An assessment of schoolyard renovation strategies to encourage children’s physical activity

This study evaluates the impacts of LL construction and recency of renovation on schoolyard utilization and the physical activity rates of children, both during and outside of school, using an observational study design.

RESEARCH Open Access
An assessment of schoolyard renovation
strategies to encourage children’s physical
activity
Peter Anthamatten1*
, Lois Brink2
, Sarah Lampe3
, Emily Greenwood2
, Beverly Kingston4 and Claudio Nigg5
Abstract
Background:Children in poor and minority neighborhoods often lack adequate environmentalsupport for healthy
physicaldevelopment and community interventions designed to improve physicalactivity resources serve as an
important approach to addressing obesity.In Denver,the Learning Landscapes (LL)program has constructed over
98 culturally-tailored schoolyard play spaces at elementary schools with the goalto encourage utilization of play
spaces and physicalactivity.In spite of enthusiasm about such projects to improve urban environments,little work
has evaluated their impact or success in achieving their stated objectives.This study evaluates the impacts of LL
construction and recency of renovation on schoolyard utilization and the physicalactivity rates of children,both
during and outside of school,using an observationalstudy design.
Methods:This study employs a quantitative method for evaluating levels of physicalactivity of individuals and
associated environmentalcharacteristics in play and leisure environments.Schools were selected on the basis of
their participation in the LL program,the recency of schoolyard renovation,the size of the school,and the social
and demographic characteristics of the schoolpopulation.Activity in the schoolyards was measured using the
System for Observing Play and Leisure Activity (SOPLAY),a validated quantitative method for evaluating levels of
physicalactivity of individuals in play and leisure environments.Trained observers collected measurements before
school,during schoolrecess,after school,and on weekends.Overallutilization (the totalnumber of children
observed on the grounds) and the rate of activity (the percentage of children observed who were physicall
active)were analyzed.Observations were compared using t-tests and the data were stratified by gender for fur
analysis.In order to assess the impacts of LL renovation,recently-constructed LL schoolyards were compared to LL
schoolyards with older construction,as wellas un-renovated schoolyards.
Results:Overallutilization was significantly higher at LL schools than at un-renovated schools for most observ
periods.Notably,LL renovation had no impact on girl’s utilization on the weekends,although differences were
observed for allother periods.There were no differences in rates of activity for any comparison.With the exception
of the number of boys observed,there was no statistically significant difference in activity when recently-
constructed LL schools are compared to LL schools with older construction dates and there was no differen
observed in comparisons of older LL with unrenovated sites.
Conclusions:While we observed greater utilization and physicalactivity in schools with LL,the impact of specific
features of LL renovation is not clear.However,schoolyard renovation and programs to encourage schoolyard use
before and after schoolmay offer a means to encourage greater physicalactivity among children,and girls in
particular.Additionalstudy of schoolyard renovation may shed light on the specific reasons for these findings o
suggest effective policies to improve the physicalactivity resources of poor and minority neighborhoods.
* Correspondence:[e-mail]
1Department of Geography and EnvironmentalSciences,University of
Colorado Denver,Denver,CO,USA
Fulllist of author information is available at the end ofthe article
Anthamatten et al.InternationalJournalof BehavioralNutrition and PhysicalActivity 2011,8:27
http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/8/1/27
© 2011 Anthamatten et al;licensee BioMed CentralLtd.This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms ofthe Creative
Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0),which permits unrestricted use,distribution,and
reproduction in any medium,provided the originalwork is properly cited.

Background
Obesity has become an increasingly troublesome health
problem in both wealthy and poor regions around the
world [1];the World Health Organization reports that
there are now over one billion overweightadults,at
least 300 million ofwhom are obese [2].Obesity pre-
sents a particularly alarming health concern in the Uni-
ted States, where recent estimates are that
approximately one third of children in the United States
are considered overweight or obese [3].
Policy designed to change obesogenic environments
aims to implementchange thatboth reduce energy
intake (by encouraging a healthy diet)and provide
opportunities for increased energy output (by encoura-
ging physicalactivity) [4].Although behavioralchange is
a criticalcomponent to addressing obesity,interventions
designed to modify individualbehavior to reduce caloric
intake have had limited success in preventing obesity on
a long-term basis [3].Although there is disagreement
about which side ofthe energy equation is the most
effective in terms ofpolicy, extensive research has
demonstrated that the built environment plays a key
role in obesity-related behavior (e.g.,[5-8]).
While there may be only a weak to moderate link
between physicalactivity and obesity rates,there are
numerous additionalhealth benefits associated with
increased physicalactivity.A recent literature review
reports thatphysicalactivity is linked with reduced
blood pressure,lower levels ofcholesteroland blood
lipids, reduced incidenceof metabolic syndrome,
increased bone mineraldensity,as wellas reduced rates
of depression [9]. Understanding the relationship
between the built environment and physicalactivity and
the specific implications of particular modifications to
the built environment may contribute to strategies to
reduce obesity prevalence [10] in addition to these other
health benefits.
Along with transportation patterns and land-use pat-
terns,design features are one of the key areas of inquiry
in studies of the built environment and physicalactivity
[11-13].A number of specific design features pertaining
to children’s environments have been investigated in
previous research.Time spent outdoors, accessto
recreationalfacilities and schoolyards [8,14] and proxi-
mity and number of play spaces and facilities to home
[15] are associated with higher levels of physicalactivity
in children and adolescents.Adding an additionalrecess
period each day is associated with greater physical activ-
ity [16],while limited outdoor play time has been found
to correlate with a high body mass index in young chil-
dren [17].If it is designed well,the outdoor built envir-
onment can create opportunities for healthy behavior
change among children.
Compared to white children,children from African-
American and Hispanic ethnicities are particularly likely
to suffer from obesity,experience abnormally high glu-
cose levels,and suffer from a higher prevalence of dia-
betes [18-20].These observations could be attributed in
part to the socialand built environments of many min-
ority children living in impoverished urban neighbor-
hoods,which often failto support healthy development
and provide limited opportunities for healthy behavior,
especially with respect to physicalactivity.Poor and
minority children often have limited access to outdoor
play spaces and structured opportunities for involve-
ment in organized sports and other activities [19] and
are more likely to have lower fitness levels.The reasons
behind these disparities are nuanced and complex,but it
might be possible to develop planning and design poli-
cies to address geographic inequality.Some research has
shown that parents in low-income neighbourhoods have
increasingly restricted their children’s activity out of
concerns for safety [21],and that design policies can
have an impact on this concern [22].Interventions to
improve the safety ofschoolyards have been shown to
improve schoolyard utilization [23].Indeed,commu-
nities that are designed to support physicalactivity have
been found to have 100% higher rates of sufficient phy-
sicalactivity than those with no supportive attributes
[8].Facets of the built environment,such as the density
of residences [24],general walkability [25],and the avail-
ability of recreational spaces and facilities [26,27] may be
also linked to physicalactivity,although research often
yields mixed results [21].
With the average child spending 1300 hours at school
each year,schools are a valuable physical environment
and social resource in efforts to promote physical activity.
School wellness policies,community building initiatives,
and walk-to-school programs [21] are a few examples of
school-based strategies designed to encourage physical
activity.In spite of a flourishing body of social-scientific
and public health literature examining the relationship
between physical activity and urban environments,there
remains little work that specifically examines the impacts
of recreational space renovation at schools.There is evi-
dence that renovated schoolyards are more widely used
by adults and children (especially boys) than un-reno-
vated schoolyards [28].Small,inexpensive interventions
that have changed the structure of the physical environ-
ment,especially within the schoolenvironment,have
shown significant positive correlations with physical
activity levels.These interventions include painting the
schoolyards [29],providing game equipment [30],and
even increasing the number of balls available to youth
[31]. Higher physical activity levels have been observed in
schoolyards that have multicolored painting compared to
Anthamatten et al.InternationalJournalof BehavioralNutrition and PhysicalActivity 2011,8:27
http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/8/1/27
Page 2 of 9

those without [32].The incorporation of culturally-tai-
lored schoolyard elements may also encourage physical
activity and ultimately contribute to the reduction of obe-
sity [33],which is especially important in communities
with large ethnic minority populations.In a study that
used the same observation method as the current one,
Sallis et al. conclude that making improvements to school
environments could increase the physical activity of stu-
dents throughout the schoolday [34].After observing
physical activity across twenty-four middle schools in San
Diego,they determined that physical amenities,such as
area type,area size,and permanent improvements (such
as basketball courts and football goals) were associated
with increased physicalactivity among both boys and
girls.The authors conclude that “if we build it,they will
come” [34];that schooldesign and renovation efforts
may improve physical activity among children.
Learning Landscapes
A Learning Landscape (LL) is a noveltype of schoolyard
that offers a diversity of elements lacking in traditional
schoolyards.Such elements include schoolyard gateways,
shade structures,banners,gardens,public art,student
art,and art tile projects.LLs are designed and built by a
non-profit partnership between the University of Color-
ado Denver’s College of Architecture and Planning and
a local,urban schooldistrict.Since its inception,LLs
has attracted the involvementof 8,000 community
volunteers,18,000 students,250,000 community mem-
bers,250 Americorps volunteers,and 20 volunteer orga-
nizations.The initiative has raised 47 million dollars for
the completion of 82 new LL schoolyard sites.
After six years of collaboration between parents,ele-
mentary schoolstudents,staff,faculty,neighbors,local
businesses and landscape architecture graduate students,
the first schoolyard was completed in 1998.Although
the project merely constructed redesigned schoolyards
initially,it has since evolved into a city-wide initiative
that redefines traditionalschool grounds and opens
them up for community use outside of schoolhours.LL
projects fulfilled a fundamentalgoalof landscape archi-
tecture:“to engage in scholarly activities that strike a
balance between traditionalacademic and professional
endeavors,while at the same time stretching the bound-
aries of landscape architecture design” [35].
The LL Initiative has transformed 82 neglected Denver
elementary schoolschoolyards into attractive and safe
multi-use schoolyards that are tailored to the needs and
desires of the localcommunity.This program has been
sponsored by a broad-based,public-private partnership
and is directed by expert faculty and masters-levelstu-
dents from the Department of Landscape Architecture
at the University of Colorado at Denver.In 2000,Brink’s
UC Denver Program partnered with a localschool
district and private foundations to raise funds to con-
struct 22 inner-city schoolyards.Since that time,local
bonds have been passed to secure funding for additional
LLs for a total of 98 by the end of 2012.
Successof LLs has traditionally been evaluated
through a collaborative effort between LLs,the school
district,students,community leaders,and city officials,
using pre- and post-construction surveys and focus
groups.The extent of this program produces a valuable
opportunity to assess the impacts of schoolyard renova-
tion on children’s physicalactivity patterns.The goalof
this study is to investigate the effect of these schoolyard
renovations in low-income urban areas on physical
activity among children by comparing utilization of LL
schoolyards with matched controlschoolyards.Specifi-
cally,we wish to consider 1) whether LL schoolyards are
utilized more than non-LL schoolyards and 2) whether
children utilizing LL schoolyards are more likely to exhi-
bit moderate- to vigorous physicalactivity behaviour.A
secondary objective is to evaluate whether the recency
of schoolyard renovation has an impact on utilization
and physicalactivity.
Methods
Owing to the fact that the localschooldistrict selected
which schools participated in the LL program,randomi-
zation was not possible.Constructed LLs were matched
with schools possessing recently-built LLs (constructed
within the past year),as wellas controlsites lacking
schoolyard renovation.Case selection criteria included
the percentage ofstudents receiving free or reduced
lunch, students’race and ethnicity,and schoolsize,
based on the totalnumber ofstudents enrolled in the
school(table 1).After permission was obtained from the
school district, principles ofcandidate schools were
approached and permission was requested to conduct
the study on their grounds.All the schools that were
approached agreed to participate in the study.The study
was approved by the Colorado Multiple Institutional
Review Board.
Because inclusion in the LL program was initially pro-
vided for low-income schools,the schools eligible for this
study were located in deprived neighborhoods,populated
largely by ethnic minorities.Study schools are therefore
located in Denver neighborhoods facing significant social,
economic,and educational challenges.Study sites were
chosen from three different locations in Denver.Group A
schools are from a predominately African-American
neighborhoods characterized by significant gang activity.
Group B and C schools are in neighborhoods located
between three and five miles from downtown Denver and
are comprised of poor,predominately Latino neighbour-
hoods. Schools in groups B and C are similar with respect
to income and ethnicity,but are distinguished by school
Anthamatten et al.InternationalJournalof BehavioralNutrition and PhysicalActivity 2011,8:27
http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/8/1/27
Page 3 of 9

size (group B schools have an average attendance of 559
and group C schools an average attendance of 395). These
groups were formed in order to select adequate controls
on the basis of income,ethnicity,and school size.Each of
the groups contains one school that had LL construction
within a year before the data were collected,one school
with older LL construction (constructed two or more
years prior to the newly-renovated schoolyards) and one
school without renovated school grounds (i.e.,with no LL
construction).Children observed in this study were ele-
mentary school students, between six and eleven years old.
Children were observed using the System for Obser-
ving Play and Leisure Activity in Youth (SOPLAY).
SOPLAY is a quantitative method for evaluating levels
of physical activity of individuals and associated environ-
mentalcharacteristics in play and leisure environment
[36].Target areas are predetermined and defined as
“locations likely to provide opportunities for students to
be physically active” [37] in which observers record the
number of individuals present,their activity levels,and
their gender.Each schoolyard was divided into activity
zones that expressed the ground plane condition and
the type of activity occurring.The observation protocol
requires the identification of schoolyard variables with
the greatest impact on children’s physicalactivity based
on area type,size,and permanent improvements.Obser-
vers were trained in SOPLAY observation methodology
by a certified SOPLAY instructor.Children who are
observed to be sedentary or walking are not considered
to be physically active and children who are observed
engaging in vigorous physicalactivity or in a “primary
activity” such as using the schoolyard equipment such
as a swing or jungle gym,are considered to be physically
active.While the observers are able to distinguish
between children and adults,they were notable to
account for the age of specific children.
Observations were conducted over four days at each
schoolto obtain accurate measurements.Two obser-
vers simultaneously observed the activity area for 20%
of the totaldata collection time to test the reliability
of the data,resulting in a reliability estimate of87%.
Observers were not part of the research team to
ensure accuracy ofthe data collected.Data were col-
lected from schoolyards atparticipating elementary
schools in Denver between September 19 and October
29,2005 and between September 29 and October 19,
2006 at regular time periods before the beginning of
school,during schoolrecess,after the schoolfinished,
and during the weekends.Because the observations
covered the entire schoolyards,total schoolyard use
and the number ofchildren on the schoolyard at any
particular observation point could be estimated from
these surveys.Observationalscans capturing activity
on the entire schoolyard were treated as the unitof
analysis.Between 28 and 30 schoolyard observations
were conducted at each site.
Study Design
While utilization of the schoolyards is more or less
mandatory for the children during schoolrecess,chil-
dren may optionally use the schoolyard facilities before
or after schoolor on weekends.It is hypothesized that
by building innovative,culturally-sensitive schoolyard
facilities,more children willbe attracted to using the
schoolyard facilities,particularly during these optional
periods.In order to address this question,the number
of children observed utilizing the schoolyards before
school,during lunch recess,after school,and on week-
ends is compared across LL and non-LL schools in t-
tests.Additionally,the data were stratified by gender to
examine whether there were gender-based differences in
utilization.In order to account for the enrollment differ-
ences within the study groups,all observations are stan-
dardized against totalschoolenrollment and figures are
reported as the number ofchildren observed per 100
children enrolled (children attending the school).
Although children attending the schoolmay utilize
schoolyards,particularly on weekends,schoolyard use is
predominately by children from the school.Because the
intent of this study is to evaluate schoolyards as means
of encouraging schoolyard utilization and physical
activity among children,two different outcome measures
are reported:1) the number of children observed on the
playground and 2) the percentage of children engaged in
Table 1 Characteristics of Study and Control Schools
Ethnicity
School
Enrollment
Free &
Reduced
Lunch
African
American
Latino Anglo Asian
Group A
Renovated 336 94% 56% 41% 2% 1%
Recently
rennovated
219 88% 72% 26% 1% 1%
Control 272 91% 66% 30% 2% 2%
Total 827 91% 65% 32% 2% 1%
Group B
Renovated 605 97% - 94% 3% 3%
Recently
rennovated
492 96% 6% 88% 3% 2%
Control 579 92% - 94% 4% 2%
Total 1676 95% 2% 92% 3% 2%
Group C
Renovated 350 94% 2% 88% 8% 2%
Recently
rennovated
385 90% 6% 76% 10% 8%
Control 450 94% 4% 91% 4% 1%
Total 1185 93% 4% 85% 7% 3%
Anthamatten et al.InternationalJournalof BehavioralNutrition and PhysicalActivity 2011,8:27
http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/8/1/27
Page 4 of 9

moderate to vigorous physicalactivity.The first measure
is intended to evaluate the impacts of LL renovation on
schoolyard utilization,while the second is intended to
estimate how schoolyards are utilized with respect to
physicalactivity.
Some previous work has indicated that renovation of
park features,such as trails [38] and playgrounds [28],
results in greater utilization.In order to examine the
specific impacts ofLLs–independent ofwhether con-
struction occurred recently–we repeated the same series
of t-tests,but compared LL schoolyards built within a
year prior to the study with those built two or more
years prior,and also separately compared both groups
of LL (recently and not-recently constructed) school-
yards to the unrenovated controls.Stratifying the sites
this way allowed us to evaluate whether utilization is
associated with the recency ofconstruction,if differ-
ences persist among older LL schoolyards,or perhaps if
observed differences are due instead to some combina-
tion of the two factors.Due to the even greater loss of
statisticalpower resulting from additionalstratification,
schools are not stratified into separate observational per-
iods for this finalanalysis.
Results
Total schoolyard use was compared between LL and
non-LL schools (where our assumed nullhypothesis is
H 0 : μ1 = μ2). When allperiods are taken into consid-
eration,there was significantly greater utilization of LL
schoolyards (table 2).Reported as the number of chil-
dren per 100 children enrolled at the school,an average
of 14.5 children was observed on LL schoolyards com-
pared to 9.8 children in non-renovated schoolyards.Sig-
nificance is achieved among allcategories,except for
boys before and after schooland girls on weekends.Dif-
ferent observation periods yielded contrasting utilization
patterns.The disparity between use ofthe study and
controlschoolyards was particularly large during lunch
recess.While boys generally displayed somewhat greater
utilization overall,the difference observed between reno-
vated and unrenovated schoolyards was similar for boys
and girls across all periods.
As anticipated,the greatest differences in utilization
were observed in comparisons ofrecently-constructed
LL schools with unrenovated schoolyards (table 3).
Although there were observable differences in other
comparisons,the only statistically significant difference
was among number of boys observed when comparing
recent with older LL construction.
We also report the percentage of children engaged in
moderate to vigorous physicalactivity as a portion of
all the children observed (tables 4 and 5).These data
address a differentquestion:whether children,once
they are physically on a renovated schoolyard,are more
Table 2 Comparison of all children observed on schoolyards at LL and control schools during different utilization
periods,reported as number of children per 100 children enrolled in the school
Mean usage,Learning
Landscapes
Mean usage,unrenovated
schoolyards
Mean
difference
Standard error
difference
p
All periods
All children 14.5 9.8 4.6 1.7 **.008
Boys 7.7 5.3 2.4 1.1 *.023
Girls 6.8 4.5 2.3 0.8 **.008
Before
School
All children 22.3 10.8 11.5 6.0 .066
Boys 12.7 6.4 6.3 3.7 .106
Girls 9.6 4.4 5.3 2.4 *.040
Lunch Recess
All children 27.4 20.8 6.6 2.4 **.007
Boys 14.4 10.9 2.8 1.3 **.007
Girls 13.0 9.9 3.1 1.3 *.016
After School
All children 4.2 2.1 2.1 0.8 *.007
Boys 2.0 1.2 0.8 0.4 .065
Girls 2.2 0.8 1.3 0.3 **.001
Weekends
All children 0.8 0.2 0.6 0.3 *.068
Boys 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.2 *.025
Girls 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 .083
* p < .05 ** p < .01.
Anthamatten et al.InternationalJournalof BehavioralNutrition and PhysicalActivity 2011,8:27
http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/8/1/27
Page 5 of 9

likely to engage in physicalactivity than on unreno-
vated sites.There were no statistically significant differ-
ences observed between renovated and unrenovated
schoolyards for any period for percentage ofactive
children.
Discussion
In light of the obesity epidemic and its associated health
impacts in the US, parents,educators,and health
researchers strive to discover which environmental inter-
ventions encourage physicalactivity among children.
Among the ways that design strategies can contribute to
addressing this problem,schoolyards can be constructed
to encourage children to spend time outdoors and to
actively utilize schoolyards.Evidence-based evaluation of
the behavioral impacts of specific design initiatives is par-
ticularly important in a context in which funding is
scarce.Such evidence is often not available or accessible
to private- and public-sector policymakers [39].
While urban designers have discussed how specific
designs ofchildren’s spaces might encourage healthy
behavior,few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of
these designs once they have been implemented.Out-
side of some evidence thatthe addition of color is
related to increased utilization [32,40],little work
addresses the impacts of specific design plans,either in
terms of particular schoolyard components or as a
broader design strategy.With the notable exception of a
study from Cleveland [28],there has been little previous
work on the impacts of renovation on schoolyard utili-
zation. LL is a program which placeshigh-quality
recreationalspaces into public schools serving Denver,
including those with low-income populations.It was
observed that LL schoolyards experienced significantly
greater utilization for allobservation periods over unre-
novated spaces.When “optional” periods (before school,
after school,and on weekends) are considered in isola-
tion,greater utilization was generally observed for both
boys and girls,with a few exceptions noted in the
results.
There is evidence that boys are more likely than girls
to exhibit greater utilization and more vigorous physical
activity in both schoolyards in general[40] and on reno-
vated playgrounds in particular [28].While it remains
unclear at what age weight-related differences in physi-
cal activity are apparentin girls [41], it is widely
accepted that physicalactivity leads to benefits in physi-
calhealth as wellas socialdevelopment [42,43].In this
Table 3 Differences in school yard utilization by
construction status for all periods,reported in number of
children observed per number of children per 100
children enrolled in the school
Old LL vs.
Control
New LL vs.
Control
New LL vs.
Old LL
mean
difference
p mean
difference
p mean
difference
p
All
Children
2.4 .194 7.0 **.003 4.6 .056
Boys 0.8 .416 4.1 **.003 3.3 *.014
Girls 1.7 .087 2.9 **.006 1.2 .264
* p < .05 ** p < .01.
Table 4 Comparison of rate of moderately to physically
active children observed on schoolyards at LL and
control schools during different utilization periods,
reported as percentage
Mean rate,
Learning
Landscapes
Mean rate,
unrenovated
schoolyards
Mean
difference
Standard
error
difference
p
All
periods
All
children
42.2 40.4 1.7 3.3 .602
Boys 44.2 42.5 1.7 3.8 .646
Girls 39.7 38.5 1.2 3.3 .114
Before
School
All
children
27.1 35.8 -8.6 4.1 .050
Boys 29.7 33.9 -4.2 6.0 .491
Girls 26.2 40.4 -14.1 9.8 .174
Lunch
Recess
All
children
42.8 43.5 -0.7 2.6 .796
Boys 46.5 45.7 0.7 3.2 .841
Girls 38.7 40.1 -2.3 2.7 .402
After
School
All
children
47.3 36.7 10.6 9.0 .242
Boys 48.0 40.6 6.3 10.5 .550
Girls 48.0 33.5 14.5 8.9 .111
Weekends
All
children
42.9 41.0 1.9 32.0 .956
Boys 44.2 42.9 1.3 31.4 .969
Girls 43.3 16.6 26.7 57.2 .665
Table 5 Differences in rate of moderately to physically
active children observed for all periods,reported as a
percent
Old LL vs.
control
New LL vs.
control
New LL vs.
old LL
mean
difference
p mean
difference
p mean
difference
p
All
Children
0.3 .993 3.2 .413 3.2 .409
Boys -0.4 .928 3.7 .403 4.1 .341
Girls 1.1 .763 1.2 .776 0.7 .987
Anthamatten et al.InternationalJournalof BehavioralNutrition and PhysicalActivity 2011,8:27
http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/8/1/27
Page 6 of 9

study,greater utilization by girls was observed on LL
sites before and after schooland during lunch recess,
but not on weekends.The reasons behind these findings
merit additionalscrutiny on severallevels.Further ana-
lysis might reveal,for example,that specific features of
the LL schoolyards encourage girls to use the sites in an
active manner.Schoolyard use was generally much
higher before schoolthan it was after school.It seems
plausible that girls in particular are more likely to utilize
these spaces before and after school,in contrast to
weekends,as a consequence of their family’s perceived
safety of having other children and schoolstaff present.
Low-income schooldistricts that wish to implement
extra-curricular programs to improve physicalactivity
among their students,and among girls in particular,
might benefit from research focused around this ques-
tion.Future work might also investigate how age affects
girls’utilization patterns.
In order to address the question of how renovation
affected children’s likelihood to engage in physical activ-
ity, we also examined the percentage of children who
were moderately or vigorously active as a proportion of
all children observed on the schoolyards.This measure is
intended to estimate the way that a particular space influ-
ences the type of activity that children engage in;some
play spaces might contain features that encourage chil-
dren to participate in specific activities that are conducive
to vigorous physical activity,for example.No statistically
significant differences were observed in this measure
between any of the comparison groups. It seems plausible
that there are differences in how children utilize specific
components of various play spaces,but this may not be
observable at the scale of an entire school yard. A school-
yard zone containing slides,for example,may encourage
more or less activity than another zone containing a jun-
gle gym.Work to compare activity across schoolyard
zones that contain different features might be a fruitful
avenue for additional inquiry.
An additionalfeature of this research is the measure-
ment of the impacts of the recency of schoolyard con-
struction.Utilization of LL schoolyards constructed
within the previous year was compared with schoolyards
constructed between three and four years prior to the
study period.Greater utilization was observed on LL
sites that newer than one year than on the older LL
sites,but the differences were not statistically significant,
with the exception ofthe utilization measures among
boys.If the differences observed in this work and evi-
dence from other studies,such as Colabianchiet al.’s
[28],are seen to provide evidence that schoolyard con-
struction results in greater utilization and activity,
schoolyard renovation itselfmay be a valid planning
strategy for increasing utilization.Additionalstudy is
required to determine the duration ofthe impacts of
renovation and whether these differences are the conse-
quence of particular componentsof the renovated
schoolyards.
Study Limitations
While we believe that this work provides evidence of the
impacts of schoolyard renovation,this study was
designed as a case-controlstudy,introducing the poten-
tial for confounding by unobserved or unconsidered
third variables.A key question in study in study of phy-
sicalactivity and urban environments is how to imple-
ment changesthat result in sustained changesin
physicalactivity patterns.This work provides evidence
that renovation of schoolyards results in an increase in
physicalactivity,but it is not clear for how long this
effect lasts.The evidence from this work also does not
shed light on specific strategies for implementing sus-
tained change in activity,a key focus for physical activity
research and policy.
It might be possible that renovation only benefits chil-
dren who are active to begin with,but who lack suitable
facilities to practice physicalactivity in the deprived
neighbourhoods examined here.While it is worthwhile
to investigate strategies thatreduce geographic and
socioeconomic disparities in physicalactivity patterns,a
key future goal is to uncover specific design strategies to
encourage greater overalluse among allchildren.Simi-
larly,it would also be worthwhile to investigate specific
design mechanisms responsible for increased use.Addi-
tional study of LL is presently considering these
research questions in a longitudinalstudy design.While
this study was originally designed to assess and compare
utilization of LL and non-LL schoolyards,stratification
into gender and time period resulted in a loss of statisti-
cal power.With additionaldata,these and other vari-
ables can be analyzed with greater statisticalcertainty.
It is possible that LL sites attracted greater use on
account of their relatively recent date ofconstruction,
or perhaps some other factor associated therewith (such
as generalcleanliness,the state of the equipment,or the
attention that was brought to the schoolyard by commu-
nity involvement with the construction efforts and the
associated publicity).Additional work comparing LL
sites to other renovated schoolyards that were not con-
structed through the program is necessary to thread
apart which of these factors is important.Finally,while
statistically significant differences were observed,results
were attenuated by the fact that there were only 264
observation scans across nine schools.The incorpora-
tion of more data would enable the examination of
finer-scale distinctions between schoolyard use at differ-
ent kinds of sites,and could enable more sophisticated
analysis,by,for example,using a logistic regression ana-
lysis to model the impacts of particular site features.
Anthamatten et al.InternationalJournalof BehavioralNutrition and PhysicalActivity 2011,8:27
http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/8/1/27
Page 7 of 9

Conclusions
While encouraging physicalactivity among children is
an important public health goalthat may be addressed
through a carefulplanning and design process,it is
essentialthat specific strategies be explored and evalu-
ated in order to determine how and to whatextent
these strategies encourage physicalactivity among chil-
dren.This study provides evidence that schoolyard reno-
vation from Learning Landscapesincreasesactive
utilization by schoolchildren during both mandatory
and optionalplay periods,contributing to a nascent
body of work [28,44] that suggests that such renovation
may be an effective method to encouraging physical
activity among children.
Acknowledgements
Funding for this project was provided by the Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation.
Author details
1Department of Geography and EnvironmentalSciences,University of
Colorado Denver,Denver,CO,USA.2Department of Landscape Architecture,
University of Colorado Denver,Denver,CO,USA.3Colorado Center for
Community Development,College of Architecture and Planning,University
of Colorado Denver,Denver,CO,USA.4Adams County Youth Initiative,
Denver,CO,USA.5Department of Public Health Sciences,University of
Hawaiiat Manoa,Honolulu,HI,USA.
Authors’contributions
BK,LB,and CN designed the study,obtained funding for,and managed the
SOLPLAY data collection process.PA,LB,SL,EG,and BK contributed to the
finalversion of the manuscript.PA and EG prepared the data for analysis.PA
devised the current analysis,analyzed the data,and produced the initial
draft ofthe manuscript.All authors read and approved the finalmanuscript.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Received:5 August 2010 Accepted:9 April2011 Published:9 April2011
References
1. James WPT:WHO recognition of the globalobesity epidemic.
InternationalJournalof Obesity 2008,32:S120-S126.
2. ’Obesity and overweight’,Factsheet no.311.[http://www.who.int/
mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/index.html].
3. Ogden CL,CarrollMD,Curtin LR,McDowellMA,Tabak CJ,FlegalKM:
Prevalence of overweight and obesity in the United States,1999-2004.
Jama-Journalof the American MedicalAssociation 2006,295:1549-1555.
4. Pearce J,Witten K:Geographies ofobesity:environmentalunderstandings of
the obesity epidemic Farnham,Surrey;Burlington,VT:Ashgate;2010.
5. Merchant AT,Dehghan M,Behnke-Cook D,Anand SS:Diet,physical
activity,and adiposity in children in poor and rich neighbourhoods:a
cross-sectionalcomparison.Nutr J 2007,6:1.
6. Papas MA,Alberg AJ,Ewing R,Helzlsouer KJ,Gary TL,Klassen AC:The built
environment and obesity.Epidemiologic Reviews 2007,29:129-143.
7. Sallis JF,Bauman A,Pratt M:Environmentaland policy - Interventions to
promote physicalactivity.American Journalof Preventive Medicine 1998,
15:379-397.
8. Sallis JF,Saelens BE,Frank LD,Conway TL,Slymen DJ,Cain KL,Chapman JE,
Kerr J:Neighborhood built environment and income:Examining multiple
health outcomes.SocialScience & Medicine 2009,68:1285-1293.
9. Janssen I,LeBlanc AG:Systematic review of the health benefits of
physicalactivity and fitness in school-aged children and youth.
InternationalJournalof BehavioralNutrition and PhysicalActivity 2010,7.
10. Trasande L,Cronk C,Durkin M,Weiss M,Schoeller DA,GallEA,Hewitt JB,
CarrelAL,Landrigan PJ,Gillman MW:Environment and Obesity in the
NationalChildren’s Study.EnvironmentalHealth Perspectives 2009,
117:159-166.
11. Frank LD,Engelke PO,Schmid TL:Health and community design:the impact
of the built environment on physicalactivity Washington,DC:Island Press;
2003.
12. Handy SL,Boarnet MG,Ewing R,Killingsworth RE:How the built
environment affects physicalactivity - Views from urban planning.
American Journalof Preventive Medicine 2002,23:64-73.
13. Riva M,Curtis S:Policy responses and the physicalenvironment.In
Geographies ofobesity:environmentalunderstandings ofthe obesity epidemic.
Edited by:Pearce J,Witten K.Farnham,Surrey;Burlington,VT:Ashgate;
2010:207-226.
14. Stuckyropp RC,Dilorenzo TM:Determinants of exercise in children.
Preventive Medicine 1993,22:880-889.
15. Sallis JF,Nader PR,Broyles SL,Berry CC,Elder JP,McKenzie TL,Nelson JA:
Correlates of physical-activity at home in Mexican-american and Anglo-
american preschool-children.Health Psychology 1993,12:390-398.
16. Ernst MP,PangraziRP:Effects of a physicalactivity program on children’s
activity levels and attraction to physicalactivity.Pediatric Exercise Science
1999,11:393-405.
17. TakahashiE,Yoshida K,SugimoriH,Miyakawa M,Izuno T,YamagamiT,
KagamimoriS:Influence factors on the development of obesity in 3-
year-old children based on the Toyama study.Preventive Medicine 1999,
28:293-296.
18. Benson L,Baer HJ,Kaelber DC:Trends in the Diagnosis of Overweight
and Obesity in Children and Adolescents:1999-2007.Pediatrics 2009,123:
E153-E158.
19. Sallis JF,Glanz K:The role of built environments in physicalactivity,
eating,and obesity in childhood.Future ofChildren 2006,16:89-108.
20. Trevino RP,Fogt DL,Wyatt TJ,Leal-Vasquez L,Sosa E,Woods C:Diabetes
Risk,Low Fitness,and Energy Insufficiency Levels among Children from
Poor Families.Journalof the American Dietetic Association 2008,
108:1846-1853.
21. Oliver M,Schofield G:Policy responses and the physicalenvironment.In
Geographies ofobesity:environmentalunderstandings ofthe obesity epidemic.
Edited by:Pearce J,Witten K.Farnham,Surrey;Burlington,VT:Ashgate;
2010:175-204.
22. State of the evidence review on urban health and healthy weights.
[http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/products/Urban%20Health%20and%20Healthy
%20Weights.pdf].
23. Farley TA,Meriwether RA,Baker ET,Watkins LT,Johnson CC,Webber LS:
Safe play spaces to promote physicalactivity in inner-city children:
Results from a pilot study of an environmentalintervention.American
Journalof Public Health 2007,97:1625-1631.
24. Roemmich JN,Epstein LH,Raja S,Yin L:The neighborhood and home
environments:Disparate relationships with physicalactivity and
sedentary behaviors in youth.Annals ofBehavioralMedicine 2007,
33:29-38.
25. Kligerman M,Sallis JF,Ryan S,Frank LD,Nader PR:Association of
neighborhood design and recreation environment variables with
physicalactivity and body mass index in adolescents.American Journalof
Health Promotion 2007,21:274-277.
26. Hume C,Sahnon J,BallK:Associations of children’s perceived
neighborhood environments with walking and physicalactivity.
American Journalof Health Promotion 2007,21:201-207.
27. Veugelers P,Sithole F,Zhang S,Muhajarine N:Neighborhood
characteristics in relation to diet,physicalactivity and overweight of
Canadian children.InternationalJournalof Pediatric Obesity 2008,3:152-159.
28. ColabianchiN,Kinsella AE,Coulton CJ,Moore SM:Utilization and physical
activity levels at renovated and unrenovated schoolplaygrounds.
Preventive Medicine 2009,48:140-143.
29. Stratton G:Promoting children’s physicalactivity in primary school:an
intervention study using playground markings.Ergonomics 2000,
43:1538-1546.
30. Verstraete SJM,Cardon GM,De Clercq DLR,De BourdeaudhuijIMM:
Increasing children’s physicalactivity levels during recess periods in
elementary schools:the effects of providing game equipment.European
Journalof Public Health 2006,16:415-419.
Anthamatten et al.InternationalJournalof BehavioralNutrition and PhysicalActivity 2011,8:27
http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/8/1/27
Page 8 of 9

31. Zask A,van Beurden E,Barnett L,Brooks LO,Dietrich UC:Active school
playgrounds - Myth or reality? Results of the “move it groove it” project.
Preventive Medicine 2001,33:402-408.
32. Ridgers ND,Stratton G,Fairclough SJ,Twisk JWR:Long-term effects of a
playground markings and physicalstructures on children’s recess
physicalactivity levels.Preventive Medicine 2007,44:393-397.
33. Wilson DK:New perspectives on health disparities and obesity
interventions in youth.Journalof Pediatric Psychology 2009,34:231-244.
34. Sallis JF,Conway TL,Prochaska JJ,McKenzie TL,MarshallSJ,Brown M:The
association of schoolenvironments with youth physicalactivity.
American Journalof Public Health 2001,91:618-620.
35. Learning Landscapes History.[http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/
colleges/ArchitecturePlanning/discover/centers/CCCD/LearningLandscapes/
About/Pages/LearningLandscapesHistory.aspx].
36. McKenzie TL,MarshallSJ,Sallis JF,Conway TL:Leisure-time physical
activity in schoolenvironments:An observationalstudy using SOPLAY.
Preventive Medicine 2000,30:70-77.
37. System for Observing Play and Leisure Activity in Youth (SOPLAY).
[http://www.drjamessallis.sdsu.edu/SOPLAYprotocol.pdf].
38. Evenson KR,Herring AH,Huston SL:Evaluating change in physicalactivity
with the building of a multi-use trail.American Journalof Preventive
Medicine 2005,28:177-185.
39. Pronk NP,GoetzelRZ:The PracticalUse of Evidence Practice and
Research Connected.American Journalof Preventive Medicine 2010,38:
S229-S231.
40. Stratton G,Ridgers ND,Fairclough SJ,Richardson DJ:Physicalactivity
levels of normal-weight and overweight girls and boys during primary
schoolrecess.Obesity 2007,15:1513-1519.
41. Purslow LR,HillC,Saxton J,Corder K,Wardle J:Differences in physical
activity and sedentary time in relation to weight in 8-9 year old
children.InternationalJournalof BehavioralNutrition and PhysicalActivity
2008,5.
42. Bailey R,Wellard I,Dismore H:Girls and physicalactivities:a summary
review.Education and Health 2005,23.
43. Biddle S,Mutrie N:Psychology ofphysicalactivity:determinants,well-being,
and interventions London;New York:Routledge;2001.
44. Brink L,Nigg C,Lampe S,Kingston B,Mootz A,van Vliet W:Influence of
Schoolyard Renovations on Children’s PhysicalActivity:The Learning
Landscapes Program.American Journalof Public Health 2010,100.
doi:10.1186/1479-5868-8-27
Cite this article as:Anthamatten et al.:An assessment of schoolyard
renovation strategies to encourage children’s physicalactivity.
InternationalJournalof BehavioralNutrition and PhysicalActivity 2011 8:27.
Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central
and take full advantage of:
• Convenient online submission
• Thorough peer review
• No space constraints or color figure charges
• Immediate publication on acceptance
• Inclusion in PubMed, CAS, Scopus and Google Scholar
• Research which is freely available for redistribution
Submit your manuscript at
www.biomedcentral.com/submit
Anthamatten et al.InternationalJournalof BehavioralNutrition and PhysicalActivity 2011,8:27
http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/8/1/27
Page 9 of 9