Safety and Accessibility: More than Child's Play

2007-10-19

When the mother of a five-year-old girl confined to a wheelchair took her daughter to a playground in Edmonton, Alberta, her daughter’s first reaction was, “I can’t do this.”

Her daughter did not realize that the playground in front of her was actually an accessible playground, one of several that are now a part of Edmonton city policy. In answer to her daughter’s reluctance, her mother replied, “Yes you can, it was designed for you.”

Kim Sanderson, an employee with the City of Edmonton in Research and Innovation, Community Services, recounts this story proudly. He and his department were key in persuading the city to make all playgrounds accessible to children with disabilities.

“[Edmonton] has made it policy so that every space must adhere to an accessibility code,” says Sanderson.

Sanderson won’t soon forget the gratitude of the mother whose daughter now regularly uses Edmonton’s accessible playgrounds. She told him, “You have no idea what this means to me as a parent.” Sanderson is now working with the mother, in her hometown of Beaverlodge, Alberta, a small town with a population of less than 2,500 people, to make accessible playgrounds a reality there too.

Getting the community on board to make all public play areas accessible was not a walk in the park. Initially, Sanderson and his department experienced some resistance when they proposed extending accessibility to public playground equipment.

“It wasn’t seen as a priority,” says Sanderson. “There were a lot of misconceptions. People assume accessibility has too many extra costs associated with it and some thought the play value would be diminished.”

Since then, accessibility in Edmonton has come a long way. January 2008 will mark two years since the city made it policy to include the special needs of disabled children into the design of every new and upgraded playground.

Initially, Edmonton’s accessible playspace policy was largely derived from a similar one in the United States. Edmonton then harmonized its code with a standard developed by a Canadian Standards Association (CSA) technical committee. Sanderson also participated on the committee that developed the standard called Children’s Playspaces and Equipment (CAN/CSA-Z614).

The standard, which was first published in 1990, was recognized as the national standard on playground safety by the Standards Council of Canada in 1998.

In 2007, CSA released the fourth edition of the playspace safety standard, which includes an informative annex on making playgrounds more accessible to children and even to caregivers who themselves have a disability but have able-bodied children. The standard is intended for children aged 18 months to 12 years, and provides guidelines for public playgrounds such as the ones found in daycares, schools and parks.

Rebecca Nesdale-Tucker, Manager of Public Policy and Advocacy of Safe Kids Canada, says the disability guidelines are important, not because there is evidence suggesting that children with disabilities are necessarily at more risk for playground injuries, but because playgrounds should appeal to all children. “We want to make sure that everyone not only has a place to play, but a safe one, to prevent new disabilities from happening,” she says.

A report funded by Human Resources and Social Development and conducted by Statistics Canada, called Disability in Canada: a 2001 Profile, reports that among children who have a disability, the majority are of school age, between the ages of five and 14. This means that 154,720 Canadian school-aged children (or four per cent of that age group) have a disability.

A disabled child faces several obstacles if he or she wishes to play on a playground that is not accessible. If play equipment is placed in a “sea of sand,” as Sanderson calls it, a child who needs a wheelchair has great difficulty just reaching the play equipment. Even if ramps are connected to the play equipment, says Sanderson, the child still has limited use of the equipment. He or she might only be able to reach the first platform, which is usually only intended to be a transfer point to other levels of the play equipment and contains no actual play features. Since main play features are usually located higher up, disabled children are often left watching other kids play, rather than playing.

“Kids know the difference between actually playing with everyone or not,” says Sanderson. “The biggest problem is that they can’t get to the centre of the action. They can’t interact with their friends and have to sit on the sidelines.”

The technical committee intends for accessibility to mean more than just traditional ramps. The guidelines in the annex not only suggest adding in specific accessible features, but especially encourage designing the components to foster interaction and socialization among all children. For example, having ramps and other accessible components grouped separately or set apart from the other play features are not considered as meeting accessibility criteria.

The annex also spells out the minimum percentage of each accessible feature that must be implemented to be considered accessible.

“You can’t just put in a few items and say it’s accessible,” says Sanderson. “You need to meet certain requirements. That is the power in the document.”

Smooth ground surfaces such as rubber are also important for impact absorption and easing mobility. An accessible ground surface also means considering slope heights, making sure that there are accessible entrance and exit points in the park and ensuring ample maneuvering space for wheelchair users.

Another important guideline is the minimization of the height of transfer systems within the play equipment. Transfer systems usually consist of a platform and a series of steps and are a means of accessing other areas of the equipment. Children in wheelchairs would have to lift themselves off of their wheelchair to move up or down the transfer system and onto other areas of the equipment. The annex suggests minimizing the height of transfer systems and having other aids such as rope loops, poles or rings to provide further support and help the child move to different levels of the equipment.

Nicki Islic, Product Manager, Health Care and Community Safety with CSA, says the differences between an accessible and a non-accessible playspace should be subtle. “We want all children to want to and be able to use the same playspaces without an obvious difference,” says Islic.

According to Christine Simpson, Consumer Product Safety manager at Health Canada and chair of the technical committee, even with the widespread use of the playground safety standard, injuries are still inevitable. “We know that children being children will try and jump gaps,” says Simpson. “They will try things that their older brothers and sisters are doing, but physically can’t do.” She says the standard aims to eliminate entirely, or at least reduce, life-threatening and debilitating injuries to children.

Nesdale-Tucker points to recent evidence that ties the playground standard to a decline in the severity of injuries. She expects the data to increase interest in adhering to CAN/CSA-Z614.

“It’s a win-win situation for parents, community and the health care system,” she adds.

Though cost can sometimes be seen as an obstacle in the long-term, designing and creating an accessible playground could actually be cost-effective.

"Accessibility features in playgrounds are usually less expensive to integrate at the design and development stage,” says Islic. “It could be more expensive to retrofit or upgrade to an accessible playspace later on.”

Sanderson says the costs of adhering to a guideline vary between an extra four and 10 per cent. However, he says, you can design a playful space that incorporates accessibility within a budget.

“The benefits outweigh the costs,” says Sanderson. “It’s not even necessarily a choice. For example, you would never choose to make only some washrooms accessible, you would make all of them accessible. We want to extend that right to our children.”

-30-

This article first appeared in Volume 34 of CONSENSUS Magazine, 2007.  The information it contains was accurate at the time of publication but has not been updated or revised since, and may not reflect the latest updates on the topic.  If you have specific questions or concerns about the content, please contact the Standards Council of Canada.

Back