Popping the Bubblewrap

Chief Investigators
Prof Anita Bundy, The University of Sydney
A/Prof Geraldine Naughton, The Australian Catholic University
Dr Paul Tranter, The University of New South Wales
Dr Shirley Wyver, Macquarie University

Project Personnel
Dr Tim Luckett (Senior Research Assistant)
Emma Singleton (Research Assistant)

Project’s Aim
Few interventions for decreasing sedentary behaviour employ, or even remotely resemble, play. Most, therefore, lack intrinsic appeal to children and, thus, are not sustainable. The simple, cost-effective, intervention described in this project has the potential to serve as prevention and early stage intervention for two of the biggest social ills facing young children in Australia: obesity and mental ill health. Further, it has the potential to revolutionise school playgrounds and the policies governing play throughout Australia.

The primary purpose of this pilot project is to estimate effect sizes of an innovative intervention in order to determine sample size needed for a large-scale externally funded trial. The project is aimed at establishing the effectiveness of a simple, cost-effective intervention (i.e., altering the playground environment) for increasing children’s activity levels and playfulness. Playfulness, in turn, has been shown to relate strongly to coping abilities - a good indicator of mental health (1, 2).

Background
A disturbing proportion of young Australians suffer from complex problems that may interfere with their long-term health and well-being (cf., 3-5). One quarter are overweight and 15% have mental-health-related complaints (e.g., aggression, depression) (6). Some children have more than one problem. Burdette and Whitaker (2005) suggest that these problems may have a common cause: a decrease in outdoor free play (7). Outdoor play “pulls for” physical activity while indoor play tends to be sedentary. Further, physical activity promotes positive mood and emotional well-being by relieving stress and promoting adaptability. Given the benefits of physical activity, it is easy to believe that, when children do not play outdoors, they are at risk for a ‘vicious circle’ of weight gain and mental ill health. In support of this argument, between 1981 and 1997 in the U.S., children’s free play time dropped by 25% (8), while social ills, including obesity and mental ill health, increased dramatically (9). No comparable data exist for Australia regarding free play but the same trend seems apparent.

If outdoor play suits young children so well, why is the prevalence declining? One important contributor appears to be parents’ concerns about their children’s safety. Parents fear serious injury from accidents (10) and assault or abduction by strangers (11). But, while some of these are real risks, most are exaggerated. For example, only around 300 children in the entire U.S. are abducted by strangers each year 11. And, while children are injured on playgrounds, and some of them seriously, most injuries are minor cuts and bruises.

What parents seem not to consider is that restricting outdoor activities may place children in greater jeopardy than any of the risks they intend to avoid. In other words, considerable danger is associated with taking “no risks”. Although no research has directly examined the relationship between parental risk avoidance and children’s health outcomes, a recent Australian study revealed that 10-12 year old children whose parents were concerned about road safety in their local area were four times more likely than other children to be obese (12).

Children respond to parents’ fears. Boys are encouraged to take – and do take - more risks than girls (13). The attitudes of caregivers help to determine the activities that children choose (14).

Most young children love playing outdoors (15). But much outdoor play occurs on school playgrounds where purpose-built equipment (e.g., climber) invites only one type of play. In contrast, natural play spaces (e.g., gardens) and playgrounds with unstructured construction materials (i.e., ‘scrounge materials’) stimulate diverse and creative play (16, 17). Fantasy and socialisation are prominent (18, 19), and the social hierarchy is based on the ability to imagine what the space might become (20) rather than on physical prowess.

1. Hess L, Bundy, A. C. The association between playfulness and coping in adolescents. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics. 2003;23:5-17.
2. Saunders I, Sayer M, Goodale A. The relationship between playfulness and coping in preschool children: a pilot study. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 1999;53(2):221-226.
3. Booth ML, Chey T, Wake M, et al. Change in the prevalence of overweight and obesity among young Australians, 1969-1997. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2003;77(1):29-36.
4. Katz L, McClellan D. Fostering social competence: The teacher's role. Washington DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children; 1997.
5. Perry P. Sick kids. American Way. 2001;4:64-65.
6. Sawyer M, Arney F, Baghurst P, et al. Mental Health of Young People in Australia: Child and Adolescent Component of the National Survey of Mental Health and Well-being, Mental Health and Special Programs Branch, Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care. Canberra; 2000.
7. Burdette H, Whitaker R. Resurrecting free play in young children. Arch. Pdeiatr. Adolesc. Med. 2005;159(Jan 2005):46-50.
8. Hofferth S, Sandberg J. Changes in American children's use of time, 1981 - 1997. In: Owens T, Hofferth S, eds. Where are we going? Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers; 2001:193-119.
9. ChildStats.gov. America's Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being 2005. Available at: http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/index.asp.
10. Heck A, Collins J, Peterson L. Decreasing children's risk taking on the playground. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2001;Vol 34(3, Fall 2001):349-352.
11. Donovan P. Crime legends in a new medium: Fact, fiction and loss of authority. Theoretical Criminology. 2002;6(2):189-215.
12. Timperio A, Salmon J, Telford A, Crawford D. Perceptions of local neighbourhood environments and their relationship to childhood overweight and obesity. International Journal of Obesity. Feb 2005;29(2):170-175.
13. Morrongiello BA, Dawber T. Parental influences on toddlers' injury-risk behaviors: Are sons and daughters socialized differently? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. Jun 1999;20(2):227-251.
14. Tranter P, Malone K. Geographies of environmental learning: an exploration of children's use of school grounds. Children's Geographies. 2004;2(1 February 2004):131-155.
15. Johnson J, Christie J, Yawkey T. Play and early childhood development. Vol Play and early childhood development.: Longman; 1999.
16. Fjortoft I, Sageie J. The natural environment as a playground for children: Landscape description and analyses of a natural landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2000;48(1-2):83-97.
17. Pellegrini A, Galda L. Ten years after: A reexamination of symbolic play and literacy research. Reading Research Quarterly. 1993;28:162-177.
18. Barbour A. The impact of playground design on the play behaviors of children with differing levels of physical competence. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 1999;14(1):75-98.
19. Moore R, Wong H. Natural learning: The life history of an environmental schoolyard. Berkeley, CA: MIG Communications; 1997.
20. Herrington S, Studtmann K. Landscape interventions: New directions for the design of children's outdoor play environments. Landscape and Urban Planning. 1998;48(2-4):191-205.