A Longitudinal Study of Playground Surfaces to Evaluate Accessibility - Final Report

Findings

The evaluation of the 35 playground sites in this study has provided some important information on the design, installation, and maintenance of playground surface material for the accessible route in the use zone.  The information can serve as guidance to both future playground planning and priorities for future research.  The following are the predominant findings from this study:

• No single type of surface material/system was found to be the most accessible surface or better than others when comparing its ability to meet the accessibility standards with issues related to installation and maintenance.
• Within 12 months of installation, playground sites in the sample with the loose fill EWF were found to have the greatest number of deficiencies, such as excessive running slope, cross slope, and change in level, affecting the accessible route to play components.
• Within 12 months of installation, playground sites in the sample with loose fill EWF were found to have the highest values for firmness and stability, indicating greater work force needed to move across the surface, while playground sites with the unitary surfaces TIL and PIP were found to have the lowest values for firmness and stability– indicating less work force necessary to move across the surface.
• Deficiencies, such as excessive running slope, cross slope, changes in level, and openings for PIP, TIL and HYB began to emerge 24‒36 months after installation.
• Occurrences were identified in the sample where the surface material installation did not parallel either the manufacturer’s installation instructions or the procedural instructions on the laboratory test sample for ASTM F1951‒99.
• A playground surface with fewer accessibility deficiencies and a lower measurement for firmness and stability did not necessarily meet the safety standards for impact attenuation.Surface cost for material cannot serve as an indicator or predictor of performance.

There were also findings related to the design of the playground sites and with the selection of the specific playground surface materials or systems.  There were instances where the accessibility standards were not properly applied to the playground design.  For example, there may be swings designed to be on an accessible route and connected by the unitary surface.  However, the design may not have allocated for the 30 x 48 inch clear floor space to transfer at the swing or the required 60 inch diameter turning space adjacent to the swing.  While the design itself may be the problem in some cases, failure to collect enough information about the site was also identified as a likely contributor to installation of accessible routes not fully compliant with the standards.  Some playground designers and manufacturers do not necessarily consider the completion of a site survey as essential to the design and construction of the playground.  The lack of site surveys for at least three playgrounds in the study created installation errors along the accessible routes.  Each of the three sites were deemed “relatively flat” by their planning teams.  When it came time to install the surface, the lack of planning for the accessible routes caused the contractors to improvise for surfaces to meet up with composite structures and points of egress resulting in routes that exceed the maximum allowable running and cross slopes.  Lack of site surveys to plan effective drainage could also be considered as contributors to standing water, washed out sub-base stone, mold and vegetation growth.  Construction changes on site also negatively affected the accessible route affecting running and cross slopes, transfer heights and required clear floor space.