Play is essential for children’s development and learning in various domains and a fundamental right of children. School playgrounds, as the major spaces that provide play opportunities, however often present invisible barriers to autistic and neurodivergent children. Moreover, different children can have different preferences, and their preferences may also vary from time to time, depending on their needs and motivations.The question is how a playground may be designed to afford these diverse requirements within and between children.

In this case study we focused on the neurodiversity of children, and examined autistic and allistic (i.e., non-autistic) children’s use of a primary school playground in the Netherlands, which was co-designed with all pupils in the school. Specifically, we aimed to understand the extent to which “neuro-affirming” playground affordances (i.e., opportunities offered by the playground for meeting neurodiverse needs; based on the Theory of Affordances, Gibson, 1979; Heft, 1988) are linked to autistic and allistic children’s use of the school playground. A sensor data-driven approach (using GPS loggers) was adopted, which measures children’s playground use in an objective, unobtrusive, and continuous manner throughout their school breaktimes, allowing us to reveal individual patterns (Nasri et al., 2023). 

A total of 53 children participated (mean age 8.56 years), including 4 autistic and 49 allistic children. During school breaktimes, they each wore a GPS logger, which tracked the time they stayed in each of the 18 playground areas. Furthermore, each playground area was rated based on the Neuro-Affirming Design Assessment Scale for Playgrounds (NADAS-P) developed for this study. It includes four dimensions of playground affordances, which we identified based on previous neuroinclusive literature (e.g., McAllister & Sloan, 2016; Yuill et al., 2007) and autism-friendly/universal design principles (e.g., Mace et al., 1996; Mostafa, 2014): (i) feelings of safety: the extent to which a playground area provides measures to avoid harm and assist accessibility, visibility, and predictability; (ii) sensory calming: the extent to which an area is comfortable overall, and helps regulate sensory overload; (iii) sensory stimulation variations: the extent to which various opportunities and levels for sensory stimulation are available; (iv) sense of autonomy: the extent to which an area allows children to participate, adjust, and contribute in their own/creative ways.

Results showed that while each autistic child had their unique favorite spot, both autistic and allistic children stayed longer in the areas that are more neuro-affirming. This preference was also observed when each neuro-affirming dimension was analyzed separately, with all the four neuro-affirming dimensions positively contributing to autistic and allistic children's playground use. Among them, autistic children seemed more attracted to areas that provided sensory stimulation variations and a sense of autonomy compared to allistic children.  

Through sensor data (GPS) loggers that reveal individual movement trajectories during school breaktimes, our findings showed that neuro-affirming playground design perceived as safe, calm, providing autonomy and varied sensory stimulation choices may benefit both autistic and allistic children. Compared to designs based on one-size-fits-all assumptions, neuro-affirming designs may more effectively afford the diverse needs between and within users. These findings could inform the design of more inclusive school playgrounds where all children feel welcomed.

Participants included 4 autistic children (2 girls) and their 49 allistic classmates (19 girls), between 6.76 and 10.81 years (M = 8.56, SD = 1.13). All autistic children had an official autism diagnosis, whereas none of the allistic children had a disability or psychiatric diagnosis. They were from four classes of a mainstream primary school in the Netherlands. The school has a renovated playground that was co-designed and built together with both allistic and autistic children, through a community-based collaboration. The renovated playground has a lot of green features and allows a diversity of activities, e.g., a rest zone, a sand-and-water zone, and an adventure zone. In this study, we defined 18 areas in this playground according to their functions and spatial relationships. Each participant was measured for two school days, each day for one breaktime. During the breaktime, they wore a belt with a Qstarz BL-1000ST GPS logger, which recorded children’s locations during breaktimes, at a sampling rate of once per second. Based on this data, we computed (i) each child’s stay time in each area, corrected by their total detected time on the playground; (ii) the total number of areas each child visited for at least 10% of their time on the playground. Lastly, two trained raters rated each playground area based on the Neuro-Affirming Design Assessment Scale for Playgrounds (NADAS-P) developed for this study. It contains four domains (feelings of safety, sensory calming, sensory stimulation variations, sense of autonomy) and 31 items, rated on a 3-point scale (0 = little, 2 = a lot). The consensus scores reached by the two raters were used for further analyses. Given only 4 autistic children, the analyses were primarily descriptive and exploratory. First, descriptive analyses were conducted to examine the distribution of playground use. Second, Mann-Whitney U Test and Friedman’s Test were used to explore possible differences between and within autistic and allistic children in their playground use. Lastly, linear regression analyses with clustered robust standard errors were conducted to examine the contribution of neuro-affirming affordances to children’s stay time in each area.

Using a sensor data-driven approach, this case study explored the extent to which autistic and allistic children’s use of their school playground may be linked to neuro-affirming playground affordances. Our results showed that neuro-affirming playground features that provide a sense of safety and autonomy, as well as sensory calming and varying choices, can be attractive to both autistic and allistic children. Moreover, a school playground that allows children to choose their preferred stimulation levels and to contribute in their creative ways may support autistic children to meet their diverse sensory and participation needs. Neuro-affirming playground designs that address these aspects may better afford the diverse needs of children, thus creating an environment where all children can comfortably participate and feel welcomed.

Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin. Heft, H. (1988). Affordances of children’s environments: a functional approach to environmental description. Children’s Environments Quarterly, 5(3), 29–37. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41514683 Mace, R. L., Hardie, G. J., & Place, J. P. (1996). Accessible environments: Toward universal design. North Carolina State University. McAllister, K., & Sloan, S. (2016). Designed by the pupils, for the pupils: an autism-friendly school. British Journal of Special Education, 43(4), 330–357. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12160 Mostafa, M. (2014). ARCHITECTURE FOR AUTISM: Autism ASPECTSSTM in School Design. International Journal of Architectural Research: ArchNet-IJAR, 8(1), 143. https://doi.org/10.26687/archnet-ijar.v8i1.314 Nasri, M., Baratchi, M., Tsou, Y., Giest, S., Koutamanis, A., & Rieffe, C. (2023). A novel metric to measure spatio-temporal proximity: a case study analyzing children’s social network in schoolyards. Applied Network Science, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41109-023-00571-6 Yuill, N., Strieth, S., Roake, C., Aspden, R., & Todd, B. (2006). Brief Report: Designing a Playground for Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorders––Effects on Playful Peer Interactions. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(6), 1192–1196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803006-0241-8