7 NCA Play Surface Study Findings The most valuable lesson to be learned from this longitudinal study is that there is no perfect playground surface. Even within 12 months of installaƟ on, each type of surface had some type of issue or series of issues that aff ected the product’s performance and contributed to the necessity and frequency of surface maintenance to assure accessibility and safety for use by children on a daily basis. A playground surface with poured-inplace rubber had a use zone found in non-compliance with the ASTM standard for impact aƩ enuaƟ on. Playgrounds surfaced with Ɵ les were observed with puncture holes, buckling and separaƟ ng seams that created openings and changes in level on the accessible route. Inaccessible routes with undulaƟ ng surface material were idenƟ fi ed at playgrounds with engineered wood fi ber. Each occurrence and event was weighed and balanced with the product’s feature advantages and drawbacks. The informaƟ on can serve as guidance to both future playground planning and prioriƟ es for designing new research. The following are the predominant fi ndings from this study: 1. No single type of surface material/system was found to be the most accessible surface or beƩ er than others when comparing its ability to meet the accessibility standards with issues related to installaƟ on and maintenance. 2. Within 12 months of installaƟ on, playground sites in the sample with the loose fi ll EWF were found to have the greatest number of defi ciencies, such as excessive running slope, cross slope, and change in level, aff ecƟ ng the accessible route to play components. 3. Within 12 months of installaƟ on, playground sites in the sample with loose fi ll EWF were found to have the highest values for fi rmness and stability, indicaƟ ng greater work force needed to move across the surface, while playground sites with the unitary surfaces TIL and PIP were found to have the lowest values for fi rmness and stability– indicaƟ ng less work force necessary to move across the surface. 4. Defi ciencies (excessive running slope, cross slope, change in level, or openings) for PIP, TIL and HYB began to emerge 2436 months aŌ er installaƟ on. 5. Occurrences were idenƟ fi ed in the sample where the surface material installaƟ on did not parallel either the manufacturer’s installaƟ on instrucƟ ons or the procedural instrucƟ ons on the laboratory test sample for ASTM F195199. 6. A playground surface with fewer accessibility defi ciencies and a lower measurement for fi rmness and stability did not necessarily meet the safety standards for impact aƩ enuaƟ on. 7. Surface cost for material cannot serve as an indicator or predictor of performance. The full report A Longitudinal Study of Playground Surfaces to Evaluate Accessibility: Final Report is available on the NaƟ onal Center on Accessibility web site: ncaonline.org
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTkzMzk=