La definición de ‘argumentación’

In play parks challenge and risk are require consideration, there is a need to offer play opportunities which giving different physical and mental challenges as this engages children maintaining their interest in the play location. Whilst challenge can be viewed

as the opportunity to test one’s skill and knowledge to achieve this there must be an element of risk introduced to achieve this. Supporting children to participate in risky play the publication Managing Risk in Play Provision: Implementation guide advises

‘children both want and need to have challenging play experiences that involve a

degree of risk’ (Ball, Gill & Spiegal, 2012). This publication provides definitions which

clarify how ‘risk’ differs from ‘hazard’, risk defined as the probability of an adverse outcome and hazard referring to potential sources of harm. It also advises that

‘Good risks and hazards are acceptable and hold few surprises. Bad risks offer no obvious developmental or other benefits.’

(Ball, Gill & Spiegal, 2012. p29).

Play parks are required to provide a balance between challenge and risk. Recognising the need to ensure play provision supports risk taking the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the Play Safety forum released a joint statement to support providers in their decision-making. This advises

When planning and providing play opportunities, the goal is not to eliminate risk, but to weigh up the risks and benefits. No child will learn about risk if they are wrapped in cotton wool’ (HSE, 2012).

Children require challenges in life and the play park is an appropriate location to engage in risky play. Meeting this need requires those responsible for play park provision to manage and minimise risk, removing hazards without creating facilities which, whilst safe, are perceived as tame and boring by children.

49

Children, challenge and risk

An advantage of play in outdoor settings is the potential to attempt challenges, including tests of physical ability. For older children these opportunities are with reduced adult supervision thus reducing cautionary oversight. Life involves risk, as an adult one must assess which risks are worth taking. As with most skills this is only achieved through trial and error. In childhood risks taken are cocooned in the knowledge, in most instances, decisions made are balanced by adults. This either through direct intervention, or indirectly, such as in the selection of equipment or play surface installed in play parks. The study by Lavrysen et al. (2017) demonstrated how the introduction of risky-play activities in an educational setting improved both risk perception and competence in young children. Kvalnes (2017) advising these ‘risky scenarios’ have a deferred benefit in later life by providing a grounding for managing risk.

Threading through literature and current discussions on outdoor play, is the impact of safety concerns which emerged in the 1970’s. The response to this was, an over- reaction (Gill, 2007; Tovey, 2007; Guldberg, 2009), this reflecting a growing consensus. Tovey (2007, p97) recalls childhood memories of challenges which were ‘on the

borderline of safe and unsafe’ to which, when they were perceived to be ‘a little too safe’, were varied to re-introduce the element of challenge. Utilising the principles of universal design within play parks will reduce risk, the inbuilt margin of error reduces

the impact of children’s attempts to master new and greater challenges (Ayataç & Pola, 2016). Opportunities to take risks, and the ability to test out skills, are benefits of play parks noted by children interviewed by Prellwitz and Skår (2007), these children viewing play parks as environments in which they expected to challenge themselves. Gill (2007) suggests this expectation, and the innate need to introduce challenge, is reflected in the increasing provision of skate parks and the popularity of activities such as Freerunning (Parkour). This need to experience risk is not restricted to those who take part in these and other urban sports. Metin (2003) and Baylina Ferré, Ortiz Guitart, and Prats Ferret (2006) found children, whatever their ability, look for activities providing challenges. How risk is perceived differs between adults and children, and Pain (2004) associates a

50 children actively seek challenge and risk then play parks, as locations children associate with, should be designed to provide these experiences. This does not appear to be the case; Little, Wyver and Gibson (2011), Veitch, Salmon and Ball (2007), Solomon (2005), Frost (2010) and Gill (2007) are of the opinion modern play parks do not offer suitable opportunities. This standpoint supported in Little, Wyver and Gibson’s (2011)

discussions with children. A concern arising from this is, with insufficient challenging opportunities, children will seek out the stimulus they require elsewhere, placing themselves at greater risk (Little, Wyver and Gibson, 2011; Spiegal, Gill, Harbottle, and Ball, 2014). Not all risks associated with play are physical; imaginative play provides the

opportunity to explore different scenarios and concepts. O’Connor et al. (2017)

observed children exploring themes including destruction, war and gangs during play

describing this as ‘cognitive and emotional experimentation with risk’ (p6474).

Understandably parent’s views on risk differ from those of children, and rightly so. It is a parent’s role to limit children’s exposure to danger. Parents are required to balance

their awareness of risks and hazards with the need to promote ‘fearlessness’ in their

children (Niehues, 2013). A later investigation noted parents of children with disabilities actively sought to promote resilience in their children by introducing occupations with

an element of uncertainty (Niehues, 2016).Research has shown the reduction of

children’s independent mobility (Torres and Lessard, 2007), and subsequently access to

outdoor play, is often due to parental concerns including crime (Clements 2004), poorly maintained equipment, bullying, stranger danger (Little, Wyver and Gibson, 2011) and road traffic (Gill, 2007; Shaw et al., 2015.). The influence of this increase in concern and resulting risk reduction approaches were investigated by Valentine and McKendrick (1997). Parents in their study expressing dissatisfaction over public amenities therefore relocating outdoor play into private spaces. There has been debate over how realistic parental concerns are. Tonight (ITV Studios, 2014) commissioned a survey of 2000 parents finding an over-estimation of incidence of violent crimes and road traffic accidents, supporting the hypothesis the fear of risk is a powerful influence on parental decision-making. Whilst, for the majority, risks are lower than supposed, this is not a universal situation, some fears are realistic. In some deprived neighbourhoods (Prezza and Pacilli, 2007) and inner-city locations (Weir, Etelson and Brand, 2006) adult

51 supervision of outdoor play is essential to ensure safety because of high crime levels and exposure to drug taking or dealing. The alteration in attitude towards children’s

play cannot be attributed to one factor. Indeed, some statistics, such as the incidence of child pedestrian accidents, bear close scrutiny. Gill (2007) advises the marked reduction in childhood injuries should be considered in the wider context, as fewer children play outside their gardens risks from traffic are reduced.

Modern life has evolved; new technologies giving increased options for home-based entertainment, new play opportunities including indoor play areas, and more after- school activities and child-care. These reflect societal changes including a consumer- focused lifestyle, but also government policies designed to support working parents (Gov.UK, 2014). This inward-looking lifestyle leaves some assessing risk using

information through print and digital media. We receive rapid updates on incidents, and wider exposure to international events, but lack knowledge of, and relationships in, local neighbourhoods. Reporting of incidents, including the intervention of child

protection services in Maryland in 2015, following children’s unsupervised play at a

local park (Wallace, 2015), sparked debate, but also provides an additional fear – by not supervising children, parents can be accused of neglect. Gill (2007) suggests this

isolating lifestyle results in a view of the world as a hostile, unsupportive environment, where neighbourliness has declined leaving parents unwilling to expose children to the high level of risk they believe exists. To counter this, Frost (2010) calls for a

‘contemporary child-saving movement’ to redress the balance for all aspects of outdoor

play, including the provision of balanced risk and challenge.

Risk management in play parks

Levels of risk are also a concern for those with responsibility for maintaining or providing play parks. The need to manage risk, meet expectations of parents, and to provide play equipment has not always taken into consideration the play needs of children, especially as accidents can result in litigation and claims for damages. The level of concern in the UK may not be based on facts, with Gill (2015) reporting the incidence of claims remains stable, and Ball, Gill and Spiegal (2012) advising the estimated non-fatal accident rate for play park activities is substantially lower than for

52 most leisure sports. This perceived fear of litigation, within a culture of blame, may reflect the introduction of safety standards. Guldberg (2009) cites politicians and policymakers as key influences leading to a focus on risk aversion. Whilst safety standards have reduced the number of incidents (Norton, Nixon & Sibert 2004), those responsible for play parks continue to be risk aware given their duty of care. It may even be the reduction in the number of reported incidences creates an environment where incidents, such as the death of a five-year-old in London in July 2015 (Addley, 2015), result in calls for even tighter regulation due to their rarity.

Internationally safety standards have been introduced to standardize provision, minimize risk, and reflect best practice. Examples of these are EN1176 (Playground Equipment Standard) for Europe including the UK; North American standard F1487 produced by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ATSM), and Australia and New Zealand have adopted standards based on the European model: AS 4685 Parts 1 to 6 (Standards Australia, 2014). Given the conflicting need to experience risk and to consider acceptable levels of risk, it is not unsurprising that changes to the standards, and in some cases, the standards themselves, are the subject of debate. Introduction of impact attenuating surfaces reduced the number and severity of head injuries, but not the frequency of arm fractures, a more common injury (Spiegal, 2015). The proposed revision in 2015/6 of the relevant American standard intended to further reduce the risk of head injury has sparked debate. This discussion includes the relevance of the supporting evidence (especially where research, such as that by Shorten (1998), is sponsored by product suppliers); the impact of new standards on play park providers; and the focus on risk reduction rather the than promotion of healthy active lifestyles (Ball 2015; Spiegal 2015; Gill 2015). Increasing awareness of responsibility has, in the opinion of Spiegal, Gill, Harbottle & Ball (2014), resulted in the adherence to safety standards taking precedence over designing for play. Additionally, they advise the UK adoption of European safety standards provides a framework for safe provision, but compliance does not provide immunity from obligations. These obligations include responsibilities under the Equality Act (2010), including making reasonable adjustments which ensure access to leisure facilities.

53 Risk management in play parks is not restricted to the selection and maintenance of equipment. Preventing access by dogs is accepted practice; more recent proposals include proposals to ban smoking in play parks (Campbell, 2016). Both can be viewed as contributing to the health promotion agenda. Less clear is the prevention of adults without children from accessing play parks. Harrold (2016), reporting on a planned introduction of legislation preventing unaccompanied adults in play parks in Beverly Hills, advised this is already common practice in New York, Miami Beach and

Hollywood. A similar approach was adopted in London for the Diana Memorial

Playground in Kensington Gardens. This play park is managed by the Royal Parks whose

website advises ‘To ensure safety and security of children, only adults supervising children up to the age of 12 will be admitted.’ (The Royal Parks, 2018). Internet

searches and literature reviews seeking advice on risk management specific to UK play parks provide numerous sources of detailed information, such as by Ball, Gill and Spiegal (2012), and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (2015). It is telling that a similar search for advice in relation to meeting accessibility obligations for play parks under the Equality Act (2010) did not achieve similar results, only identifying oblique references to responsibilities which should be met.