Background:
Substantial evidence suggests that children in low-income, central-city neighborhoods are deprived of opportunities for outdoor play because of the deteriorating quality of the urban environment. Even efforts by municipal governments to provide playgrounds in low-income communities do not always meet the real play needs of the children.
A particularly attractive solution to the dearth of outdoor play space in park-poor neighborhoods is the rebuilding of existing school playgrounds: the space is readily available, designated, and managed. Given the often-impoverished quality of the supporting public infrastructure in which inner-city schools are sited, the question exists as to whether local elementary school playgrounds can be effectively used to compensate for the general lack of children’s outdoor play spaces. Using an ecological framework, this study investigated the dynamics of political, socioeconomic, and environmental attributes that mediate the use of school playgrounds by children.
Objectives:
This study of four low-income neighborhoods in Newark, New Jersey, investigated the hierarchy of relationships among institutional, neighborhood, and individual characteristics and how these factors influence children’s use of school playground facilities. The strategy of renovating school playgrounds as a panacea to the present crisis of physical inactivity among youth tends not to consider the role of social context on use and the current work seeks to remedy this deficiency. The objective of this project is to draw attention to the need to consider the larger social and political landscape in which playground use takes place when formulating initiatives to encourage increased levels of physical activity among children.
Methods:
Four case studies were selected from among Newark’s elementary schools. Three schools were recent recipients of newly renovated playgrounds by the same non- profit organization. The fourth school lacks equipment, but has playground markings. The study population was all fifth graders in each school, with the exception of special education children. Neighborhood sociodemographic data and crime data were obtained from official sources.
This three-phase study received IRB approval from the researcher’s institute and consent from the Newark Public Schools. Fieldwork was from October 2006 to January 2007. Active guardian consent was necessary for child participation, and signed assent forms. Guardian questionnaires and consent forms were translated into Spanish and Portuguese to accommodate study participants.
Phase I: consisted of two sets of quantitative questionnaires designed and pre-tested by the investigator. The child’s questionnaire was in most cases self-administered either in class or as homework. Each participating child took home and returned the guardian questionnaire. Factors investigated were neighborhood perceptions, school and playground features, and individual user characteristics.
Phase II: semi-structured qualitative interviews conducted by the investigator during the school day with principals, fifth-grade teachers, physical education teachers, and directors of the after-school program. Questions varied with interviewee category. Factors investigated were playground use, safety, supervision, and maintenance, as well as neighborhood perceptions.
Phase III: observations of how children used the playground during recess on three separate occasions. A map for each playground was partitioned into eight play areas based on architectural design. The investigator walked around the playground stopping at each area to record the type of activity taking place.
Items recorded included activity type, number and gender of children, and role of supervisor in area.
Results:
Adults residing in high-risk neighborhoods (e.g., crime, drugs, gang activity) tend to keep their children physically close and to restrict their outdoor activity, partially explaining why children remain indoors more than in former times.
Although children’s perceptions of their neighborhoods tend to be more positive than adults’ perceptions, children still prefer to be accompanied and supervised by an adult when they go to the playground if school is not in session, regardless of physical distance.
The school playground often becomes an urban wasteland when school is not in session; even when it is open to the community. It is plausible that there are racial differences in the standards by which neighborhood characteristics are perceived and evaluated. The provision of opportunities for physical activity within a neighborhood does not necessarily promote the desired outcome of facility utilization.
Conclusions:
The implicit and unproblematized strategy of "build it and they will come" does not consider the sociopolitical and institutional factors that mediate playground use. School administrators, extralocal stakeholders, parents, and others with decision-making power over playground access can influence child development, while the school playground itself can shape and structure the wider community. The solution of providing playground equipment as an incentive to increase outdoor physical activity for children living in hostile inner-city neighborhoods minimizes the importance of neighborhood context, public school bureaucracy, and individual preferences.
