process once theplans went to the school district (BVSD) level: “It’s important to have creativepeople, a democratic process on the front end, but it is also important to be aware ofthe limits of democratic process.”

The district was involved in reviewing plans before they were submitted toGOCO. They commented that sometimes playground plans are not detailed enoughto really know what they are approving. One way BVSD has worked within thisambiguity is by providing a district construction manager. For some involved in theBurke Park project, this changed the feeling of community-engaged design to one ofbureaucratic decision-making. More active dialogue and more detailed plans earlierin the process would help all parties to be engaged and in agreement.

5.5 State- and District-Level Policies

Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) receives a portion of Colorado Lottery revenuefor grants and investments that support Colorado’s parks, trails, wildlife, rivers, andopen space (GOCO 2014). As part of their 2010 strategic plan, GOCO sought toincrease youth participation in all of its funding programs. As part of this plan,

Participatory Schoolyard Design for Health and Well-Being: Policies that. . . 17

GOCO created the School Play Yard initiative as a means to provide accessible playspaces for children on a daily basis. Because GOCO uses public funding through thestate lottery, all schoolyards built with GOCO funding must remain open to thepublic. Among the requirements for the schoolyard grants is a student designprocess, in which design elements should be inspired by children and users incollaboration with the community. The initiative also requires partnership withlocal government. Focus of the initiative is on free play. In the first and secondround of funding, this included a mix of recreation and outdoor learning spaces. Inthe third round, emphasis was given to nature play.

GOCO has promoted Burke Park as a model project on its website. Among thefactors that appealed to the review committee were the extent of student andcommunity participation in the project and the inclusion of nature play in the design.According to GOCO, while they encourage all grantees to include nature play as acomponent of their designs, the Burke Park project “hit the ball out of the park,”withits playground design and adjacent naturalized park space.

5.5.1 Community AccessMany participants felt that the community-building benefits were among the mostsignificant aspects of the project (Rigolon et al. 2015). This was reflected instatements about youth empowerment, increased caring within the community, andmore positive views of the school as part of the neighborhood community. One citystaff person thought that the most effective part of the project would be the endproduct because it would benefit so many different people in the neighborhood. Shereflected that GOCO’s policy for community access was significant in pushing theboundaries for schools as community green spaces. The district planner said thataccess is not an issue during off-school times as this is already their policy. Thedistrict was concerned, however, with making clear when access is acceptable. Forthe district, access is only allowable when school is not in session and when there isno school programming. While GOCO had provided a template for signage, it tookmonths of negotiation between the city and school district to finalize the verbiage.An important outcome was coming to an agreement about where signs could beplaced and exactly what they could say. The district planner stated that this was moreflexible with a charter school such as Horizons but that it would need to be moreexplicit for neighborhood or focus schools. Working through this process may helpincrease efficiency for other schools that receive GOCO funding.

5.5.2 Identifying Acceptable RisksWhile GOCO encourages “wild zones” and natural playscapes, they have found thatmany schools are reluctant to implement these. Schools or insurance companies areconcerned with perceived risks and liability of natural playscapes and of schoolyardsopen to community use. The Boulder Valley School District’s primary concerns werefor school security. School shootings in the United States have heightened securityconcerns. Open schoolyards can compromise security if clear boundaries are notdelineated and if unauthorized visitors can enter school grounds through an openplayground. The Horizons’ playground addressed these concerns by keeping sight

18 V.L. Derr and A. Rigolon

lines clear and avoiding vegetation, such as shrubs or low-branching trees, in whichstrangers could hide (Rigolon et al. 2015). This was particularly important wherebuilding edges enclose the courtyard playground.

After completion of their second funding cycle, GOCO decided to offer “GOCOUniversity,” a daylong, free workshop that would provide Colorado schools with anopportunity to learn from those who have successfully implemented naturalplayscapes. Some of the lessons from Burke Park were presented at the GOCOworkshop. GOCO also is looking to other entities, such as Nature Explore, whichprovides participatory planning in the design of green schoolyards as a service tochildcare centers and schools to facilitate greater integration of nature into playyards. Nature Explore also offers workshops and conferences for educators tofacilitate the use of nature playgrounds once they are built (Nature Explore 2014).Walsh (2006) suggests a balance for playspaces, one that provides soft fall surfaceswhere needed but also provides open-ended nature for informal play. Nature Exploreplaygrounds have been successful at achieving this balance. The professionalsinvolved in Burke Park also felt this balance had been met.

5.6 Desire for Continued Collaboration

Many of those interviewed spoke of the importance of programming activities in thepark in order to make it successful. Suggestions for programming included poetrywalks, nature journaling, natural history, art, and music. Participants felt that theprogramming was necessary to activate the park and bring people to it. An ironicfinding might be that in order to support informal play, some structured activitiesmay be needed. Most participants discussed programming for the park itself more sothan the playground. Their concern is that without programming there will not bespaces for “collision” of different members of the community, and the dynamiccollaboration created through the participatory process might be lost.

6 Conclusion: Supportive Policies and Programs

Article 31 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child articulates the rights ofchildren to leisure, play, and cultural life. In a recent General Comment on thisarticle, UNICEF (2014) found support for this right lacking at local, state, andnational levels, both in terms of actual provisions and in children’s participation inplanning for play. They state that while focus tends to be given to supportingstructured recreational activities, “equally important is the need to create time andspace for children to engage in spontaneous play, recreation and creativity and topromote societal attitudes that support and encourage such activity” (193).

Informal play in nature through green school grounds provides opportunities forphysical activity and development, creative play, and social negotiation. Participa-tion in the planning and development of such places can expand children’s individ-ual rights to participation and informal play to also include the rights of nature and

Participatory Schoolyard Design for Health and Well-Being: Policies that. . . 19

future generations to a sustainable future (Davis 2014). Consideration of these rightscan help foster children’s desire to care for and steward places. With a changingplanet, children no longer live with the certainty of a healthy future, one with healthyecosystems and diverse wildlife (Davis 2014). Participatory planning that allows andencourages consideration of these broader concepts of human rights and rights ofnature helps reduce these risks. While UNICEF’s own comments point to concern atthe lack of attention given to children’s rights to informal play, institutional frame-works, through the CRC, provide support for those municipalities or nations thatwish to integrate children into planning and decision-making. The rights of childrento informally play in nature has yet to be articulated clearly in the CRC. Yetmounting evidence supports this need both for the benefits it provides and thetypes of informal play it fosters.

The case of Burke Park illustrates how a participatory planning project canfacilitate informal play in nature, through supportive policies at city, state, andinternational levels. The City of Boulder provides support through its sustainabilitygoals that promote inclusivity and engaged citizenry (City of Boulder 2010). TheGrowing Up Boulder partnership, founded on international children’s rights frame-works, further supports young people’s participation in this process. Ongoingpartnerships such as this one promote a culture of participation in planning andhelp build everyone’s capacity for effectiveness. A local school that similarly pro-motes community values in its curriculum and programs, and a school administra-tion that is willing to work with these policies, catalyzed and sustained this project.Presence of a state-level entity that funds and promotes nature play, wild zones, andchildren’s and community participation in schoolyard greening further cemented theproject goals and supported them financially. The Burke Park case shows theimportance of grassroots initiatives (through the parent representatives) combinedwith supportive policies at local, state, and international levels.

As noted earlier, several successful programs and policies to increase children’sopportunities for informal play in nature have been implemented around the world inthe last few decades. Many programs are now trying to increase their scope throughexpansion of services in cities or regions (Jansson and Mårtensson 2012), systematicidentification of neighborhood green spaces and equity (Rigolon and Flohr 2014), orthe development of guidelines to increase project-level implementation (Moore andCooper 2014). Similarly, Boulder’s Parks and Recreation department has used BurkePark as a model to facilitate the creation of other joint-use green schoolyards in thecity (Rigolon et al. 2015). Following the Horizons K-8 GOCO grant, anotherBoulder school was awarded a GOCO grant and will soon open a naturalizedshared-use playground. This shows the importance of pilot projects that potentiallyexpand programming to a more comprehensive scale. Finally, some programs andpolicies launched in England and Australia are encouraging because they attempt tobroaden children’s domains for play and exploration from institutionalized spaces toentire neighborhoods and cities (e.g., Greater London Authority 2012; Nature PlayWA, 2014; Play Australia 2010; Play England 2007).

Opportunities that promote children’s resiliency include access to free play,ability to independently roam, and ability to meaningfully contribute to their

20 V.L. Derr and A. Rigolon

neighborhoods and cities through participatory processes. A risk-averse environ-ment can limit these opportunities for children. Wild zones in cities are a lessexplored and developed design concept but critically important for children toinformally access nature. Some have described such places as inviting landscapesthat are open-ended, attractive to multiple ages, and sensory rich (Astbury 2013;Walsh 2006). Needs and interests may vary by age and developmental stage (e.g.,Chawla et al. 2014), but types of uses are often complementary and frequentlyprovided in green schoolyards. From child to senior, participants in the Burke Parkproject have suggested that these are not so disparate or hard to achieve. Thechallenge is in the listening.

References

Astbury, J. (2013). Interactive urban landscapes for well-being and sustainability. In R. Coles &Z. Millman (Eds.), Landscape, well-being and environment (pp. 72–86). Abington: Routledge.

Botchwey, N. D., Trowbridge, M., & Fisher, T. (2014). Green health urban planning and thedevelopment of healthy and sustainable neighborhoods and schools. Journal of PlanningEducation and Research, 34(2), 113–122. doi:10.1177/0739456X14531830.

Bundy, A. C., Naughton, G., Tranter, P., Wyver, S., Baur, L., Schiller, W., et al. (2013). The SydneyPlayground Project: Popping the bubblewrap-unleashing the power of play: A cluster random-ized controlled trial of a primary school playground-based intervention aiming to increasechildren’s physical activity and social skills. BMC Public Health, 11(1), 680. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-11-680.

Carroll, P., Witten, K., & Kearns, R. (2011). Housing intensification in Auckland, New Zealand:Implications for children and families. Housing Studies, 26(03), 353–367. doi:10.1080/02673037.2011.542096.

Carroll, P., Asiasiga, L., Tava’e, N., & Witten, K. (2013). Kids in the city: Differing perceptions ofone neighborhood in Aotearoa/New Zealand. In R. Coles & Z. Millman (Eds.), Landscape, well-being and environment (pp. 129–146). Abington: Routledge.

Cele, S., & Van der Burgt, D. (2013). Participation, consultation, confusion: Professionals’ under-standing of children’s participation in physical planning. Children’s Geographies. doi:10.1080/14733285.2013.827873.

Chawla, L. (2002). Growing up in an urbanizing world. New York: UNESCO/EarthscanPublications.

Chawla, L. (2009). Participation as capacity-building for active citizenship. Centre De RechercheEn \'Ethique De L'udem (CR\'EUM).

Chawla, L., & Derr, V. (2012). The development of conservation behaviors in childhood and youth.In S. D. Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology(pp. 527–555). New York: Oxford University Press.

Chawla, L., & Heft, H. (2002). Children’s competence and the ecology of communities: Afunctional approach to the evaluation of participation. Journal of Environmental Psychology,22(1-2), 201–216. doi:10.1006/jevp.2002.0244.

Chawla, L., Keena, K., Pevec, I., & Stanley, E. (2014). Green schoolyards as havens from stress andresources for resilience in childhood and adolescence. Health & Place, 28, 1–13.

City of Boulder. (2010). Core values, sustainability framework and general policies. http://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/1-core-values-sustainability-framework-general-policies-1-201307121119.pdf. 6 June 2014.

Cohen, D. A., Ashwood, J. S., Scott, M. M., Overton, A., Evenson, K. R., Staten, L. K., Porter, D.,McKenzie, T. L., & Catellier, D. (2006). Public parks and physical activity among adolescentgirls. Pediatrics, 118(5), e1381–e1389. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-1226.

Participatory Schoolyard Design for Health and Well-Being: Policies that. . . 21

Collective Roots. (2014). Website. http://www.collectiveroots.org/10. Oct 2014.Czalczynska-Podolska, M. (2014). The impact of playground spatial features on children’s play and

activity forms: An evaluation of contemporary playgrounds’ play and social value. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 38, 132–142. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.01.006.

Danks, S. (2010). Asphalt to ecosystems: Design ideas for schoolyard transformation. Oakland:New Village Press.

Davis, J. (2014). Examining early childhood education through the lens of education for sustain-ability: Revisioning rights. In J. Davis & S. Elliott (Eds.), Research in early childhood educationfor sustainability: International perspectives and provocations (pp. 21–37). Abingdon:Routledge.

Derr, V. (2006). Sometimes birds sound like fish: Perspectives on children’s place experiences. InC. Spencer & M. Francis (Eds.), Children and their environments: Learning, using anddesigning spaces (pp. 108–123). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Derr, V., & Lance, K. (2012). Biophilic Boulder: Children’s environments that foster connection tonature. Children, Youth, and Environments, 22(2), 112–143.

Derr, V., Chawla, L., Mintzer, M., Flanders-Cushing, D., & van Vliet, W. (2013). A city for allcitizens: Integrating children and youth from marginalized populations into city planning.Buildings, 3, 482–505. doi:10.3390/buildings3030482.

Driskell, D. (2002). Creating better cities for children and youth: A manual for participation.London: Earthscan Publications.

Dyment, J. E., & Bell, A. C. (2008). Grounds for movement: Green school grounds as sites forpromoting physical activity. Health Education Research, 23(6), 952–962. doi:10.1093/her/cym059.

Dyment, J. E., Bell, A. C., & Lucas, A. J. (2009). The relationship between school ground designand intensity of physical activity. Children’s Geographies, 7(3), 261–276. doi:10.1080/14733280903024423.

Francis, M., & Lorenzo, R. (2006). Children and city design: Proactive process and the renewal ofchildhood. In C. Spencer & M. Blades (Eds.), Children and their environments: Learning, usingand designing spaces (pp. 217–237). London: Cambridge University Press.

Freeman, C. (2006). Colliding worlds: Planning with children and young people for better cities. InB. Gleeson & N. Sipe (Eds.), Creating child friendly cities: Reinstating kids in the city(pp. 69–85). London: Routledge.

Freeman, C., & Tranter, P. (2011). Children and their urban environment: Changing worlds.London: Earthscan Publications.

Gill, T. (2007). No fear: Growing up in a risk averse society. London: Calouste GulbenkianFoundation.

GOCO. (2014). Great Outdoors Colorado. Accessed on August 15, 2014 from http://www.goco.org/.Greater London Authority. (2012). Shaping neighbourhoods: Children and young people’s play and

informal recreation. London. http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ChildrensPlayspaceSPG31Jan12.pdf. 15 June 2014.

Growing Up Boulder. (2014). http://www.growingupboulder.org/burke-park-planning.html.12 Sept 2014.

Hart, R. A. (1997). Children’s participation: The theory and practice of involving young citizens incommunity development and environmental care. London: Earthscan, UNICEF.

Hart, R. A. (2002). Containing children: Some lessons on planning for play from New York city.Environment & Urbanization, 14(2), 135–148. doi:10.1177/095624780201400211.

Herrington, S., & Studtmann, K. (1998). Landscape interventions: New directions for the design ofchildren’s outdoor play environments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 42(2-4), 191–205.doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00087-5.

Ito, K. (2014). “Growing place” for children’s play and ecological learning: A collaborativelandscape design process for 12 years in an urban area in Japan. In The 7th child in the cityconference, Odense, 30 Sept 2014.

22 V.L. Derr and A. Rigolon

Jansson, M. & Mårtensson, F. (2012). Green school grounds: A collaborative development andresearch project in Malmö, Sweden. Children, Youth and Environments, 22(1), 260–269.

Jansson, M., Gunnarsson, A., Mårtensson, F., & Andersson, S. (2014). Children’s perspectives onvegetation establishment: Implications for school ground greening. Urban Forestry & UrbanGreening, 13, 166–174.

Kahn, P. H., & Kellert, S. R. (Eds.). (2002). Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, andevolutionary investigations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Kong, L. (2000). Nature’s dangers, nature’s pleasures: Urban children and the natural world. In S. L.Holloway & G. Valentine (Eds.), Children’s geographies: Playing, living, learning(pp. 257–271). London: Routledge.

Lansdown, G. (2010). The realization of children’s rights: Critical reflections. In B. Percy-Smith &N. Thomas (Eds.), A handbook of children and young people’s participation (pp. 11–23).London: Routledge.

Learning through Landscapes. (n.d.). About learning through landscapes. http://www.ltl.org.uk/about/about-ltl.php. 8 Oct 2014.

Lozanovska, M., & Xu, L. (2013). Children and university architecture students working together:A pedagogical model of children’s participation in architectural design. Co-Design: Interna-tional Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 9(4), 209–229. doi:10.1080/15710882.2012.693187.

Malone, K. (2013). The future lies in our hands: Children as researchers and environmental changeagents in designing a child-friendly neighbourhood. Local Environment, 18(3), 372–395.doi:10.1080/13549839.2012.719020.

Malone, K., & Hartung, C. (2010). Challenges of participatory practice with children. In B. Percy-Smith & N. Thomas (Eds.), A handbook of children and young people’s participation(pp. 24–38). London: Routledge.

Malone, K., & Tranter, P. (2003). School grounds as sites for learning: Making the most ofenvironmental opportunities. Environmental Education Research, 9(3), 283–303.

McCurdy, L. E., Winterbottom, K. E., Mehta, S. S., & Roberts, J. R. (2010). Using nature andoutdoor activity to promote children’s health. Current Problems in Pediatric and AdolescentHealth Care, 40(5), 101–118. doi:10.1016/j.cppeds.2010.02.003.

Moore, R., & Cooper, A. (2014). Nature play and learning spaces: National guidelines for creatingand managing spaces where children engage with nature. Natural Learning Initiative, NationalWildlife Federation, United States Forest Service. http://www.nwf.org/What-We-Do/Kids-and-Nature/Programs/Nature-Play-Spaces-Guide.aspx. 5 Oct 2014.

Moore, R., & Marcus, C. C. (2008). Healthy planet, healthy children: Designing nature into thedaily spaces of childhood. In S. R. Kellert, J. Heerwagen, & M. Mador (Eds.), Biophilic design:Theory, science and practice (pp. 153–204). Hoboken: Wiley.

Moore, R., & Wong, H. H. (1997). Natural learning: The life history of an environmentalschoolyard. Berkeley: MIG Communications.

National Recreation & Park Association. (2011). Parks and recreation in underserved areas: Apublic health perspective. Asburn. http://www.nrpa.org/uploadedFiles/nrpa.org/Publications_and_Research/Research/Papers/Parks-Rec-Underserved-Areas.pdf. 2 June 2014.

Nature Explore. (2014). Nature explore: A collaborative program of Arbor day foundation anddimensions educational research. Accessed August 15, 2014 from http://natureexplore.org/.

Natural Learning Initiative. (2009). Preventing obesity by design (POD-2). http://www.naturalearning.org/preventing-obesity-design-pod-2. 15 Sept 2014.

Nature Play WA. (2014). Nature play WA. http://www.natureplaywa.org.au/Play. 15 Sept 2014NWF. (2014). National wildlife foundation. Accessed on August 15, 2014 from http://www.nwf.

org.Play Australia. (2010). Natural environments DEEC. http://www.playaustralia.org.au/content/natu

ral-environments. 15 Sept 2014.Play England. (2007). Planning for housing: Including space for play and informal recreation. London.

http://www.playengland.org.uk/media/120483/planning-for-housing-briefing.pdf. 15 Sept 2014.

Participatory Schoolyard Design for Health and Well-Being: Policies that. . . 23

Potwarka, L. R., Kaczynski, A. T., & Flack, A. L. (2008). Places to play: Association of park spaceand facilities with healthy weight status among children. Journal of Community Health, 33(5),344–350. doi:10.1007/s10900-008-9104-x.

Reed, E. S. (1996). Encountering the world. New York: Oxford University Press.Rigolon, A. (2011). A space with meaning: Children’s involvement in participatory design pro-

cesses. Design Principles and Practices, 5(2), 151–163.Rigolon, A., & Flohr, T. L. (2014). Access to parks for youth as an environmental justice issue:

Access inequalities and possible solutions. Buildings, 4(2), 69–94. doi:10.3390/buildings4020069.

Rigolon, A., Derr, V., & Chawla, L. (2015). Green grounds for play and learning: Synergies indesign between schools and park systems. In D. Sinnett, S. Burgess, & N. Smith (Eds.),Handbook on green infrastructure: Planning, design and implementation (pp. 281–300).Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Sipe, N., Buchanan, N., & Dodson, J. (2006). Children in the urban environment: A review ofresearch. In B. Gleeson & N. Sipe (Eds.), Creating child-friendly cities: Reinstating kids in thecity (pp. 87–102). London: Routledge.

Sutton, S. E., & Kemp, S. P. (2002). Children as partners in neighborhood placemaking: Lessonsfrom intergenerational design charrettes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22(1-2),171–189. doi:10.1006/jevp.2001.0251.

Tranter, P. (2006). Overcoming social traps: A key to creating child-friendly cities. In B. Gleeson &N. Sipe (Eds.), Creating child friendly cities: Reinstating kids in the city (pp. 121–135). London:Routledge.

UNICEF. (2014). General comments of the committee on the rights of the child. General CommentNo. 17. The right of the child to rest, leisure, play, recreational activities, cultural life and the arts(Art. 31). United Nations CRC/C/GC/17. 17 April 2013. Committee on the Rights of the Child.Sixty-second session, 14 Jan–1 Feb 2013. South Africa: UNICEF.

United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). (2013). Convention on the rights of the child. http://www.unicef.org/crc/. 22 Jan 2014.

Wales, M. (2014). Personal Communication, Movium. Nordic light on children’s outdoors, Malmöand Lund, 2 Oct 2014.

Walsh, P. (2006). Creating child friendly playspaces: A practitioner’s perspective. In B. Gleeson &N. Sipe (Eds.), Creating child-friendly cities: Reinstating kids in the city (pp. 136–151).London: Routledge.

Waters, A. (2008). Edible schoolyard: A universal idea. San Francisco: Chronicle Books.Wells, N. M. (2014). The role of nature in children’s resilience: Cognitive and social processes. In

K. G. Tidball & M. E. Krasny (Eds.), Greening in the red zone: Disaster, resilience andcommunity greening (pp. 95–109). Dordrecht: Springer.

Wolch, J. R., Byrne, J., & Newell, J. P. (2014). Urban green space, public health, and environmentaljustice: The challenge of making cities “just green enough”. Landscape and Urban Planning,125, 234–244. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017.

24 V.L. Derr and A. Rigolon