From 2008 to 2012, the NaƟ onal Center on Accessibility at Indiana University-Bloomington, conducted a longitudinal study on the accessibility of playground surfaces. The study was funded by the U.S. Access Board. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a variety of playground surfaces, their ability to meet accessibility requirements, their costs upon iniƟ al installaƟ on and maintenance issues over a 3-5 year period. The research design for this study of playground surfaces began in 2005 with input from a naƟ onal advisory commiƩ ee. During the study, quanƟ taƟ ve and qualitaƟ ve data was collected through on-site inspecƟ ons for a 3-5 year period. A naƟ onal advisory commiƩ ee provided feedback on the categories of surfaces to be evaluated, the criteria to be used for evaluaƟ on, the locaƟ ons within each playground to be evaluated, data collecƟ on worksheets and on-site protocol. In addiƟ on, advisory commiƩ ee members helped to expand the network for recruitment in the study and increase naƟ onal awareness among playground owners. The sample populaƟ on for this study depended upon an established, or to be established, congenial relaƟ onship with the playground owner and the research team. The data for analysis required the research team to make a number of inquiries to the operaƟ on, planning, budgeƟ ng and maintenance procedures conducted by the playground owner. Most importantly, if there were any instances where locaƟ ons on the playground were found to be in non-compliance with the accessibility or safety guidelines, the playground owner was to be informed and then carried the burden of bringing those instances into compliance. Approximately 35 playground sites were recruited for parƟ cipaƟ on during the evaluaƟ on period from October 2008 through May 2011. Data collecƟ on concluded in September 2012 so that all playground sites in the study would have a minimum of two years of data. All of the playground sites were located in public parks owned/operated by 16 diff erent municipaliƟ es from Indiana, Illinois and Michigan. Sites included either neighborhood playgrounds or those located in regional parks. The 16 parƟ cipaƟ ng municipaliƟ es operated anywhere from 4 to 53 playgrounds each. None of the playground owners were “fi rst Ɵ me” owners. All of the owners had a history of managing playgrounds. They considered themselves somewhat knowledgeable of playground surface issues and eager to learn how they could improve upon their playground surface maintenance eff orts for costs savings. The playground surface products considered for this study had to iniƟ ally meet the requirements of the accessibility standards for: accessible routes; ground surfaces; the ASTM F1292-99/04 Standard Specifi caƟ on for Impact AƩ enuaƟ on of Surface Systems 3 Review the Research Findings to Learn More About Accessibility Issues for Surfaces Under and Around Playground Equipment as determined by the surface manufacturer in laboratory tesƟ ng; and the ASTM F195199 Standard Specifi caƟ on for DeterminaƟ on of Accessibility of Surface Systems Under and Around Playground Equipment as determined by the surface manufacturer in laboratory tesƟ ng. InformaƟ on on the surface vendor, specifi caƟ ons, costs and labor for installaƟ on was then collected. In turn, the research team contacted each vendor to collect addiƟ onal informaƟ on on laboratory cerƟ fi caƟ on with ASTM F1951-99 for each surface. Five categories of surfaces were studied: poured in place rubber (PIP), rubber Ɵ les (TIL), engineered wood fi ber (EWF), shredded rubber (SHR) and hybrid (HYB) systems. Nine criƟ cal areas were inspected within 12 months of installaƟ on and conƟ nued to be evaluated at least once a year for the longitudinal study: 1) Entry to playground where playground surface starts; 2) Accessible route connecƟ ng accessible play elements; 3) Egress point of slide(s); 4) Swings; 5) Entry point(s) to composite structure(s)/transfer staƟ ons; 6) Climber(s); 7) Ground level play element(s) such as spring rockers, play tables, interacƟ ve panels, etc; 8) Sliding poles; and 9) Other areas (i.e. water play elements, etc). A preliminary accessibility assessment of the playground surface was conducted and the surface tested for fi rmness and stability with the RotaƟ onal Penetrometer. At the discreƟ on of the playground owner, the playground surface was also tested for impact aƩ enuaƟ on with the TRIAX (surface impact tesƟ ng device). The playground owner was noƟ fi ed immediately of test results for both the RotaƟ onal Penetrometer (fi rmness/stability) and the TRIAX (impact aƩ enuaƟ on) and given opportunity to correct surfaces where defi ciencies or non-compliance with standards were noted. 6
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTkzMzk=