Using the Theory of Affordances to Understand Environment–Play Transactions: Environmental Taxonomy of Outdoor Play Space Features—A Scoping Review

Original Scoping Review Procedure

The original scoping review (Morgenthaler, Schulze, et al., 2023) followed steps proposed by Arksey and O’Malley (2005), using the research question “What is known about how environmental qualities of public playgrounds contribute to the user experience of outdoor play among children with and without disabilities?” (see the protocol in Morgenthaler et al., 2021). The systematic search, developed with a consulting librarian, was conducted across seven databases (Academic Search Complete, Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science) using keywords and synonyms of playground, environmental qualities, and children with and without disabilities (see Table A.2 in the Supplemental Material). The initial systematic search was conducted in August 2021, with a follow-up search conducted in January 2023. A manual search was also performed of the Journal of Children and Youth Environments in February 2022. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) articles published in English or German; (2) peer-reviewed articles; (3) articles involving populations of children with and without disabilities ages 0 to 12 yr; (4) articles focused on investigating free outdoor play (e.g., not exercise, restoration, or learning); (5) articles about play in community outdoor play spaces (i.e., at schools or in public spaces); and (6) articles that described both social and physical environmental qualities of outdoor play. Abstract and full-text screening was performed in Covidence and involved two independent reviewers, with conflicts resolved by a third independent reviewer. The initial searches yielded 6,095 references, which was reduced to 2,905 references after removal of duplicates. After title and abstract scans, 104 studies remained. Upon full-text review, 49 studies met all inclusion criteria. Two more studies were found through the manual search, resulting in a final sample of 51 studies.

Secondary Analysis: Scoping Review Procedures

The secondary analysis followed the three steps proposed by Johnston (2014): (1) forming a research question, (2) identifying an appropriate data set, and (3) performing a comprehensive evaluation of the collected data. The research question guiding this secondary analysis was “What is known about the functional physical environmental qualities of spaces and objects in community play spaces and their relation to affordances for children’s outdoor play activities?” The main objective was to develop an environmental taxonomy of spaces and objects within community play spaces that connects characteristics of the physical environment to specific play occupations. For this secondary analysis, all 51 articles of the initial scoping review were reviewed for inclusion. To allow for an affordance-based analysis, included articles needed to describe physical environment–play activity transactions (how children actualized the affordances in the physical environment for play occupation). Forty-five studies met these inclusion criteria (Figure 1) and were charted using study design, study aim, participants, play space location, and publication year.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Adapted Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow of study selection process.

Forming the Environmental Taxonomy of Outdoor Play Space Features

First, data from the studies were transferred into Atlas.ti (Version 23 for Windows) for a structured qualitative content analysis (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). Coding was performed in two rounds by Thomas Morgenthaler following Heft’s (1988) approach to identifying child–environment transactions, in this case where a child’s play activity was mentioned in combination with some aspect of the physical environment. These play–environment transactions were coded as applicable by play activity (what children play), the location or functional qualities of the space where play occurred (where children play), and the objects and materials or functional qualities of objects and materials used during play (with what children play). Where possible, extracts contained a combination of what, where, and with what codes. Extracts ranged from broad descriptions, such as “a tree stump,” to detailed descriptions of functional qualities, such as “tree stump with soft-textured bark that children perceived as compelling to touch.” Initial codes were developed using words manifested in the text and applied to a subset of studies (see Table A.3 in the Supplemental Material for examples). Subsequently, a refined code set was extended to the entire data set, involving the translation of codes from one study to another and adjusting the code names (either broadening or narrowing codes) to ensure consistency; otherwise, new codes were created (Thomas & Harden, 2008).

Second, broader categories of play activity codes, space codes, and object–material codes were formed by grouping together codes that conveyed similar meanings. For instance, codes related to various topographical features, such as hilly terrain, depressions, and sloped terrain, were clustered together to create a single where topographical features category.

Third, children’s play activities (what codes) were categorized using the existing typology of outdoor play types (the Tool for Observing Play Outdoors [TOPO]–Collapsed Version) from Loebach and Cox (2020). The TOPO was originally developed to effectively capture and categorize children’s outdoor play in an environment during observation. The collapsed version of the TOPO consists of nine different types of outdoor play: physical play, explorative play, play with rules, imaginative play, restorative play, bio play, expressive play, digital play, and nonplay (Loebach & Cox, 2020; see Table A.4 for descriptions). All play activities identified were subsequently organized according to these types of outdoor play.

Step 4 aimed to identify and describe the space and object–material categories. This was done by reading the clustered codes and associated data for each space (where codes) and object–material (with what codes) category separately. In this step, attention was given to the following interconnected aspects: (1) spaces and objects–materials examined to determine potential category names, (2) functional qualities described, and (3) linked play activities (what codes). A distinct category for the taxonomy was achieved when enough data were found to link all three aspects. For example, the taxonomy category open space is supported by 24 articles referring to open yard, open areas, open space, fields or lawns, or open ground and describing functional qualities of open spaces as open, flat, more or less smooth and different surfaces such as grass, pavement, synthetic, or loose materials. Examples of linked play affordances include running, skating, picnicking, and playing soccer. This synthesis resulted in the Environmental Taxonomy of Outdoor Play Space Features presented in Table 1 (and the extended version presented in Table A.6). To further demonstrate the nature of the physical environment in shaping children’s outdoor play occupation, examples of play affordances were summarized. In detail, for each TOPO play type, one play activity was chosen on the basis of the substantial evidence extracted for it. Substantial evidence refers to the amount of diverse information drawn from the included research articles for a specific play affordance (e.g., “running” is noted in 36 extracts from 18 articles). Descriptions illustrate specific functional qualities and environmental categories supporting this play occupation.

The main analysis, which underscored the formation of the environmental taxonomy, was performed by Morgenthaler. Codes and analyses were then reviewed by Janet Loebach, including independent coding of a subset of studies (12%) to identify common gaps or discrepancies and a review of all initial codes assigned by Morgenthaler. Afterward, both met several times to discuss discrepancies in coding, categorization, terminology, and finalization of taxonomy categories. Morgenthaler then made necessary changes to the original data codes and categories. Finally, the other authors were asked to verify the accuracy and clarity of the final taxonomy.

Environmental Taxonomy of Outdoor Play Space Features

Fourteen environmental categories were formed, each with distinct environmental functional qualities and associated play occupations afforded by that environment. A compact version of the taxonomy is presented in Table 1. (An extended version of the taxonomy, including supporting references, is presented in Table A.6.)

Examples of Play Occupations Afforded by the Physical Environment

An array of 284 distinct play occupations afforded by the environment were identified (see Table A.6) that were associated with space and object categories in the taxonomy. Play occupations take on many different forms depending on the functional environmental qualities of the spaces and objects. These functional qualities of the physical environment significantly shape children’s outdoor play occupations, as illustrated by the following two examples, selected because of their prominence in outdoor play: “running as play” and “chatting and talking with peers as play.”

“Running as play” is part of the TOPO outdoor play type Physical Play (Loebach & Cox, 2020) and was primarily evident in four of 14 environmental categories. Running play took on various forms, including running up and down topographic features (Fahy et al., 2021; Jansson et al., 2016; Lerstrup & van den Bosch, 2017; Loebach & Cox, 2022; Refshauge et al., 2015; Veitch et al., 2020), running with play equipment (e.g., running up slides or running across bridges; Fahy et al., 2021; Refshauge et al., 2015), and running in loops in open spaces or along paths and walkways, often following a specific route (Aminpour, 2021; Fahy et al., 2021). Additionally, running frequently involved other play, such as running while engaged in a game such as tag (Fahy et al., 2021) or jumping off swings and running down slopes (Refshauge et al., 2015), or it was interwoven with other play activities, such as running, climbing, and jumping over features (Caro et al., 2016; Pitsikali & Parnell, 2019). Running also often involved following peers’ lead, running in groups, being fast, and competing with peers in races (Aminpour, 2021; Caro et al., 2016; Fahy et al., 2021), highlighting the social environmental dimensions of play. Altogether, play occupations for running were often perceived by children on the basis of a combination of several environmental functional qualities, such as a relatively firm surface that could be flat or have various degrees of inclination (Aminpour, 2021; Fahy et al., 2021; Goodenough et al., 2021; Lerstrup & van den Bosch, 2017; Refshauge et al., 2015), along with enough room to run afforded by spaces between or around natural features or built structures (Aminpour et al., 2020; Cetken-Aktas & Sevimli-Celik, 2023; Fahy et al., 2021; Jansson, 2010; Refshauge et al., 2015; Veitch et al., 2020) and a running route with no ground surface obstacles, such as roots that cause tripping or low-hanging branches that might hit children’s faces (Aminpour, 2021; Caro et al., 2016).

“Chatting and talking with peers as play” is part of the TOPO’s Expressive Play type (Loebach & Cox, 2020) and took on diverse forms, such as chatting with peers, joking and giggling, telling secrets, venting, making plans about what to do, getting in contact with other children, or simply talking (Aminpour, 2021; Birkner et al., 2021; Burke, 2012; Caro et al., 2016; Hayward et al., 1974; Horton & Kraftl, 2018; Jansson, 2008; Jansson et al., 2016; Jeanes & Magee, 2012; Lerstrup & van den Bosch, 2017; Loebach & Cox, 2022; Prellwitz & Skär, 2007; Ripat & Becker, 2012; Stettler et al., 2022). Studies have reported that conversational play happens everywhere in the play space (Horton & Kraftl, 2018; Loebach & Cox, 2022); however, analyses of studies in this scoping review suggest that chatting and talking were most supported by five environmental categories: play equipment, features not purpose-built for play (such as seating), enclosed and bounded spaces, spaces on the edge, and fixed natural features. Environmental functional qualities that support chatting and talking with peers included areas to sit down and mingle, such as features that afforded sitting on benches, logs, rocks, walls, and so forth, as well as play equipment such as larger swings or merry-go-rounds that offered space for several children (Caro et al., 2016; Horton & Kraftl, 2018; Jansson, 2008; Jansson et al., 2016; Loebach & Cox, 2022; Prellwitz & Skär, 2007; Veitch et al., 2020). Furthermore, these functional qualities offered privacy via some form of controlled view or outlook that afforded a way to control social interaction in moments when someone approached the space (e.g., corners and edges of the playground, inside of a hut, on top of a climbing structure, in a tree house, or in a climbing tree hidden by branches; Bourke & Sargisson, 2014; Hayward et al., 1974; Jansson et al., 2016; Nunma & Kanki, 2022; Prellwitz & Skär, 2007; Veitch et al., 2020). Talking and chatting as play was most often undertaken with peers whom children identified as friends, with no adults present (Aminpour, 2021; Birkner et al., 2021; Jansson et al., 2016; Prellwitz & Skär, 2007). Talking and chatting as play often appeared to be intertwined with other activities such as sitting and resting, eating, swinging, spinning, walking somewhere, perching on elevated structures, enjoying nature, or relaxing in the shade or sun (Aminpour, 2021; Burke, 2012; Cetken-Aktas & Sevimli-Celik, 2023; Jeanes & Magee, 2012; Lerstrup & van den Bosch, 2017; Loebach & Cox, 2022; Prellwitz & Skär, 2007; Ripat & Becker, 2012; Truong & Mahon, 2012).

Similar to “running as play” and “chatting and talking with peers as play,” the forms and supporting functional qualities of other play occupations are described in Table A.7.