How much legislation do playgrounds need?

© HAGS-mb-Spielidee GmbH

Are playgrounds becoming places where safety only takes precedence? The purpose of the relevant regulations should be to enable children to encounter the experiences offered by play. And this means they need to be confronted by age-appropriate and discernible risks. "Legislation should be used to protect children against possible hazards that cannot be managed or are not immediately perceptible. We must put children in situations in which they can learn to recognise and overcome risks. What they discover as a result is important for their futures - when they are undertaking leisure activities, driving a vehicle or at work," says playground safety expert Franz Danner (TÜV Süd Product Service).

The journal Playground@Landscape invited a group of experts to discuss this topic: Franz Danner (TÜV Süd Product Service GmbH), Hermann Städtler (Bewegte Schule Niedersachsen), Tilo Eichinger (CEO eibe Produktion + Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG. and chair of the German association of playground and leisure facility constructors (BSFH) and Hans-Peter Barz (landscape architect, head of Heilbronn parks department). The round table is a continuation of the podium discussion 'How much legislation do playgrounds need?' held at the 'Bewegungsplan' seminar in Fulda in April 2019.

P@L: Herr Danner, do you think that there is a very real danger that too much legislation could end up overprotecting children on playgrounds? Or have we already reached that point? 

Franz Danner: Yes, there is still a very real danger of this happening. Because of the extreme concern that seems to be expressed through the safety standards, operators are feeling increasing pressure to ensure that playgrounds are as risk-free as possible. 

P@L: And do you consider that the interests of children are adequately represented in the bodies that draw up the standards or do the 'safety fanatics' predominate here? 

Franz Danner: What are lacking are educators who are in daily contact with children and who would be able to make sure that children's needs would be more adequately catered for in the regulations. 

P@L: Herr Eichinger, as a manufacturer, how do you see the situation? Aren't stringent safety standards of benefit to you in that cheaper products of foreign manufacturers, such as those based in the Far East, are excluded from the market? And is not the fact that playground equipment from Germany enjoys a high reputation abroad at least partly attributable to the fact that the standards here are so strict, to the extent that it would not necessarily be possible to enforce such standards elsewhere?

Tilo Eichinger: Manufacturers who ignore the safety standards can forget about marketing their products. After all, people won't buy hair-dryers that are likely to burst into flames or with plugs that don't fit sockets. The main purpose of the safety standards is not to protect the market here. I actually see it the other way round. As an exporting business, we ensure we comply with very high safety requirements but this does mean that it is not any easier to make our products attractive abroad because of the associated higher costs. At the same time, anyone buying a product bearing the words 'Made in Germany' will know they are getting a quality item. Products manufactured here in Germany are excellent and we are valued because of that. Of course, things in this country aren't inexpensive. But there are, of course, other reasons for that. 

P@L: Herr Städtler, is it your opinion that excessive playground safety legislation prevents children indulging their need for physical activity and thus impairs their development? In your professional work, have you perhaps noticed any changes in the behaviour of children that could be put down to this? Such as changes in their willingness to take risks, ability to deal with risks, diminished physical skills and poorer capacity for social interaction?

Hermann Städtler: As I see it, safety standards are primarily drawn up to eliminate avoidable problems that could lead to serious accidents. As legislation is predominantly designed to control situations, the impression arises that safety is also engendered. This is not the case. Safety is a factor that is only determined by the interplay of situation and behaviour. It is difficult to predict how individuals will react in various situations but this is the determining aspect when it comes down to deciding how much risk they wish to face. Not least because risk gives them feedback on their own abilities, options and limitations. From observing children on school playgrounds over many years, I know that stringent safety standards do not curb their impulse to play. They are not in the least interested in what effect legislation has on the perception of risk. They use playgrounds as spaces in which they are free to express their imagination and do not concern themselves with what possible risks playground designers are worried by. Play is part of their lives, it is something they do every day - hands-on, unplanned and guided only by their own thirst to explore. However, the quality of the space in which this occurs will determine the extent of the learning experience, particularly in the school context. 

P@L: Herr Barz, at a previous 'Bewegungsplan' event you reported on a playground project in your city which met all safety standards and had been approved by inspectors but which parents and local residents claimed was 'unsafe'. As a consequence, the playground was actually 'toned down', although this was not necessary from the legislative point of view. How did you see all this? Were you sympathetic to the attitude of the parents and residents or did you think their concerns were exaggerated?

Hans-Peter Barz: First of all, I'd like to point out that the playground has not been 'toned down'. I commissioned the TÜV to prepare a second report that confirmed that the playground conformed to all relevant safety standards. I made this known within the authority and also communicated it to the public through the media. Since then, we have heard nothing more. The playground is now very popular and we have also noticed no signs of vandalism to date - which in the given problematic social environment is quite remarkable. I found it difficult to understand the attitude of the parents and residents and still do. They should really be grateful that we have managed to provide their children with such an attractive play, exercise and experience venue that will help them develop normally in the very centre of the city. I have the impression that today's generation of parents grew up in situations in which they were overprotected. It is then not surprising if these parents complain of supposed risks on a playground when they themselves were not given the opportunity to discover how to master a certain degree of risk and presumed hazardous situations, although this is something that is essential for children to learn through play.

P@L: What do you consider makes a 'good' playground?

Tilo Eichinger: There is no such thing as the ideal playground, but there are many examples that get near to it. However, I can't answer this question in sufficient detail in this context and would welcome another expert discussion on the subject. But in brief: a good playground should be sufficiently extensive, clean and well maintained, and combine equipment with landscaping and designs derived from the natural environment. The more play value and creative products the better. Water and sand provide ideal play media. There should be adequate shade provided by trees or artificial structures and a variety of play options that will appeal to children of all age groups - and meet the needs of adults too. It would also be expedient if some equipment were replaced by different equipment at regular intervals so that the playground does not run the risk of losing its novelty value. And to provide for children's own need for self-expression, it would be perfect if building materials were provided with which they could put together their own constructions, although this is something we can't really offer on public playgrounds. Assuming that toilets are also on hand nearby, we would be getting close to what I would consider to be a good playground.

P@L: And what constitutes a good school playground for you? To what extent are safety standards useful or an impediment in this connection?

Hermann Städtler: In view of the significant changes we are observing in the lifestyles of children and adolescents and the need to get them to take more exercise, the role that can be played by outdoor spaces is becoming increasingly important. Only when these are designed as challenging learning landscapes will they be sufficiently attractive to pupils. To a large extent, they are spaces in which the pupils themselves decide on what to do, thereby satisfying their own needs for exercise and experiencing the pleasure of physical activity. In general, the site as a whole should promote the development of the basic motor abilities. The factors play value, quality of the environment and required level of activity need to be taken into account in the design. These aspects determine whether the playground becomes a quality space where pupils will learn on their own and not remain passive during breaks but will interact with their fellows. A particular appeal is represented by the option of pupils being able on their own to decide to take on risks and hazards.

Prevention of undesirable behaviour and elimination of problematic situations are processes that are closely related. Hence, when planning a school playground, it is advisable to take this interaction into account. On the one hand, it is necessary to prevent critical situations generating serious risks, while on the other adequate free room for experimentation must be provided to enable children to develop their own ability to protect themselves. When it comes to legislation, we educators are not only interested in the safety aspects but also on how it can be applied to provide the solutions we seek. Safety standards should be there to make it possible for pupils to face risks and challenges. 

P@L: How do you see the current status of safety standards and the demands placed on playground inspectors? Do we now have a situation that actually works?

Franz Danner: Playground inspector training is still relatively perfunctory. They reflect on and learn the safety standards. However, what is important is the ability to assess risk. It is completely impossible to provide for 100% compliance with the requirements. Inspectors thus need to learn to be able to recognise and disregard what are non-critical deviations. An absolute insistence on the letter of the law can often be to the detriment of the play value of an item - the most vital element. 

P@L: How do you see the current status of safety standards and the demands placed on playground inspectors? Has it all become too petty and bureaucratic - and more constraining than helpful?

Tilo Eichinger: The level of safety on our playgrounds is excellent and no further improvements are required. And this is all down to the manufacturers. If a playground inspector prohibits the use of a particular piece of equipment because he considers he is doing what the manufacturer or TÜV should have done - this can often be the case - this inspector has misunderstood what he is supposed to be doing. This can be helpful, but in most cases it is simply unnecessary and an expression of officialdom. We need more pragmatism and not inspectors who use worry about risk as an excuse and claim to see dangers around every corner - this is just getting money out of people's pockets. However, in the end, it is the customer who decides who to commission as an inspector. 

P@L: Could it be that the continuing augmentation of safety standards is a result of our adoption of 'American ways' when it comes to how we understand the laws and how we use them? Meaning we have become a more litigious society and there seems to now be a greater risk of being sued. Has the pressure on playground operators, playground equipment manufacturers and playground inspectors become so great that the safety standards have evolved to keep pace with this? 

Franz Danner: There may well be a subjective impression that litigation is on the increase but my own routine experience of dealing with courts suggests rather the opposite. And most judges have a suitable amount of common sense and the decisions they come to are well considered. 

However, operators are increasingly worried about the responsibilities they are burdened with. Playground inspectors are to some extent also anxious about their accountability and hence tend to take a very strict view of how safety standards are to be interpreted. 

P@L: What are the effects of the increasing concentration of safety standards on the responsibilities of local authorities, such as the planning of new playgrounds, required diversity and maintenance and the motivation of stakeholders? Does this limit your freedom of action?

Hans-Peter Barz: I personally am quite happy with the standards and regulations. In particular, the current recently revised version of German standard DIN 18034, which regulates the planning of children's playgrounds and provides planners with a well thought out and useful checklist that will help them design and construct attractive, safe - and now also important - barrier-free playgrounds. So, I don't see any problem here.

P@L: Do you believe that the explosion of safety standards and regulations has really become necessary solely because of a lack of safety and high risk of accidents on playgrounds or could this be the result of a change in attitude among the population as a whole, to the effect that our society now places greater stress on the need for protection - I'm thinking in terms of aspects like 'helicopter parents' and that very German trait - 'angst'.

Hermann Städtler: In my opinion, the current level of safety is perfectly sufficient. If we look at the accident statistics for playgrounds, it is clear that only about 10% of the generally very low rate of occurrence of such incidents can be attributed to material defects while 90% are behaviour-related. I am regularly surprised by the reactions of many experts who, when accidents occur, demand even greater safety measures be implemented on playgrounds instead of considering behaviour as the factor that determines how risk is approached. It would be better to give young people more opportunities to learn how to deal with risks and hazards on their own. 

In order to enable children to develop the appropriate behaviour, the decision must be taken to allow them to discover themselves what can happen. Prof. Renate Zimmer puts it in a nutshell: "We only learn how to fall when we fall." Safety standards do not encourage this and there is no alternative way of instilling such experiences in children. It is clear that the current mindset in our society means that people as a whole, and particularly parents, have come to demand ever greater safeguards against possible risks. They have developed excessive insecurity with regard to how safe they think their children should be and this has led to greater restrictions on the freedom of movement of children. At the same time, although an overprotected environment will keep children safe, it denies them the right to become familiar with risk and hazard. In addition, there is a greater likelihood that they will suffer accidents as they will feel they are not being challenged enough and, at the same time, do not bother to develop the skills of self-preservation. They can unlearn how to protect themselves because of this lack of challenge. 

P@L: Is it in your experience the case that the creativity of the manufacturers of play equipment is being constrained by the existing playground safety standards with the consequence that products have less play value?

Tilo Eichinger: I'd just like to initially stress that I think it is very good that we have these safety standards and we are respected throughout the world because of them. However, there are certain aspects I am unhappy with. Texts of standards, complex as they are, need to be such that product developers and planners can understand them. The more complicated you make the provisions, the greater the tendency becomes to try to determine whether this or that is permitted rather than focussing on whether the idea itself is good nor not. This does place a check on imaginative thinking because you are always at the same time trying to work out what you are allowed to do. This hinders creativity. And I consider that our business sector needs good ideas and interesting products to survive. 

Moreover, a safety-first culture has developed, as a result of which significant restrictions have been placed on play values that relate to physical activity and risk. It is inevitable that growing children will have different levels of physical ability. It is primarily in this connection that the current debate on safety and risk is being conducted. As I see it, insufficient emphasis is being placed on the value and major importance of exposure to risk and the skills that can be acquired as a consequence and that are required by an individual throughout their lifetime. Of relevance here is the attitude of society - are people willing to accept a bruise or laceration as part of the lifelong learning process or do they see such things as justification for litigation? The fact is, the number of accidents that now occur on playgrounds is negligible. 

Another aspect is the higher costs associated with the implementation of more stringent safety requirements. If their budget is limited, customers end up buying more safety and less play value. I think we have now reached a point at which we have enough leeway to actually dismantle to some extent the safety requirements without increasing the risk of accidents. 

P@L: Do today's planners lack the know how to design playgrounds providing high play value and calculated risks while ensuring compliance with the relevant regulations? Or has it now become simply impossible because of the safety standards to create playgrounds with high play value that will allow children to develop the ability to deal with risk?

Hans-Peter Barz: Planners of children's playgrounds now need the expert support and advice of experienced colleagues and specialists in educational play. But here standard DIN 18034 in its current, updated form can be of considerable help. Unfortunately, it is all too often ignored. This is something that must change - and soon.

P@L: What effects does the requirement that playgrounds must now be barrier-free have on their capacity to enable children to deal with risk and their play value? 

Hermann Städtler: In essence, the aim is to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to take part in all aspects of life. The main prerequisite for this is to eliminate those barriers we have in our head. Inclusive design works in all directions and people in all groups can be become involved. The purpose is to enable all individuals to express themselves through play and exercise by eliminating the excluding effect of disability. 

When it comes to play and exercise environments, it is thus necessary to ensure that everyone has access to the play and exercise options available. This does not mean that playgrounds may not have surmountable 'barriers' and obstacles - on the contrary, these provide worthwhile challenges and promote interactive reciprocity. The presence of special equipment, such as a cage swing, stigmatises and inhibits shared play. 

Every child needs to be confronted by risk and hazard. The weighing up of the desire for safety against the prospect of overcoming a hazard and the delight engendered when the latter is achieved will accompany them through trial and error as they learn. 

This applies to each and every child - as long as we continue to pack playing children in cotton wool - whatever the effect on them this has - we will deny them the right to a self-determined encounter with risk and hazard. 

Conclusions of the round table discussion 

P@L: Herr Danner, what do you think can be done to prevent or at least check the trend towards overprotection? Is there any kind of solution? 

Franz Danner: We can only prevent overprotection by making those responsible aware of the problem. The findings of researchers and scientists in this regard must be more widely disseminated. And these insights also need to be incorporated in the training programs of playground inspectors. Moreover, we can defuse operators' fears that accountability is beyond their control by drawing their attention to the causes of accidents and the statistics. 

P@L: What will happen in future - will the regulations be relaxed or will more specific and stringent regulations be introduced? 

Franz Danner: Initial attempts to make the regulations less rigorous have been undertaken in the European standards committee. A resolution has been adopted to the effect that new safety rules should only be introduced once it has been demonstrated clearly that these are necessary. In addition, their serviceability will be subject to scrutiny. Unfortunately, this process will be protracted and complex. And whether this will result in the ISO standards for playground equipment currently at the draft stage being less rigid remains to be seen.

P@L: And, Herr Eichinger, do you think the safety standards will be less exacting in future? 

Tilo Eichinger: Andreas Strupp of the BSFH, who is currently the chair of the standards committee, is doing outstanding work. However, it might seem that everything we've been talking about so far is within our power to control. But that, sadly, is not the case. Committees are made up of individuals with their own viewpoints and interests. The chair frequently has to find a compromise solution. I can only appeal to the members of the committee to be more pragmatic and to place greater emphasis on simplification and to rein in the regulation frenzy of individual members who still consider a zero-risk scenario to be the most desirable outcome.  This is not only expensive in itself, but will also not benefit children over the long term. I am sure the BSFH will do all it can to remove unnecessary or overcomplex sections or to simplify these. I'm going to be optimistic and say that this will indeed come about. 

P@L: And what are your predictions for the future, Herr Städtler?

Hermann Städtler: I worry that what we are going to see is an increase in safety regulations as the mistaken response to the need for more protection expressed by the population at large. What we really need to do is consider the relationship between human behaviour and specific situations and to find ways of better controlling how these relate to each other. Safety standards should be there to make human interaction and pleasure in physical exercise possible rather than to impede these. 

P@L: Herr Barz, how do you see the future in this respect?

Hans-Peter Barz: I think standards and regulations need to reflect social developments. In the case of playgrounds, the objective is to ensure these provide the best possible play value together with manageable risk. Whether the safety standards need to be made more stringent depends on how they work during practical application and on the results of corresponding research. If new insights show that certain aspects need to be regulated, it will be necessary for the safety standards to be appropriately updated. The existing standards for playground equipment - including 18034 - I consider to be both effective and guidelines that are essential to our routine work.