Imagine for just a moment the most beautiful playground in the world, but nobody can reach it! The accessibility standard described in DIN 18034 therefore requires playground planners to ensure a "(...) barrier-free and independent accessibility to playgrounds and open spaces for play close to home" for children and adolescents (2020-10, p. 8). "Proximity" to their homes is specified numerically according to the age of the children as follows:
For children up to the age of 6 (0 to 5.99 years) reachable within 200 m walking distance or within maximum 6 min. Note 1 of this DIN standard: "This requirement refers to a catchment radius of approximately 175 m."
For children between 6 and 11 years (6.0 to 11.99 years) reachable within 400 m walking distance or within 10 min. Note 2 of this DIN standard: "This requirement refers to a catchment radius of about 350 m."
For 12-year-old and older children and adolescents reachable within 1,000 m walking distance or within 15 min. Note 3 of this DIN standard: "This requirement refers to a catchment radius of about 750 m."
As relieving as these specifications may appear at first, they are just as problematic. The first problem concerns the term itself, as it is often mixed up with the general meaning of accessibility. Accessibility in this context, however, means crossing the respective space, overcoming distances, obstacles on the way or connectivity options (e.g., crossings) and orientation aids (e.g., guidance systems). In addition to these material barriers, non-material factors also determine each child’s accessibility, such as parents' commands and prohibitions ("Always stay on the sidewalk!"; "Cross the street at the traffic light!"). Accessibility, on the other hand, refers to the very act of entering a space, on the one hand in a material way (fences, gates, thresholds, landings, "toddler filters") and on the other hand of non-material nature (signs with their prohibitions and commandments as well as rules in general).
The second problem is the question of the actual time one needs to reach the playground: Is it considered to have arrived when one has reached the centre of the playground or already at the entrance? Taking the least mobile group of children aged 0 to 6 and thus the 200 m variant, using the centre of the playground as a reference point creates a substantial error in thinking and calculation. Because, as the research project on which this article is based shows, there are differences of 5 to 30 metres bee-line between the entrances and the central point of a playground, depending on the surface area. Depending on the direction from which one arrives, accessibility to the centre of the playground increases by 2.5 % (5 m) to 15 % (30 m). From a motor perspective, this may not be a problem, but even a gain, because then children walk longer distances and thus come closer to the WHO recommendations for physical activity promotion. However, 15 % is unacceptable for the calculation of the play area provision, because in a municipality of 15,000 inhabitants this statistically results in a lack of provision for several hundred people. If the calculation is based on the centre of the playground, in the case of the 15 % difference, visitors have already been on the playground for 30 metres. This means that the actual radius from home to the edge of the playground, where the playground already starts, is only 170 m long, which drastically reduces the catchment area. Therefore, the compass must not be drawn in the centre of the playground under any circumstances; instead, radii must be drawn individually (!) at each playground entrance/exit. This can lead to the fact that per playground, several catchment radii have to be cut, the total area of which has to be calculated if a reasonable representation of the actual situation is to be achieved.
The third problem is the equivalence of the path distance (space) with the path duration (time). Depending on e.g. the relief (gradient), the surface condition of the path, the number and type of barriers (traffic lights vs. zebra crossings) and other variables, common online route planners calculate either 2, 3 or even 4 minutes for adults for 200 metres. Isochores (spatial distance lines) are therefore not automatically the same as isochrons (time distance lines). Moreover, these values, which are mostly based on adult studies, are measured at normal walking speed. Child studies on this are very rare, measured at short distances and in a simulated accident scenario. Furthermore, there are often deviating motivational factors, such as walking to daycare, to a friend's house, across the street, on a hike with parents, to the dentist or to play in the playground. It is no surprise that the speed adapts to the attractiveness of the walking destination; sometimes faster, sometimes slower. The actual average walking speed of children to a playground is simply a knowledge gap that has not yet been closed, which is why the minute specifications in the standard DIN 18034 should be used with great caution.
The fourth problem is probably the most important. For, as planners and building practitioners will be aware, the 200 m is only valid as bee-line in the case of the 0- to 6-year-olds. In reality, however, paths are walked or driven with curves, zigzags and commonly meandering. This results in a much shorter radius than the 200 m would suggest. As situationally real "space lines" (from Greek: "choros" = space), these isochores remain 200 metres long, but they are shorter compared to the linear radius of the circle. Consequently, the standard corrects itself from 200 m to 175 m for U6-year-olds. But where does this correction value come from? The answer is simple: it is an experience-based estimate that has not yet been scientifically investigated. The underlying research project on professional-scientific play space analysis in municipalities has closed precisely this gap and found that even the estimated correction value is substantially wrong: With an actual range of 150 m to 165 m as bee-line, the figure-based correction (isochores instead of circle radii) is thus around 6-17 % below the norm, which in turn, when converted to the area shares of the residential population, can lead to considerable distortions of several hundred people in the catchment area or accessibility of playgrounds in a small town. Figure 2 illustrates the differences between the two techniques.
Conclusion and implications
This new, science-based approach not only maps reality more precisely; it also becomes more child-friendly because the previous artificial over-expansion is eliminated and it becomes clear that municipalities do by no means have to provide less play space if it is not possible to provide even more playing space. The resulting implications are the following:
The single stitch of the intake radius in the centre of the playground represents reality less exactly than the double or multiple stitch at the playground entrances/exits. In general, the more accurate the method, the greater the deviation from the standard. The number of stitches depends on the number of entrances. With the far more accurate two-stitch/multi-stitch method, each playground must therefore be measured and calculated individually at its respective entrances/entrances.
If one decides to use the multiple stitch, no straight radii and thus circles should be drawn, but rather realistic paths should be drawn, which as isochores form much more accurate surfaces in the form of polygons. These polygons are, on statistical average, between 30% and 50% smaller. This reduces the catchment area, which is why there are basically fewer playgrounds than are actually needed, at least for the 0- to 6-year-olds, if the 200 m or the 175 m value is taken as a basis. In principle, therefore, the question must also be answered in the next few years as to which distance value is at all meaningful in terms of physical activity and play pedagogy, irrespective of the improved method presented here. In the long term, the standard DIN 18034 must be corrected in this respect.
The individual calculation by hand is very time-consuming and therefore requires digital automation, i.e. software development, which is already available in the beta version and can be implemented in cooperation with the author as a precise and professionalised play space analysis.
The better the existing socio-demographic and infrastructure data in the municipal GIS (geographic information system), the more accurate the results. The data can also be supplemented on site by an additional accompanying study by the play space planner.
The more playgrounds calculated nationwide, the larger the sample and the more reliable the playground needs calculation for all municipalities. This requires a permanent, area-wide and regular playground monitor. In short, the more municipalities participate, the more reliable the overall planning.
Literature
The entire research project with a detailed methodology and introduction to the topic as well as scientific literature will be available in autumn 2023 at transcript publishers:
Schwarz, R. (2023). Spielraumplanung. Zur Entwicklung und Verbesserung von Spielplätzen im kommunalen Raum. Bielefeld: transcript.
The sports landscape in Germany, especially in metropolises and conurbations, has changed dynamically in recent decades. Already for a long time, there have been many different types and forms of ...
An interview held by the international trade magazine Playground@Landscape with University Professor and Graduate Engineer Christa Reicher from RWTH Aachen University / Faculty of Architecture / Chair of Urban Planning and Design.
"Sports clubs must become the hotspots of prevention", as the Hamburger Abendblatt newspaper quoted sociologist Prof. Dr Hans-Jürgen Schulke at the end of March 2020. In the essay, the former director of the Hamburg Sports Department explains what exactly he meant
National Recommendations on Physical Activity and the Promotion of Physical Activity for Germany (German abbreviation NEBB) were first developed and disseminated in 2016. They are considered ...
