ROLE OF SPLASH PARKS IN OUTDOOR

PUBLIC RECREATION

by

LISA J. LEWIS, B.B.A.

A THESIS

IN

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty

of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for
the Degree of

MASTER OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

Approved

Alon Kvashny
Chairperson of the Committee

Charles Klein

Jana Packard

Accepted

John Borrelli
Dean of the Graduate School

December, 2005
Copyright 2005, Lisa J. Lewis
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES, MAPS, AND DETAILS vi

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION 1

Outdoor Public Recreation in General 4

Health Benefits of Physical Play 6

Role of Splash Parks in Children’s Play 9

Swimming Pools Compared to Splash Parks 9
Playgrounds Compared to Splash Parks 11

Summary 13

II. LITERATURE REVIEW FOR HISTORY AND CONTEXT 15

Role of Play in Child Development 16

Children’s Public Play 22

Playgrounds 23
Water Play 31

Splash Parks 35
Theming 38

Trends in the United States and Texas 40

Summary 42

III. METHODOLOGY AND SITE OBSERVATIONS 43

Justification of Splash Parks 43

Limitations of the Study 44

Methodology 45

Case Study – Spray ‘N Play 46

iii
 Site Observations and Surveys 48
Pecan Bottoms Splash Park 51
Results of Surveys of Guardians 54
Results of Surveys of Users 57
Observations 59
Evaluation of Pecan Bottoms 65
The Splash Factory Splash Park 65
Results of Surveys of Guardians 68
Results of Surveys of Users 70
Observations 71
Evaluation of The Splash Factory 77

Social Capital 79

Splash Parks Contribution to Child Development 81

Physical Development 81
Social Development 84
Cognitive Development 86
Emotional Development 89

Environmental Impact 90

Conclusions 90

IV. ELEMENTS AND DESIGN CRITERIA 92

Site Selection Criteria 92

Size of Site 93
Slope of Site 93
Soil Types 94
Access to Utilities 94
Fencing and Separation from Traffic 95
Visibility for Safety and Awareness 95
Appropriate Climate and User Comfort 95

Design Components and Elements 96

Water Features 96
Feature Styles 99
Feature Materials 100
Water Feature Activator 101
Splash Pad Surface 102
Zero Depth Water and Drainage 104
Water Treatment System 105

iv
 Communication 105
Vandalism Prevention 106
Parking and Walkways 107
Landscape Planting 108
Restroom Facilities 109
Regulations 109

Criteria Developed 110

Physical Aspects of Site 110
Composition of Water Feature Selection 111
Relationship of Water Features 111
Overall Design Considerations 112

Conclusions 113

V. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED SITES 114

Appropriateness in Lubbock 114

Development Trends 114
Outdoor Recreational Opportunities 118
Climate Data 121

Site Selection Criteria 123

Social and Cultural 123
Physical Aspects 124

Neighborhoods of Proposed Sites 124

Choice of Sites 125
Northridge Neighborhood – Cooke Park 127
Preston Smith Neighborhood – Hoel Park 130
University Pines Neighborhood – McCullough Park 132
Comparison of Neighborhoods 134
Demographics 135
Economics 136

General Information on Parks 138

Alex & Verna Cooke Park – Northridge Neighborhood 138
Phil Hoel Park – Preston Smith Neighborhood 142
N.B. McCullough Park – University Pines Neighborhood 145
Site Conclusions 152

Site Analysis of McCullough Park 153

Slope Analysis 153
Inventory of Trees 153

v
 Soils Analysis 155
View, Visibility, and Safety Issues 156
Choice of Location 156

Conclusions 158

VI. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 159

General Design 159

Relationship of the Areas 161

Water Features and layout 162

Design Options 168

Surfacing 168
Deck 168
Shaded Observation Areas 169
Drainage 170
Water Treatment System 172
Access Control, Communications, and Entrances 172
Parking and Walkways 173
Landscape Planting 175

Conclusions 178

VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 179

Conclusions 180

Recommendations 180

BIBLIOGRAPHY 182

vi
 LIST OF TABLES, MAPS, AND DETAILS

1.1 Young Child in Splash Park 1

1.2 Splash Park – General View 3

1.3 Obesity Trends in the United States among Boys and Girls 7

2.1 Role of Play in Child Development 17

2.2 From Child to Adult 21

2.3 Natural Play of Children 24

2.4 Creative Playground in Lubbock, Texas 27

2.5 Adventure Playground 28

2.6 Outdoor Play Environments – Timeline in United States 34

3.1 Spray ‘N Play Splash Park 47

3.2 Pecan Bottoms Splash Park at Cameron Park 51

3.3 Field Diagram of Pecan Bottoms Splash Park 53

3.4 Gender and Number of Guardians Surveyed at Pecan Bottoms 54

3.5 Ages of Guardians Surveyed at Pecan Bottoms 55

3.6 Guardians Relationship to Children at Pecan Bottoms 55

3.7 Average Length of Stay at Pecan Bottoms 56

3.8 Ages of Children Surveyed at Pecan Bottoms 58

3.9 Boy in Underwear and Girl in Boots at Pecan Bottoms 59

3.10 Children Playing with Flush Mounted Sprays at Pecan Bottoms 61

3.11 Children Drinking Water at Pecan Bottoms 62

vii
3.12 Correlation between Temperatures and Number of Children
at Pecan Bottoms 64

3.13 Diagram of The Splash Factory as Designed 66

3.14 Rules at The Splash Factory 67

3.15 Gender and Number of Guardians Present and Surveyed

at The Splash Factory 68

3.16 Ages of Guardians Surveyed at The Splash Factory 69

3.17 Average Length of Stay at The Splash Factory 69

3.18 Age of Children Surveyed at The Splash Factory 70

3.19 Toddler Area with Sprays at The Splash Factory 72

3.20 Nature Area with Pelican and Flower at The Splash Factory 73

3.21 Gun Area for Older Children at The Splash Factory 74

3.22 Playing in Standing Water at The Splash Factory 76

3.23 Picnic Area at The Splash Factory 78

3.24 Physical Actions 83

3.25 Social Activities 85

3.26 Father Explains 86

3.27 Child Startled 87

3.28 Water Geyser Mastered 87

3.29 Building Confidence 88

3.30 Emotions Demonstrated 89

4.1 Diagram of the Play Process 97

4.2 Splash Park Activity by Age 97

viii
4.3 Flush Mounted and Elevated Features 98

4.4 Child Pressing the Activator 102

4.5 Example of Signs 106

5.1 Lubbock Development with Regions 115

5.2 Lubbock New Development Areas 116

5.3 Lubbock Population (Projected) 117

5.4 Lubbock Population (Projected) by Region 117

5.5 Public Swimming Pools 119

5.6 Lubbock City Park and Amenities 120

5.7 Average High Temperature 121

5.8 Percent of Sunny Days 122

5.9 Average Wind Speed 122

5.10 Lubbock Open Space, Parks, and Pools with Proposed Neighborhoods 126

5.11 Northridge Neighborhood Land Use Plan 128

5.12 Northridge Neighborhood Aerial Taken February, 2002 129

5.13 Northridge Neighborhood Photographs 130

5.14 Preston Smith Neighborhood Land Use Plan 131

5.15 Preston Smith Neighborhood Photographs 132

5.16 University Pines Neighborhood Land Use Plan 133

5.17 University Pines Neighborhood Photographs 134

5.18 Number of Persons under Age 15 135

5.19 Percent of Population by Age Groups 136

ix
5.20 Median Income of Households 137

5.21 Poverty Status 137

5.22 Photographs of Cooke Park 140

5.23 Site Plan of Cooke Park 141

5.24 Photographs of Hoel Park 143

5.25 Site Plan of Hoel Park 144

5.26 Photographs of McCullough Park 147

5.27 Site Plan of McCullough Park 148

5.28 Comparative Analysis of Parks 151

5.29 Site Inventory of McCullough Park 154

5.30 Soils Analysis of McCullough Park 155

5.31 Location of Splash Park in McCullough Park 157

6.1 Elements of the McCullough Splash Park 160

6.2 Relationship of Areas in McCullough Splash Park 161

6.3 Water Features Selected for McCullough Splash Park 163

6.4 Application of Criteria for Composition of Water Features 164

6.5 Water Feature Layout Using Splash Zone for

McCullough Splash Park 165

6.6 Matrix of Design Detail and Criteria 166

6.7 Layout of Guns and Targets for McCullough Splash Park 167

6.8 Sun Shelter for McCullough Splash Park 169

6.9 Drainage Pattern for McCullough Splash Park 170

6.10 Contour Changes for McCullough Park Splash Park 171

x
6.11 Entrance Sign for McCullough Splash Park 173

6.12 Parking Lot for McCullough Splash Park 174

6.13 Landscape Planting and Walkways for McCullough Splash Park 176

6.14 Elevations of McCullough Splash Park 177

xi
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A child’s world of play is both simple and complex. It is simple in that play is

spontaneous and unstructured, yet complex because underlying the outward appearance,

many changes are occurring within the child as he or she plays. For example, while it

may appear that the young child in Figure 1.1 is simply playing in the water, he is

developing fine-motor control, hand-eye coordination, and the ability to concentrate. The

world of play provides a child with the means of developing. Development occurs in

predictable stages influenced by and resulting from his or her play experiences.

Figure 1.1: Young Child in Splash Park

1
 There are many outdoor environments designed specifically for child’s play

including: playgrounds, natural parks, swimming pools, sports fields, and backyards.

These are comprised of different elements and provide various activities and challenges

that promote a child’s physical, emotional, cognitive, and social development. In

general, this study was devoted to analyzing how a new type of play environment, a

splash park, contributes to child development. Specifically the goals were to determine:

(1) the appropriateness of creating a splash park in Lubbock, Texas, and (2) the desirable

elements for maximum play value for children. Play value is defined as “a measure of

the developmental significance of a play setting, object, or material as a stimulus for

children’s play” (Moore et al., 1992, 29). The objectives of this study were to:

• Determine the contribution of splash parks to child development,

• Assess attitudes of parents and guardians,
• Evaluate the role and relationship of the elements of a splash park,
• Develop a design criteria for splash parks,
• Choose a site within Lubbock based on the design criteria, and
• Demonstrate the application of the design criteria to the chosen site.

The construction of a splash park in Lubbock within the next few years has been

discussed by officials from both the City of Lubbock and Civic Lubbock, Inc. This

research examined the local climate for appropriateness for a splash park, demand for

water recreation in Lubbock, the contribution of splash parks to child development, and

the desirability of this contribution. Achieving an understanding of the manner in which

children interact with the water and each other in the splash park environment was vital

to developing design criteria. Design criteria was developed which includes: site

selection criteria, water feature selection, and the roles and relationships of elements,

2
including site features, in the overall design. A site selection criterion was developed and

used to analyze sites under consideration for this type of facility within Lubbock. The

water features selected directly impact the actions of the children using the splash park

and affect their manner of play. The various elements of a splash park contribute to the

experiences of the children and their parents as well as the functionality of the park.

Based on these criteria, a design is proposed.

Splash parks (Figure 1.2) have been around for less than two decades; not even

long enough to develop an agreed term for them. They have been labeled: splash parks,

aqua play, wet playgrounds, spray parks, and zero-depth waterparks. For purposes of this

study, the following terms were used: the surface area which drains is designated as the

splash pad and the entire facility is known as a splash park.

Figure 1.2: Splash Park – General View

3
 Splash parks are a specialized blend of waterparks and playgrounds. They have

no standing water and no equipment designed for climbing or allowing users above the

surface. The various water features are activated by the children who move among the

differing types of water action as the features cycle on and off. Jennifer King, mother,

says: “Here there are buckets of water dumping on them, there are sprinklers. They run

through and there’s water shooting out of the ground. Kids like that” (Bales 2003, 34).

To adults this may not sound like an attraction, but to children it is wonderful for play.

Splash parks are successful for many reasons; they eliminate the drowning

hazards of a swimming pool, the falling risks of a playground, and can be less expensive

to build and maintain than a pool (George 2001). Parents like splash parks because their

children are entertained for hours while the adults can simply relax with a book, observe

from the sidelines, or even join in the fun. According to Rusty Black of the Waco, Texas

Parks and Recreation Department, the greatest reason for the success of splash parks is

because, “Kids love ‘em.”

Outdoor Public Recreation in General

When outdoor public recreational facilities are properly designed, located, and

maintained, they improve the quality of life. They provide life enrichment and make a

city, community, or neighborhood a desirable place to live, work, and/or visit. In a

broader sense, Rutledge explains in Anatomy of a Park, recreational planning is about

human development and behavior within the natural environment during leisure-time

4
(Rutledge 1971). A park or other recreational facility is not just about what you see but

what occurs between the users and the environment.

Children can only learn to share and play in a socially acceptable manner by

practicing in a group environment. These vital skills are learned gradually and

cumulatively throughout life but, are formed especially during childhood. According to

Joe L. Frost Ed.D., educator, researcher, and author, a child can only learn socialization

in a group setting:

[T]he competent individual is one who functions effectively in society, deals

with issues appropriate to one’s age or developmental group, and gains peer
acceptance through quality social interaction….It is clear that many factors
contribute to social competence but the play of young children is a central
process of social-emotional development and opportunity for social play with
peers is an essential contributor to healthy development. (Frost 1992, 32)

Playing in groups and sharing “toys”, which do not belong to an individual, provide

children with the opportunity for developing socially. While observing their children,

parents and guardians will tend to congregate and also reap social benefits from public

recreation. Socializing with other adults, with whom you share interests or

circumstances, such as being a parent, is mentally healthy. The support of relating to an

individual or individuals promotes the social well-being of everyone in the group.

Another valuable aspect of public recreation which applies to playgrounds,

swimming pools, as well as splash parks, is “social capital” (Degraaf and Jordan 2003).

Social capital is one of the benefits that results from the interaction of people within a

community. When the community meets in a place or at a function, they talk about their

children, the weather, their friends, and current issues. This improves the quality of life

in their neighborhood and community. “Put succinctly, social capital refers to the

5
collective value of all social networks (who people know) and the inclinations that arise

from these networks to do things for each other” (Degraaf and Jordan 2003, 1). This

concept and its demise were first described by Hanifan:

The first official use of the term “social capital” was by L. Judson Hanifan in
1916. Hanifan noted the need for and importance of renewed community
involvement to sustain democracy and development. He was reporting on the
demise of neighborliness and civic engagement, which resulted from the
decline of such events as debating societies, barn raisings and apple cuttings.
As these customs were abandoned, people became less neighborly, and the
community’s social life gave way to family isolation and community
stagnation. (Degraaf and Jordan 2003, 1)

The sense of community created by coming together in a shared environment, promotes

positive feelings towards fellow members of the community, and towards humanity in

general. In Chapter III, this concept is elaborated upon based on the author’s observation

of splash parks. Public recreation is generally beneficial to all age groups, in a variety of

ways.

Health Benefits of Physical Play

There are many health benefits of active play; conversely, there are many health

risks of inactivity. One of the largest health risks threatening the well-being of American

children is childhood obesity. “Adolescent overweight is a major U.S. public health

problem, with prevalence rates increasing for children and adolescents….Inactivity and

activity are important biological determinants of obesity and represent major avenues for

treating and preventing obesity” (Gordon-Larsen et al. 2000,1). While several factors

play a role in the development of childhood obesity, physical inactivity is both a cause

and a result of this disease. A variety of potential negative consequences results from

6
childhood obesity, ranging from low self-esteem to terminal illness. The increases shown

in Figure 1.3 are documented by Dr. Carlos J. Crespo and Joshua Arbesman:

20% 1971- 1974

1976- 1980
15%
Percentage

1988- 1994
10% 1999- 2000

5%

0%
2-5 6-11 12-19 2-5 6-11 12-19
Boys' Age Girls' Age

Figure 1.3: Obesity Trends in the United States among Boys and Girls,
Adapted from: Crespo 2003

Obesity, which is directly related to physical inactivity, is increasing in its prevalence in

the United States and has become a major health problem.

Levels of activity or inactivity during childhood set the stage for the remainder of

a person’s life, directly through health consequences and indirectly through the

development of habits. Habits of physical activity developed during childhood play a

significant role in the activity levels of young adults (Gordon-Larsen et al. 2000) and,

mental ability and health are also affected by the physical activity levels (Shephard

7
1997). In a study published in Pediatric Exercise Science relating physical exercise to

improved academic performance, Roy J. Shephard states that:

[T]here is good evidence that the likelihood of becoming active, or indeed of

sustaining a regular exercise program during adult life depends on the
individual’s past experience of physical activity. Past exposure is important
both in terms of forming habits, beliefs, and attitudes, and also in developing
the physical skills necessary to make exercise an enjoyable experience.
(Shephard 1997, 113)

A child’s activity level and physical skills directly impact his or her adult body, habits,

and activities. The potential of long-term physical damage being done to the body by

inactivity has been studied, and “There is abundant evidence that threats to health, such

as obesity and atherosclerosis begin quite early in childhood, so that even if a previously

sedentary adult is persuaded to adopt a more active lifestyle, the individual may already

have accumulated much vascular damage that is difficult to reverse” (Shephard 1997,

114). The ramifications of inactivity during childhood are broad in scope and reach far

into the future.

To aid in the reversal of the trends of inactivity and obesity, play environments

which are mentally interesting, developmentally appropriate, and physically challenging

must be readily available for children in a manner which is pleasing and convenient for

adults. Most parents realize that their children have the desire and need for physical play

and that they benefit from it. In a study, Dr. Rhonda L. Clements determined, “Mothers

find that outdoor play reduces their child’s stress and allows opportunities for children to

be expressive and noisy. Moving vigorously in the outdoors also positively impacts their

physical skills” (Clements 2003, 1). A splash park can be an additional play environment

option for the expenditure of energy that is natural to a child. During the season of use, a

8
splash park will draw some of the existing users of swimming pools and playgrounds. It

also has the potential to attract children who are currently inactive, overwhelmed by

pools, or too young to safely enjoy playground equipment. Childhood obesity cannot be

reversed by simply creating a few splash parks, but they encourage physical activity by

providing an inviting opportunity for outdoor play.

Role of Splash Parks in Children’s Play

With all the other outdoor play opportunities available to children, why do we

need splash parks? What do they offer that swimming pools and playgrounds do not?

What “play value” does a splash park provide? While playgrounds and swimming pools

provide play value, a splash park can offer an exciting, new play opportunity in a safe and

enticing way. Specific benefits of splash parks are explored in-depth in Chapter III.

Swimming Pools Compared to Splash Parks

Swimming pools provide the opportunity for water play and children enjoy pools,

but there are limitations. As stated by Rich Klarck, aquatics engineer, “Kids want

something to do.…They don’t swim laps. And after a while, they get tired of jumping

from the side of the pool into the water….With spray grounds, they have something to

do….They’re entertained for hours” (Bales 2003, 33). Not only do splash parks provide

a more versatile play value than swimming pools, some of the risks are simply avoided.

With a swimming pool, there is a risk of drowning and injury from entrapment

(Mogharabi and Dumas 2004). According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC),

9
drowning is a significant cause of death and injury to children. Rhonda Williams a

Houston, Texas mother says: “I like [for] them to scream and make noise. They run, they

burn a lot of energy, they get tired, [and] they go take a nap, [which is] the best part for

me… I like that [a splash park] better because the pools are more dangerous” (Miller

2004, 1). Many parents feel more relaxed in an environment where the children play

without the risk of drowning.

Certified lifeguards, required for swimming pools, are not always readily

available. Swimming pools are a terrific vehicle for children to learn to swim, a vital life

skill, but splash parks can offer a transitional step for younger children who are learning

to swim. Cory Forrest and Matthew Fraleigh, consultants with Waterplay, state:

While some kids feel uncomfortable in an enormous pool of water, hardly

anyone fears an animated spray park. It’s a comfortable and casual
environment in which kids can build their confidence about being in water
without the fears associated with swimming. Spray parks provide the perfect
transition to learning to swim. The basic steps to swimming (floats and glides)
are much easier to do when you are relaxed. In spray parks, kids will stand and
stare right up at water toys, drenching the big smile plastered across their face.
This self-confidence can make learning to swim a whole lot easier. (Forrest and
Fraleigh 2004, 50)

In addition to building the confidence of a young swimmer, a splash park also provides

the opportunity for water play to younger children and is safe and accessible to all.

Unlike a pool, they [splash parks] create an environment that children of all
ages and abilities will enter with equal enthusiasm. The tiniest toddler can play
with the gentle ground sprays while the older kids commandeer the cannons in
an effort to spray their friends and family. With spray loops that are high and
wide and activators that are low enough for all, children who use wheelchairs
easily access spray parks. For children who are unable to see, the sense of
touch is both cool and exciting. Children who cannot hear love the bright
colors, the extra thick and tall components and the soft mist upon their face.
Everyone loves the cool spray on a hot day. (Forrest and Fraleigh 2004, 49)

10
A splash park can present a greater variety of water activities and more recreational value

than a swimming pool, and it should be able to do so with less water usage (Bales 2003).

This environmentally respectful advantage and the excellent level of play value have

helped the concept of splash parks gain widespread approval and popularity in many

regions of Texas, several areas of the United States, and all over Canada. Jeff Goodman

observed the following while he was with the parks department in Grand Prairie, Texas

which has three flat-water pools in addition to The Splash Factory, a splash park. In the

summer of 2004, the three pools combined had 12,000 participant use days, while The

Splash Factory boasted 11,000 participant use days. Not only is the season longer than

for swimming pools, water usage is lower, and participant use is often greater. Splash

parks encourage children to play outdoors and give them the opportunity to enjoy water

play in a social environment with no inherent risk of drowning.

Playgrounds Compared to Splash Parks

Playgrounds provide many fundamental benefits to children, including but not

limited to expansion of their physical skills, cognitive abilities, and social development.

The equipment within a playground accounts for the type of play and much of the

behavior of children while playing. In Play and Playscapes, Joe L. Frost explains that the

complexity or variety of equipment has an effect on behavior:

As the amount of equipment increased, the amount of motor play and play with
materials increased, while the amount of undesirable behavior (hitting, arguing,
teasing) and social play decreased. As the amount of equipment decreased,
there was a corresponding decrease in gross motor play and increase in the
number of social contacts and social conflicts. (Frost 1992, 134)

11
This points out that the play value of a playground depends upon the quantity and quality

of the equipment. It also indicates that turn-taking can be limited by appropriate

equipment. In the classic book Design for Play, Dattner describes what he learned from

his study of the play habits of the children of New York City. He determined that

playgrounds provide activities which foster self-confidence and various levels of social

play while developing gross and fine motor skills, balance, strength, and coordination

(Dattner 1969). Playgrounds can provide varied and complex developmental

opportunities for children, but this can also apply to splash parks.

Playgrounds are available to children year-round, an advantage over splash parks.

The season for splash parks is typically not as long as for playgrounds because of the

cooling effect of water; however, during the hot months of summer, water play is highly

desirable by many children. Conversely, the hot, dry environment of a playground may

be uncomfortable. Even though splash parks are not available for all seasons in most

climates, they may be more attractive to children during the time they are.

There is some risk associated with all forms of play and children are injured every

day in all types of daily activity including the use of playgrounds. According to a study

published in Ambulatory Pediatrics in March of 2001, fall-related injuries account for the

greatest proportion of emergency room visits (twenty-five percent). According to Kelly

Cook, ASLA, founding partner of KDC-Turner Partners, falls from heights account for

the majority of all playground accidents (2005). While there may be falls on a splash

pad, because the child stays on the surface-level and does not climb onto the equipment,

fewer and less severe injuries will result. While it may seem to be contradictory, one of

12
the reasons splash parks are more appealing to children is that as playgrounds have

become safer, they have also become boring and sanitized:

Playgrounds are safer than ever, proponents say – a critical consideration when
hundreds of thousands of children are reported injured on playgrounds each
year. But detractors say many of the playgrounds are dumbed down, that the
pursuit of safety and lawsuit-avoidance has eclipsed the goal of challenging
play. (Scott 2000, par. 4)

While entertaining children for hours on a hot sunny day, a splash park promotes

independent, interactive, and competitive play. This provides for development in a safe,

beneficial, and stimulating environment, and yet the children just see it as an opportunity

to play in the water (Pares 2005). A splash park will not replace either swimming pools

or playgrounds but supplement them.

Summary

Playing outdoors in a physical manner is beneficial to children of all ages. Social

play, in a setting which attracts not only children but adults, benefits everyone involved

as well as the entire community. It is the nature of healthy children to engage in noisy,

rigorous, physical activity. The current activity level of children in the United States is

considerably less than it has been in recent history, and this has had detrimental results

for the overall health of American children. The problems associated with physical

inactivity during childhood can have repercussions throughout an individual’s life. While

the benefits of physical activity during childhood are evident during childhood, they also

lead to positive habits which encourage a healthy adult lifestyle. Childhood physical

activity levels must be increased to reverse the United States trends towards inactivity.

13
Splash parks can supplement the current outdoor play environments available to children

in a manner which attracts children and leads to activity, while also appealing to adults

who facilitate the children’s access. Splash parks can entice children out-of-doors with

the appeal of innovative water play, increase their physical activity, and have a

significant impact on their well-being.

Untitled poem
Written by Polly Hill at age 13

I must laugh and dance and sing

Youth is such a lovely thing
Soon I shall be too old, stately
I shall promenade sedately
Down a narrow pavement street
And the people that I meet
Will be stiff and narrow too
Careful what they say and do
It will be quite plain to see
They were never young like me
When I walk where flowers grow
I shall have to stoop down low
If I want one for a prize
Now I am just the proper size
Let me laugh and dance and sing
Youth is such a lovely thing
(Hill 1980, 33)

14
 CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW FOR HISTORY & CONTEXT

An exploration of the history of children’s play in public spaces and the role of

play in the worlds of children is beneficial when designing an environment for children.

“When we give children what they want, as opposed to what adults think they want, those

outdoor play areas look entirely different…They want different things to do, and a

developmentally appropriate learning environment that holds their attention for hours”

(Stoecklin 2000, par. 1).

In designing outdoor recreational spaces, Gold explains in Recreation Planning

and Designs, “The basic planning task is to understand the significant relationships

between people, cities, leisure, recreation, open space and urban form” (Gold 1980, 29).

While there are many definitions of children’s play, the following is an effective

explanation from the perspectives of both children and adults: “Children’s play is the

freely chosen activity of children, while from the point of view of adults play is a means

and may serve several developmental functions, play is undertaken by children as an end

unto itself” (Wilkinson 1980, 9). Children play because it is instinctual and through their

play they learn fundamentals that can only be grasped through experience.

Not only are children different from adults, they are different from each other.

These differences, such as age, gender, and personality, affect their needs and wants. A

public play space cannot be designed for each child individually, but it can be designed

so that a child’s individuality is celebrated and personal choices are encouraged. Before

15
creating a public play environment, particularly one of a new type, it should be

determined that the play environment will make a valid and unique contribution towards

fulfilling the needs of children in order to justify its inclusion in the realm of public play.

Role of Play in Child Development

Simply stated, the business of childhood is playing. In his classic book Play and

Interplay, Paul Friedberg, gives a very succinct visual explanation, “Play is the child’s

work. The world is his laboratory, and he is its scientist. Play is the research by which

he explores himself and his relationship to the world.…How does a child learn? He

learns by doing, and much of what he learns is through play” (Friedberg 1970, 35).

Children not only desire to play but need to play. “Play contributes to the development

of a healthy personality” (Frost 1992, 21). By nature children want to play and in

fulfilling this desire, they learn and grow. Healthy children take an active role in their

own development. “Do we want the kind of children who are content with the asphalt-

dreary playground and its standard swings and slides?” (Friedberg 1970, 37). While most

parents realize they are training their children for adulthood, sometimes they forget that

successful adults display interest, involvement, creativity and, hopefully, enthusiasm.

Children need an environment where noisy, rambunctious behavior is expected and

acceptable. It is against their nature to be silent and still.

Attitudes towards children’s play have varied throughout history. The main

influences in the United States are from the French and English cultures. Historically, the

French tolerated play and the English regarded it as unproductive. As explained by

16
David Cohen, in his book, The Development of Play, “Victorian society and industry

needed to define play and leisure as rare, abnormal activities that were the opposite of

that normal activity, work” (Cohen 1987, 14).

Aase Eriksen, M. Arch. Ph.D. summarizes the current understanding of the role of

play in child development:

[T]heorists and researchers agree that healthy growth and development –

including physical, emotional, social and intellectual growth – is based on
stimulating learning experiences that arouse the learner’s interest. These
principles are based on a belief in the natural curiosity of children and their
innate desire and ability to learn. (Eriksen 1985, 1)

Children grow physically, emotionally, socially, and intellectually as a result of

stimulating experiences which they naturally seek. A more scientific approach to

understanding the role of play (Figure 2.1) has been developed by Bowers:

Figure 2.1: Role of Play in Child Development,

Adapted from: Bowers 1988

17
“The play process and normal development interact during the early years of life and

provide information about the child’s place in the world” (Bruya 1988, 30). Play has a

vital role in a child’s development of abilities as well as his sense of self and the world

around him.

There are five classical theories of play according to Michael J. Ellis. In his book

Why People Play, he lists these as: a. Surplus Energy, b. Play as Relaxation, c. Play as an

Instinct, d. Play as Preparation, and e. Play as Recapitulation. “These classical theories

of play all have certain limitations that make it impossible for contemporary educators

and psychologists to be content with them” (Eriksen 1985, 4). The Psychoanalytic

Theory of Play originated with Freud but was elaborated upon by psychologist Erik

Erikson. Freud held that play was motivated by pleasure as well as the desire to master

unpleasant experiences. Erikson expanded the Freudian theory by describing play as a

developmental progression by which a child begins to understand the complex world

(Frost 1992). In 1962, Piaget proposed the Cognitive-Developmental Theory of Play

which further builds upon Freud’s Psychoanalytic Theory of Play. Frost explains

Piaget’s theory with the following, “It [play] serves as a vehicle for knowing and as an

indicator of the child’s cognitive development” (Frost 1992, 8). Play is a child’s means

of learning about himself and the world around him but is also indicative of his or her

level of maturity. The following summary puts the value of play in perspective:

Above all, however, it should be recognized that play is an earnest as well as an

enjoyable activity, that it is not simply an interlude in human behavior, a
dispensable if refreshing indulgence. It is, rather, a vitally important activity of
human life that, in fact, exists among the members of all human societies at all
ages. (Eriksen 1985, 5)

18
Regardless of the theory or theories chosen, child development experts and parents

recognize play as a desirable and necessary activity of children.

The International Play Association (IPA) formed in 1961 formulated the “Malta

Declaration of the Child’s Right to Play.” It declared, among other things that, “Through

play the child develops physically, mentally, emotionally, and socially,” and “Play is a

means of learning to live” (Wilkinson 1980, 5). Child development occurs in predictable

sequential steps. “If children are ready for a particular stage of physical or social

development, they will likely choose activities that affect their growth in that area. Play

is not just exercise of the body. Play is not frivolous” (Eriksen 1985, 1). It is necessary

for, as well as indicative of, cognitive development. “Since (intellectual) development is

cumulated, play has both immediate and long-range effects on that development”

(Yawkey 1994, 14). When accepting that play is the business of childhood, one has not

only the responsibility to allow children to play but the obligation of providing them with

a variety of play experiences.

No matter which theory of child development is preferred, experts agree that

children are not small adults and have differing needs depending upon many factors

including: age, ability, interests, and personality. In “Toward the Perfect Play

Experience” Polly Hill explains that, “[T]he child’s home and school are major

influences in his/her development. There is ample evidence, however, to indicate that the

out-of-school life – the play life – of the child is also a major influence on what he/she

will become” (Hill 1980, 23). The goal of children’s play is to develop social, physical,

emotional, and cognitive skills so they will become healthy, well-adjusted adults.

19
 Another important aspect of children’s play is the outdoor environment. How

children play in the outdoors is distinctly different from how they play indoors. Children

playing outdoors can be louder, more physical and rambunctious than would be safe or

acceptable indoors. Studies show that “…playing outside is an intrinsic need because it

provides a uniqueness of experience that cannot be offered elsewhere” (Moore 1990, 17).

Two obvious examples of physical benefits of outdoor play are improved cardiovascular

strength and gross motor development. While the role of outdoor play in children’s

cognitive, emotional, and social development is less obvious, there are multiple benefits

(Brown et al. 2005). Physical activity promotes “increased cerebral blood flow, greater

arousal, changes in hormone levels, enhanced nutrient intake, changes in body build, and

increased self-esteem” (Shepard 1997, 113). Because the body is stimulated, the mind is

more alert and this leads to enhanced cognitive development. Lady Allen of Hurtwood

understood that in outdoor spaces, children are able to engage in risk taking behaviors

that would be impossible indoors, challenging themselves in ways which lead to

improved self-esteem and self-confidence (Allen 1968). Outdoor play benefits are

summarized by Clements in the following quote:

Researchers, parents and educators alike know that the benefits of outdoor
active play are many. Children can relieve stress, develop leadership skills
within varied peer groups, create games and form memories with siblings,
increase physical strength, form greater awareness of their surroundings and
start to grow an appreciation of nature to last a lifetime. (Clements 2003, par. 4)

Children benefit in many ways from actively playing outdoors. In addition to these

benefits, they are much more likely to become healthy adults and maintain healthy

activity levels into adulthood. This concept is explained graphically in Figure 2.2.

20
 Figure 2.2: From Child to Adult

For children to develop into healthy, well-adjusted adults, certain developmental

needs must be met during childhood. All children have similar primary needs but also

individual needs. Unstructured play allows each child to make their own choices. Such

play stimulates the child and is fundamental in meeting his or her individual needs.

According to IPA, “While organized cardio activities keep children fit, it appears that

only spontaneous play provides the brain connection that stimulates learning” (Reese-

Learned 2005). Children learn by direct observation, physical involvement, and personal

experience:

Children have a natural curiosity that requires direct sensory experience rather
than conceptual generalization. To be effective and engage children based upon
their developmental abilities and ways of learning, the hands-on sensory
experience needs to be immersive and open-ended rather than structured and
scripted. (White 2001, 2)

21
Simply stated, children learn by doing and play is what they do. Children learn about and

alter themselves, their environment, and others through play. Play is essential to the

development of the whole child. Friedberg cites a particularly applicable old proverb:

“Limit the experience and the child is limited; limit the child and the adult is limited. The

child is truly the father of the man” (Friedberg 1970, 35).

Children’s Public Play

Children can play in their homes and backyards. They will play in the streets and

on abandoned lots (Senda 1992). They will even swing from the bars in the checkout

line, sit on the washer during the spin cycle, and dig through dumpsters. While children

can create a play environment in any time or any space, the term “play environment”

refers to a space specifically designed for and dedicated to the purpose of play. Within a

play environment, children should be encouraged to explore, create, and manipulate

objects and themselves in a safe yet challenging way.

If children are so creative about finding a place to play, why are specialized

places such as playgrounds, nature parks, or splash parks needed? They offer a safe

enriched place designed specifically for the developmental needs of children. Playing, in

an environment designed for play alongside other children, facilitates physical,

emotional, social, and cognitive development. Watching children at play, especially in an

outdoor environment, one can readily see the way they use their bodies develops their

coordination, strength, major motor control, dexterity, and awareness of their physical

self, abilities, and limitations. While they play, emotional development will occur as they

22
experience feelings of success, independence, and creativity. Social development results

as children recognize the need for cooperation and gain the ability to share with others.

They learn about group dynamics, acceptable and unacceptable behaviors, and also to

appreciate their own individuality. Children’s cognitive development is enhanced as they

face new situations with creativity, imagination, and problem solving. Developing,

expanding, and using these skills are the ultimate self-expression and promote self-

appreciation (Clements and Fiorentino 2004, Frost and Sunderlin 1985, and Hill 1980).

The play environment should be a setting for the child’s imagination with

equipment or materials stimulating, but not limiting play. The child’s mind should create

the environment and define the activity. The equipment should not specify the activity; it

needs only to suggest and not limit use (Kvashny 1969). The child will create uses which

we as adults would never envision. Our responsibility is to design and provide

equipment, materials, and settings that minimize safety concerns while maximizing

challenges and opportunities for the child’s imagination.

Playgrounds

Until the last century, children played throughout all areas of their surroundings

including adults’ workplaces, in the streets, in deserted urban spaces, and in natural areas.

As our world became industrialized and the automobile replaced four-legged modes of

transportation, it became less safe for children to roam free. With greater awareness of

the risks to children came the need to restrict their worlds of play. It became desirable to

keep them in a smaller, controlled, and safer environment. Because of the restrictions

23
and the limitations of a defined space, it needed to be enriched to retain children’s

interest. This was the impetus for the first public playgrounds. They were, however,

often constructed inadequately, by providing only such play equipment as slides, swing-

set, teeter-totter, and dry sand (Dattner 1969). Figure 2.3 provides a visual representation

of these limitations:

Figure 2.3: Natural Play of Children,

Adapted from: Bowers 1988

“Equipment designed to be used in a single manner by the children who use them cannot

meet a player’s need for variation, thus thwarting imaginative play” (Bruya 1988, 34).

Almost a century passed before playgrounds moved beyond these insufficiencies.

One of the first public playgrounds was established in 1870 in New York City’s

Central Park. It was an acknowledgement that the city’s progress had made the outdoor

environment less safe for children’s play but this playground did little to address the

developmental needs of children. In early playgrounds, the pieces of equipment were

usually disassociated from each other and often located on a piece of land that had been

24
deemed inappropriate for other uses (Aaron 1965). In his book Design for Play, Richard

Dattner quoted a New York Times article expressing an attitude about playground design

which was prevalent until the 1960s. The last sentence of the following quote expresses

Dattner’s opinion of administrative attitudes:

Several years ago two 350-pound gorillas were turned loose on a new set of
swings in Central Park. When it was found that the animals did not destroy the
equipment, the playground was pronounced fit for New York City’s children.…
The simplest maintenance measure, to be sure would have been to exclude
children, but that was clearly a Utopian solution. (Dattner 1969, 35)

The desire to simplify administrative responsibilities led to less creative and less user-

friendly designs. Dattner, Aaron, and Lady Allen made tremendous contributions to the

evolution of playgrounds during the 1960s and 1970s.

As adults we are often distressed as we watch a child graduate from swinging in

an upright seated position, to hanging across the swing on their belly and then to

standing. Next they swing until the ropes or chains slacken, jump out at the highest point

of the arc, and finally climbing to the top of the swing set in defiance of gravity, common

sense, and adult admonition. While climbing to the top of the swing set may be too risky,

the adult anxieties otherwise sadly suppress what is an otherwise natural progression of

play.

In the last three decades, traditional playgrounds have taken on a new look and

feel with modular play structures and new surfacing materials. Steve King, CEO of

Landscape Structures, Inc., “Father of continuous play equipment” (Patton 2005), said

that “In the United States, initial capital cost is the biggest factor in playground choices

made by administrators” (King 2005). Kelly Cook, who specializes in the design of

25
playgrounds, believes that fear of litigation, as well as desire to simplify maintenance, has

lead to the “sterilization” of our nation’s playgrounds. Bright cushioned surfaces provide

measurable fall protection, stay in place, and appeal to the adult eye, but they have

minimal play value. Sand, with which children love to play, also provides fall protection

but gets shifted out of the areas where protection is needed and requires a regular

commitment of maintenance personal to clean and redistribute. Because sand also gets

carried home by the children in their hair, shoes, and clothing, it is not popular with some

parents. Cook says that he has witnessed playground grand-openings during which the

children flock to the equipment costing several tens of thousands of dollars and after a

brief examination, the children choose to play in the sand.

During the 1970s in response to some of the shortcomings of traditional

playgrounds, creative playgrounds were designed with interrelated, fixed play

apparatuses comprised of more natural materials and more abstract designs. It is

suggested that designers of creative playgrounds were some of the first to acknowledge

the variety of abilities, skills, and interests among children of different ages. A creative

playground recognizes that “Play and learning are a continual and integrated process”

(Kvashny 1969, 19). The design recognizes that children will not necessarily use the

equipment as adults may intend and encourages more imagination than the traditional

playground. A large creative playground (Figure 2.4) is located on the southwest side of

Lubbock, Texas.

26
 Figure 2.4: Creative Playground in Lubbock, Texas

About the same time, adventure playgrounds were also created in England. Often

referred to as “junk” playgrounds, children, advised by an adult, are allowed to

manipulate the environment and experience self-directed activities such as constructing

forts and lighting fires: “In the flexible atmosphere of an adventure playground, there

seems to be no limit to the variety of occupations that can be developed and enjoyed….

Adventure playgrounds are shaped by the children themselves according to their needs”

(Allen 1968, 58). Adventure playgrounds (Figure 2.5) do not tend to be aesthetically

pleasing to adults and although structures are evaluated by qualified persons for structural

integrity, they will often appear unsafe to the casual observer. They do require constant

supervision by an adult and often have difficulties obtaining enough raw materials.

These playgrounds, while loved by children, have received very mixed responses from

adults and neighbors.

27
 Figure 2.5: Adventure Playground,
Source: www.ShopinBerkeley.com

Adventure playgrounds are more prolific in England and Europe, where the

acceptance of risk by the user is viewed differently than in the United States, which has

become an increasingly litigious society. Chace and Ishmael explain this difference: “In

the United States, a major stumbling block is the strict insurance regulations for

children’s safety. Lady Allen of Hurtwood (1965) once commented that it appeared as

though American playgrounds are designed more for insurance companies than for

children” (Chace and Ishmael 1980, 173). Sadly, safe playgrounds are often boring

playgrounds.

No discussion of playgrounds would be complete without addressing the issue of

safety and risk. Boredom from doing the same activity repeatedly on a traditional piece

of equipment, leads a child to try an unintended, though often innovative, and sometimes

dangerous, alternative use. Since the 1960s, there have been many innovative

28
playgrounds conceived and designed but fewer actually constructed. In the United States,

fear of litigation has led to an excessive concern over safety which has resulted in

children’s play environments being simplified. Children are not playing in many

playgrounds today because they do not find the complexity, stimulation, challenges, and

variety they find elsewhere. Children play on equipment they like and therefore are

injured more often on this equipment as opposed to equipment that they do not like.

Although well-intended, this is seen as reason by some to exclude or alter the equipment

which children like. A playground safety article in Landscape Architecture reports:

Two studies found that children who use monkey bars and horizontal ladders
experienced increased risk of injury. A separate study, based in Australia,
found that while these types of equipment are popular, the overall playground
injury rates is very low – less than one injury per 1,000,000 uses. In this
Australian study…children use horizontal ladders much more frequently (two
to seven times more often) than they do general climbing equipment or slides.
[It was therefore concluded that p]layground designers can make playgrounds
safer by…omitting horizontal ladders, as popular as they are. (Cackawski and
Augustin 2005, 84-86)

This line of reasoning is similar to the Utopian solution suggested by Dattner. Wilkinson

made a very good point about the appearance of safety as a result of disuse:

It is possible to create an environment which is almost perfectly safe simply by

avoiding risk. The problem is, however, that such a setting would not make a
good play environment because it would lack many of the elements necessary
for meaningful play: variety, complexity, challenge, risk, flexibility,
adaptability, etc. Quite simply, such a playground would go largely unused.
Indeed, this is the case with many of the traditional playgrounds now in
existence. They are not being heavily used because children do not like them;
they are neither fun nor challenging. Incidentally, this also gives them the
appearance of being safe. Few accidents are reported because few children use
them. As a result, no meaningful or definitive statements can be made about
accident rates. (Wilkinson and Lockhart 1980, 86)

29
Playground equipment safety evaluation must account for the number of uses not simply

the number of injuries. It is our responsibility to design the equipment and the setting to

minimize safety concerns while maximizing the challenge and opportunity. No

playground can be “child proof” nor should it be. A child must test limits and learn.

They must be protected from serious injury, but using judgment and taking risks are

necessary to learn the skills of evaluation and reasoning. The appearance of danger is

part of the thrill and challenge. Adults must make decisions daily which involve risk.

This skill is developed throughout our life, including childhood. If children are bored

with a play environment, they will return to the streets and other environments where

they were playing before playgrounds were first created, places that are even less safe

now than they were in the 1870s.

Children can extend their abilities and learn their limits in play environments that

offer a controlled amount of risk. Lady Allen of Hurtwood, a strong advocate for

adventure playgrounds, explains how underestimating the ability of children is

counterproductive:

It is a rewarding experience for children to take and overcome risks…Life

demands courage, endurance and strength, but we continue to underestimate the
capacity of children for taking risks, enjoying the stimulation of danger and
finding things out for themselves. It is often difficult to permit children to take
risks, but over-concern prevents them from growing up. This is all too clearly
seen in the dull, ‘safe’ playgrounds that continue to be devised. (Allen 1968,
17)

Some argue that not only should we be less concerned about safety but that we should

actually design for some risk. According to Clare Cooper-Marcus, in her article entitled

“Should Playgrounds Incorporate Risk?,” a sign at the entrance to the Princess Diana

30
Playground states: “Parents and caretakers must note that the design of the playground

does allow for a degree of risk. This is intentionally provided so your child can develop

an appreciation of risk in a controlled play environment rather than taking similar risks in

the uncontrolled and unregulated wider world” (Cooper-Marcus 2001, 71). The Princess

Diana Playground is a creative playground in England. The message of the sign and the

popularity of the playground with adults and children, provide insight into acceptance of

risk by other cultures as opposed to the desire for elimination of all risks by society in the

United States.

In “Toward the Perfect Play Experience,” Polly Hill encourages designers of

playgrounds to maintain perspective by writing: “In design terms, this means providing

opportunities that require the use of large muscles and present a challenge. Safety

features should be designed for the unexpected slips, for being pushed, etc., but should

not restrict the challenge” (Hill 1980, 25). Learning inherently results from the

challenges and risks taken during childhood. This is essential for the development of the

ability to evaluate situations for acceptable and unacceptable levels of risk, which is

crucial to successful adulthood. New types of playgrounds are simply recognition that

more exciting and varied outdoor play opportunities are needed by children.

Water Play

Another component of children’s public play is water play. People require water

for their very existence. Humans are instinctively attracted to water because of genetic

memories (Lewis, C. A. 1996). As water has always been an element in our

31
environment, one can conclude that water play has existed throughout the history of

mankind. Children often experience water play during the first few days of their infancy

as they are bathed. As children mature, treating a bath as an opportunity to play in the

water is a much more effective means of encouraging them to bathe than explaining the

benefits of personal hygiene. Adults take care to avoid mud puddles. Children, on the

other hand, will go out of their way to step in a puddle, repeatedly and with enthusiasm.

They experience water play in the natural environment when interacting with creeks,

swimming holes, and rain showers. The built environment also offers water play

opportunities in the form of swimming pools, storm systems, and lawn sprinklers. Water

activities are even the basis for some types of therapy. Hydrotherapy was concluded to

have physical and psychological benefits by Christina M. Pulliam (1999). Activities

involving water are desirable and beneficial. As determined by Moore in his article

entitled, The Power of Nature, water features and aquatic environments are highly valued

by children (Moore 1986). Most children, as well as many adults, enjoy the cool feeling

of water upon their skin on a hot sunny day.

When someone hears the term “water play,” the first thought which comes to

mind is likely to be a swimming pool. Swimming pools date back several centuries. In

an article about the history of swimming pools, Mary Bellis states:

Romans built the first swimming pools (separate from bathing pools)….However,
swimming pools did not become popular until the middle of the 19th century….
After the modern Olympic Games began in 1896 and swimming races were
among the original events, the popularity of swimming pools began to spread.
(Bellis 2005, par. 1)

32
The first municipal swimming pool in the United State was opened in 1887 in Brookline,

Massachusetts (Donahue 2005). Ivette Eads, Outdoor Recreation Supervisor for the

Lubbock Parks and Recreation Department, determined that Lubbock’s first pool was

built at Mackenzie Park in 1940. Pools are now common in housing developments,

hotels, and even in backyards.

Waterparks with tubular slides, wave pools, and lazy rivers are an offshoot of the

amusement park industry. The World Waterpark Association (WWA) located in Kansas,

provides the following facts on their website: There are more than 1,000 waterparks in

North America, including pools with waterpark features; the estimated attendance at

United States waterparks during the 2003 summer season was more than 70 million

adults and children; the first waterpark created was Wet ‘N Wild in Orlando, Florida in

1977 (WWA 2005). In the United States, there were some playgrounds which

incorporated water in the late 1980s, but the recent concept of a splash park began

approximately a decade ago. It took many decades for the more innovative concepts of

creative and adventure playgrounds and splash parks to join the traditional playground as

shown in Figure 2.6. There was a gap of almost a century for real changes in the design

of playgrounds and aquatic recreational facilities.

33
 s
nd
ou
gr
ay
s

s
nd

ol

Pl
Po
ou

re
gr

tu
in
ay

en
m
Pl

dv
im

s
rk
s
al

rk
Sw

Pa
on

e/

pa
iv
iti

sh
ic

er
at
ad

bl

la
at
re
Pu

Sp
Tr

W
C
1870 1887 1960s 1977 1995

1850 1900 1950 2000

Figure 2.6: Outdoor Play Environments, Timeline in United States

Water play comes in many forms, has multiple benefits, and is seen as the ideal form of

entertainment on a hot sunny day by scores of children. Recent acknowledgement of the

importance of play in child development has precipitated a trend towards more innovative

outdoor play designs.

Planning criteria for play environments were developed by Moore, Goltsman, and

Iacofano in their book Play for All Guidelines. Before developing criteria, the value of

water play must be understood. They point out:

The play value of water is tremendous because of its multi-sensory character:

sounds, textures, changes of state, and feeling of wetness. Water is a primal
element and holds endless fascination for young children. It excites and
relaxes. Children seldom miss opportunities for water play, whether they are in
a bathtub, in puddles or in swimming pools....Water encourages shared
activities and interaction. (1992, 150-151)

Children enjoy and seek opportunities to interact with water. In addition to children’s

perspective on water, they suggest that, “Sensitivity to parental reactions to children

34
getting wet is important” (Moore et al. 1992, 150). Parents are usually receptive to

children’s water play when they are prepared for the nuisances often created by a wet

environment, especially when they see the pleasure it brings to children.

Splash Parks

According to Patrick Ryan of Splashspot, Inc., the first appearance of splash play

equipment was in 1986 at the World’s Fair held in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Splash parks are much more numerous in Canada than in the United States. This is

surprising because of the lower temperatures, but the Canadians maximize their time for

outdoor activities during the summer months (Ryan 2005). The commercial awareness of

splash parks in the United States began at aquatic industry trade shows in 1995 and then

at the Summer Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia the following year. Mark Soderberg of

Kraftsman Playground, Inc. began promoting splash parks in 1995. From 1995 until

2000, his company was able to sell and install the equipment for only one splash park.

From 2000 until the present time, they have installed nearly one hundred such parks in

the state of Texas alone. Needless to say, the popularity of splash parks has exploded.

Determining the number of splash parks in the state of Texas is not a simple issue

as there is no governing agency or registration requirement such as for swimming pools.

Splash parks are owned and operated by city governments, daycares, hotels, resorts, and

housing developments. Some are attached to large aquatic facilities, whereas others are

simply 1,000 square-foot pads within a park. The most reasonable estimate for the total

number of splash parks in Texas is between 250 and 400. They seem to be concentrated

35
in the Dallas-Fort Worth, Austin, and Houston metropolises. Everyone this author spoke

with was reluctant even to estimate the number of splash parks in the United States or in

Canada. In other regions with harsher climates, splash parks are sometimes enclosed and

others are built in conjunction with swimming pools and other aquatic facilities.

It seems safe to say that the market will continue to expand. In areas where the

public has seen or used a splash park, the demand is increasing. They are used as a

selling amenity by residential developers, a marketing device for the lodging industry,

and an educational tool for daycares (Ryan 2005). According to Dallas city council

member, Veletta Forsythe Lill, “People just don’t want to go and paddle around anymore.

There will always be some need for the traditional pool, but they don’t provide the

experience kids are looking for” (Levinthal 2004, par. 7). Splash parks are typically less

expensive to install than swimming pools and at worst, equal in maintenance costs.

Splash parks provide a type of free play not available in other formats. They

provide children with more social play than a sprinkler in a yard because they are

available to a more diverse group of children and previous acquaintance among the

children is unnecessary. In Clements’s survey of mothers, she determined that “Sixty-

seven percent also identified outdoor play as a means for children to interact with

children from other cultures” (Clements 2003, par. 2). In an open and non-threatening

atmosphere, children learn to play and form friendships with children they might not

otherwise meet. The variety and the action of the water are elements not available in

other forms of play environments. Splash parks also contribute to the healthy

development of children by encouraging physical activity in a way that attracts and

36
retains children’s interest. The child development benefits of splash parks are discussed

at length in Chapter III.

Sometimes several children interacting are required to activate the full effect of a

water feature. This opportunity for cooperative play is an excellent way to encourage

socialization and the inclusion of many children in game play:

Interacting with others is a healthy part of life and is essential to children’s

social development. A properly designed water playground contains products
that encourage both youngsters and adults to interact with each other. Some
manufacturers have developed products that are specifically designed to
promote teamwork. The collective efforts of the participants can create a
desired water effect through cause-and-effect mechanisms. (Hamelin 2002, 23)

Playing in a group setting, with children of various ages and cultures, and in a manner

which is enhanced by group effort, is a tremendous learning opportunity for children.

While splash parks do not have all of the play variety of playgrounds, they

include the element of water with more play variety than a swimming pool. “A water

playground can contain a multitude of visual and physical stimuli for children, from

toddlers to young teens, including the disabled….The colors, the forms, the different

textures and temperatures of the water create sensory experimentation for children”

(Hamelin 2002, 22). Splash parks provide water play not available in playgrounds, but

they differ from a swimming pool in that there is no inherent risk of drowning. This

eliminates the need for a lifeguard making splash parks less complex to operate than

swimming pools. John Webb of the City of Tyler Parks and Recreation Department,

which has two splash parks, stated, “If I had the funding, I would scatter five or six more

splash parks all over town in the neighborhood parks.”

37
Theming

Water features shaped like animals or elaborate designs in the surface material,

referred to as “theming” are popular with splash park designers. Increasingly popular

amusement parks and waterparks are themed, as are some playgrounds. Theming for

commercial parks is to attract customers and build recognition. While also striving to

attract users, a properly designed splash parks is a play environment which differs from

amusement parks and waterparks in several ways. Major differences are that amusement

parks and waterparks charge substantial prices and attract a wider and on average, older

age group of users (WWA 2005). Cost and age of users are significant in the application

of themes to splash parks.

“All around the country, park and recreation departments are struggling with this

same issue: To theme or not to theme? It’s a battle between budgets and beauty and

function versus fun” (Tam 2004, 40). Theming adds to the overall aesthetic value but it

also increases the cost of a project. According to George, “Depending on the magnitude

of the theme, the cost of a project could cost up to 50 percent more” (Tam 2004, 44).

Does the theming appeal to children or adults? The actual response is interesting:

According to a focus group study commissioned by Rain Drop Products, an

Ohio company that specializes in splash pads and water playgrounds, children
are interested in functionality, not aesthetics. Company president Ron George
says the study discovered that adults cared more about themes than kids.
“Children don’t care necessarily how it looked,” he says. “In some cases, they
were overwhelmed, when all they wanted was to get wet and have fun.” (Tam
2004, 41)

38
Some parks and recreation department personnel feel that themes are not cost-effective

and can possibly limit future revision or expansion as explained by Jason Horsley:

Not using themes allows you to be more progressive over time. If I wanted to
change something, I wouldn’t have to worry about interfering with the theme.
Personally, we haven’t put ourselves in that situation…..A theme per se is not
the draw; it’s the variety of recreational opportunities that are provided within
the facility. As long as it provides a variety of things for kids to do, the theme’s
effect will wear off over time. The kids are not overwhelmed [impressed] by
them as much as their parents; they want to play with the water cannons, those
kinds of things. (Tam 2004, 42)

Others have chosen to have themes and unique design features throughout their

splash parks. They argue that it makes things more fun and colorful as well as

contributing to promotion of the concept. Hamilton County Park District Development

Director, Bob Kline, acknowledges appealing to adults has value and can increase

children’s opportunities to enjoy the splash park. He says,

Hamilton County could have easily gone with less elaborate designs, but it
wanted to make an impression on its users. Kline admits that kids are probably
more interested in the wet playground’s features than its theme, but he says
parents are the ones who have to sit there and watch their kids. He wants to
motivate them to bring users to the facility—an aesthetically pleasing place
could provide that extra motivation. (Tam 2004, 43)

While children are the ultimate users, parents must facilitate that use.

Theming is fun and adds value, but it is important that the designer recognize that

it may not be an integral part of the play value for children. For children, color is part of

the initial attraction in a play environment, but is not a part of the play value (Reese-

Learned 2005). If budget constraints are a limiting factor, designers need to realize that

the variety of play features is the core of the experience for the ultimate users. Lisa

Johnson, landscape architect, indicated that creating a design with color and patterns in

39
the surface material was simple and rewarding (Johnson 2005), an inexpensive, yet

effective way to add color, interest, and character to the site. According to Scott Broady,

director of marketing for Vortex Aquatic Structures International,

In their research, they’re finding these splash pads are not only cheaper initially,
[than a pool] but also in the long run… The cost of ownership is considerably
lower and the play value is significantly greater than swimming pools. In this
videogame generation that we live in, we need to find better ways to keep kids
entertained. The big challenge is how to draw their attention with innovative
play products…The key is to have the right mix of products…As long as you
have that and they’re age appropriate, you’re going to have a successful project
that attracts a lot of people. (Tam 2004, 44)

Having the splash park enjoyed by children and appreciated by adults is dependent on

many factors. Elaborate theming can, but does not have to be a part of creating an

enjoyable and exciting outdoor play environment.

Splash parks are a new phenomenon and remain popular with children even after

the initial novelty. According to Greg Esler, director of parks and recreation for the City

of St. Clare Shores, Michigan, “It’s probably the most popular thing our city’s done in the

last couple of years. We’ve had hour-long lines” (Dickinson 2003, 10).

Trends in the United States and Texas

Population changes and trends in the leisure industry, in recent years, will aid in

determining the recreational needs of a community in the near future. The United States

Census Bureau (USCB) indicates the population of the United States is increasing rapidly

and moving into metropolitan areas. The urban population increase in the region which

includes Texas was thirty-nine percent more than the national average (USBC 2000).

40
 In addition to population growth, the amount of leisure-time directly impacts the

need for recreational opportunities. For Americans, working hours are increasing and

therefore, availability of leisure-time is decreasing (Morrill 1993). As a result of having

less time available, “Consumers today want more entertainment from their leisure

activities, and so do their children” (Kroskey 2000, 8). Leisure-time is also spent in

activities which require less physical exertion (Institute of Medicine of the National

Academies 2004).

Children have more free-time and are less involved in physical activities than

children of a few decades ago. A sedentary lifestyle, which includes countless hours of

watching television and playing electronic video games, is partially to blame for the

increasing rates of childhood obesity and diabetes. Income levels are rising according to

the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis. Also, ease of access to information has

created an awareness of the many recreational activities available. This allows many

Americans to spend more for more varied entertainment options. Americans had less

time, were less inclined toward physical activity, and spent more for and expected more

from leisure-time options. Therefore, enticing children into physically active recreation

requires that the activity must be varied, complex, and developmentally appropriate in

order to compete for and maintain their attention. Splash parks provide for the broad and

complex sensory stimulation children need.

41
 Summary

Play environments were created to provide for the developmental needs of

children while protecting them from the dangers of the world at large. Playgrounds,

swimming pools, and splash parks all provide valuable play experiences for children.

Perhaps play experiences have been compromised in the United States by an excessive

concern for safety and the indifference of some administrators; the primary focus should

be the children’s needs and desires. We must always strive to “improve children’s play

environments and to increase the quantity and quality of children’s play opportunities and

positive play experiences” (Hill 1980, 23). Splash parks encourage behaviors which can

have a long-term positive impact on children’s health and development. They are a

dynamic and refreshing alternative to other play opportunities and make a unique

contribution toward satisfying the developmental needs of children.

42
 CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY AND SITE OBSERVATIONS

In this chapter, justification, methodology, and observations of splash parks are

documented. This analysis demonstrates that splash parks provide play value; that is

children enjoy using splash parks while performing activities and engaging in behaviors

which previous research has shown contribute to child development. The specific factors

which contribute to play value must be understood in order to recreate and improve the

concept of splash parks as a recreational option for children. Information from site

observations, surveys of children and guardians at splash parks, and information from

adults associated with splash parks was compiled and evaluated. Using this information,

general conclusions were drawn which are the basis for the proposed design.

Justification of Splash Parks

Splash parks are being developed as an outdoor public play environment for

children. An in-depth analysis of splash parks was necessary to determine if they:

• Entice and delight children,

• Provide a unique experience for children,
• Contribute to the health and well-being of children,
• Are accepted by parents and guardians, and
• Have an acceptable impact on the natural environment.

If children express joy while playing in a splash park and wish to return, it is apparent

that children are attracted to and enjoy this form of recreation. If children engage in the

splash park in a complex manner which is not possible or probable in another

43
environment, it is determined that splash parks provide a unique opportunity for children.

The health and well-being of children is discussed in Chapter II. If children engage in

activities which promote physical, social, cognitive, or emotional development, it is

inferred that splash parks are beneficial to children. Adult’s comments and attitudes

toward splash parks were examined for acceptance. Responsible stewardship requires

that the impact of splash parks on the environment and natural resources be acceptable by

current standards.

Limitations of the Study

This study specifically addressed the concept of publicly owned splash parks.

Owners and/or managers of privately owned splash parks are often reluctant or unable to

share information. Written information necessary for research is limited within private

institutions; therefore, publicly owned splash parks were chosen to facilitate accessibility

to information as provided by the United States Freedom of Information Act. Because

regulations vary from state to state, the study was also limited to splash parks within the

state of Texas so that the information obtained was strictly relevant. Attaching a splash

park to an aquatics facility or making it an integral part of a playground is a viable and

perhaps desirable option, depending upon specific circumstances; however, in order to

focus on the splash park itself for purposes of this research, the proposed splash park is

be a stand-alone facility. A case study was done for one splash park and two splash parks

were observed for this study. The focus of the study was on the activities and behaviors

of the children interacting with each other, adults, and the facilities within the splash park

44
environment. Adult behavior is discussed as it relates to the impact on the children’s play

and briefly under the heading of Social Capital on page 79. There are many regulations

which must be understood before a splash park is designed, constructed, and operated.

Though this is a complex and multifaceted area beyond the scope of this thesis, some

general information is presented.

Methodology

To gain knowledge and an understanding of children’s play environments, books

on children’s play, child development, playgrounds, and parks and recreation were

reviewed. These readings provided a general understanding of:

• How and why children play,

• The role of play in children’s development,
• How playgrounds contribute to children’s development, and
• The elements of a successful outdoor recreational facility.

In addition to the general body of knowledge of child’s play, there are several papers and

articles specifically about splash parks. However, to date, no extended study has been

published. This author was unable to find a single article evaluating the overall function

or even describing the elements of splash parks in a peer reviewed publication. The

written data provides: general information, limited facts about specific splash parks,

names of cities who own splash parks, manufacturers and their representatives, as well as,

names of designers. Communication with administrative and maintenance personnel of

various cities was by telephone calls, through email, and in person. Most of the people

contacted were very willing to talk about their overall experiences and thoughts as well as

the installation, operation, and maintenance of splash parks in their jurisdiction.

45
 Manufacturers’ representatives and their websites provide a great deal of

information. At least three of the companies have sponsored studies and research related

to their products and children’s interaction with them. The majority of this research is

proprietary and unavailable to researchers outside the companies. Several designers of

splash parks, including landscape architects, architects, and engineers, also contributed

the benefit of their knowledge and experiences. Site observations and surveys completed

the analysis.

Case Study – Spray ‘N Play

The only splash park for which written information is available, from multiple

sources, is located in Buffalo Grove, Illinois. “Giving Them What They Want” is an

article published in the Illinois Parks & Recreation July/August 2004 publication. The

Spray ‘N Play (Figure 3.1), which opened on June 12, 2004, is a 10,000 square-foot pad

with twenty-nine different play features designed for entertaining children ages ten and

below. It was designed by landscape architect, Dan Dalziel, and uses water features

purchased from Vortex Aquatic Structures International (Vortex). The $750,000 facility

includes washrooms, a sunshade, two picnic shelters, and an adjacent concession area.

The fenced facility has an admission charge of $3 and recirculates the water to minimize

consumption. After several failed attempts at constructing aquatic facilities, “Seeing

families take an instant liking to the new facility, it seems so obvious that the splash pad

is exactly what the community has needed and wanted for a long time” (Magee and Pares

2004).

46
 Figure 3.1: Play ‘N Spray Splash Park,
Source: Avrasin 2004

A second article entitled “Maintenance Mishaps” appears in the October 2004

issue of Parks & Recreation. Like the first, it reiterates that the Spray ‘N Play is popular

however, it indicates there are some problems (Avrasin 2004). Buffalo Grove Facility

Coordinator Rick Missing is quoted as saying, “Everyday there’s a maintenance issue

involved with that place” (Avrasin 2004, 65). According to the article, the pumps for the

splash pad features are twice the capacity of the pumps for the filtration system. Grass

clippings from mowing areas adjacent to the pad, leaves and other debris dropping from

trees, and loose surface material from a nearby playground place an extra strain on the

filtration system and causing the nozzles to clog. Even with these issues, “He [Missing]

admits the splash park is a huge success with the community, especially the younger

kids….It has really been a really good addition to our district” (Avrasin 2004, 66).

47
 Chuck Burgess, the Aquatics Coordinator for Buffalo Grove, discussed at length

the popularity and problems of the Spray ‘N Play Splash Park. He said that it is the most

popular with children about age five and that ages twelve and above are not interested;

there are no separate areas for different age groups. He stated that the problems are not

due to pump size as stated in the article “Maintenance Mishaps” but rather the

installation. The water treatment system was altered to adapt to the pump room. He

firmly believes that had the system been left intact as it was received from Vortex, most

of the problems would not exist. Burgess said that 85 to 90 percent of the debris is grass

clippings. He indicated that the splash pad is surrounded by a deck less than four feet

wide, with a fence and grass beyond. He feels that if the decking was extended eight to

ten feet, the problems would be minimized. Like his supervisor Rick Missing, Burgess

reiterated that it is a community enhancement and he is expecting a busy season. In spite

of the maintenance problems, which are being rectified, Spray ‘N Play is considered a

success because the children enjoy it. To supplement this case study, detailed

information was gathered through direct study of two splash parks.

Site Observations and Surveys

Pecan Bottoms Splash Park in Waco, Texas and The Splash Factory in Grand

Prairie, Texas were visited and information was gathered from the following sources:

• Interviews with parks and recreation officials,

• Interviews with designers,
• Direct observation of the sites,
• Surveys of users, and
• Surveys of guardians of users.

48
The book, Play for All Guidelines: Planning, Design and Management of Outdoor Play

Settings for All Children, by Moore, Goltsman, and Iacofano, is recommended by Clare

Cooper-Marcus as being an ample source for design guidelines for play areas (Cooper-

Marcus 1998, 5). For this study, relevant guidelines were chosen from this publication

for the evaluation of splash parks. Management criteria for play settings include:

• Play value,
• Safety,
• Accessibility,
• Integration, and
• Management.

The entrance should be assessed for:

• Functional requirements,
• Accessibility,
• Drop-off zones,
• Waiting zones,
• Communications, and
• Image presented.

Pathways must have:

• Accessible routes,
• Appropriate dimensions,
• Proper surfacing, and
• Edging treatment.

Fences or enclosures can be used to define, protect, separate, and create activity settings.

Signage is needed to provide information about the site and alert users to special features.

49
 In order to understand who uses the splash park and how they interact with it, the

following questions were asked during surveys of guardians:

1. First name?
2. Age category?
<20, 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s +
3. Income category of family?
<$30,000, 30-60,000, 60,000+
4. How often do you come?
5. How long do you usually stay?
6. Do you enjoy it?
7. What makes you decide to come?
8. Who did you bring?
9. How old are your children?
10. What do you like?
11. What do you dislike?
12. What would you change?
13. Overall impression?

The questions were developed by the author based upon readings from Clare Cooper-

Marcus. Other questions were also asked to explore the responses or other statements.

Guardians were observed for their gender, activity, and behavior. The following

questions were asked during the surveys of users:

1. What is your name?

2. How old are you?
3. Who are you with?
4. How did you get here? (walk, bike, car)
5. Is the splash park fun?
6. What is your favorite thing about the splash park?
7. Do you like playgrounds?
8. Do you like swimming pools?
9. Can you swim?
10. What is your favorite: playgrounds, swimming pools, or splash parks?
11. What would you like changed about the splash park?

Like the guardians, responses were often open ended and discussed. Users were

observed for their gender, clothing, activity, and behavior.

50
Pecan Bottoms Splash Park

Pecan Bottoms Splash Park, which first opened during the summer of 2001

(Black 2005) was observed on a weekend in May, 2005. This splash park is located

within Cameron Park, a large linear regional park along the Brazos River. Cameron Park

is located on approximately 350 acres (Goodman 2005) and has multiple nodes of

activity connected by an internal road winding the length of the park. Access to

individual areas is facilitated by short roads connecting the park road to the city streets.

Pecan Bottoms Splash Park (Figure 3.2), which is one of the more easily accessed nodes,

was designed by Lisa Johnson, a landscape architect employed by the City of Waco at the

time. Water Odyssey, located in San Marcos, Texas, supplied the stainless steel water

features. Preparation of the site, installation of the drainage system, splash pad, and

water features were completed or supervised by city employees.

Figure 3.2: Pecan Bottoms Splash Park at Cameron Park

51
 The Pecan Bottoms Splash Park is in a pleasant park and provides many features.

Parking for approximately twenty-five vehicles is located under a bridge which provides

shade. A playground, which is being renovated, and a picnic pavilion are within forty

and thirty yards, respectively. The concrete pathways lead through the site to the various

amenities. Everything appears to be accessible for strollers and/or wheelchairs. There is

a sign with the rules of use but no instructions for the activator. The drinking fountain is

about ten yards from the splash pad but was not working. This may have been due to the

playground renovation. Trash receptacles are plentiful and litter was insignificant. The

one amenity which is lacking, restrooms, was mentioned by several parents and even

children. The Brazos River, which is approximately fifty yards away, is over a rise, and

has a jogging path along its bank. This is a well maintained and established park with a

thick grass cover and large trees. The trees provide some filtered shade to the area

surrounding the splash pad but do not overhang the play surface. They are thought to

cause problems with maintaining the cleanliness of the pad at times (Ryan 2005).

The splash pad at Pecan Bottoms is approximately 1,200 square-feet and kidney

bean shaped (Figure 3.3). Black, Municipal Services Director for the City of Waco Parks

and Recreation Department, estimated the cost of construction at $100,000. There are

three elevated water features as well as two separate flush water features made up of four

and six spray nozzles, which are connected below the surface. The features are basic and

the surface of the splash pad is a cushioned, rubberized surface used for playgrounds,

known in the industry as “pour-in-place”. The surface design has two shades of blue with

a duck footprint in yellow. No fee is charged and there is no supervision.

52
 Figure 3.3: Field Diagram of Pecan Bottoms Splash Park,
Not to Scale

The splash pad at Pecan Bottoms is surrounded by a curb and gutter with a limited

deck on two sides of the pad; this is not typical splash park design. Only one drain is

located on the pad, but several are incorporated into the curb and gutter. There are minor

drainage problems with the splash pad and water puddles to a depth of one and one-half

inches on one area. The puddling, it was later learned, is caused by an inoperable water

feature which should gradually fill and drain the low area.

53
 Results of Surveys of Guardians. This author talked with parents or other adults

observing the children on the splash pad. The observers and users were a very diverse

group of people and at least three ethnicities were represented. Groups included:

• Extended families there for regularly scheduled picnics,

• Two fathers each with a single child,
• Mother with two daughters,
• Couple with five grand nieces and nephews from Houston,
• Two young pregnant women with a younger sister and son,
• A grandmother with five of her grandchildren,
• A sitter with her own child and two others,
• A mother with fifteen-month old twins and four-year old daughter,
• A young professional couple with two daughters, and
• An older couple there to watch the children.

All guardians lived in Waco and all categories of annual family income were represented,

though not all persons responded. Of the twenty-five persons interviewed, four were

married couples but many of the remaining seventeen persons were there with groups.

The guardians were mostly female (Figure 3.4), predominately in their twenties (Figure

3.5), and many brought someone other than their own child (Figure 3.6).

20

15
Number

10

0
Male Female

Figure 3.4: Gender and Number of Guardians Surveyed

at Pecan Bottoms

54
 16
14
12
10
Number 8
6
4
2
0
<20 20s 30s 40s 50s 60s

Figure 3.5: Ages of Guardians Surveyed at Pecan Bottoms

14
12
10
Number

8
6
4
2
0
Own Child Other No Child

Figure 3.6: Guardians Relationship to Children at Pecan Bottoms

Twelve of the guardians came with children regularly, as often as daily or as little

as once a month, but typically once a week. Almost fifty-percent said they came because

of the weather and the desire to be outside, while only four said the children initiated the

idea of coming to the splash park. The average length of stay (Figure 3.7) was a little

more than two and one-half hours with two hours as the most common as per guardian

55
responses. The picnic pavilion was constantly occupied. Items which were brought

included:

• Lawn chairs,
• Blankets,
• Towels,
• Diaper bags,
• Bags with personal items,
• Sacks with snacks and picnic lunches, and
• Coolers (some were left in the cars).

10

8
Number of Responses

0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Figure 3.7: Average Length of Stay (Hours) at Pecan Bottoms

When asked what they liked about the park the responses were:

• Quality of play (water, run, etc) 17

• Safer than a pool, No drowning risk 9
• Free, Cheaper than the pool 8
• Swim suits not required 2

Note that several gave multiple answers.

56
Without suggestions being made, when asked what they, the guardians, would like to see

changed the responses were:

• Expand splash pad 12

• More seating 10 *
• Restrooms 6
• More shade 6 *
• Picnic tables or pavilion 5

* This number includes four additional guardians who were only asked
one question, “Why are you sitting in your car?”

Though the most common suggestion was to expand the splash pad, the others are mostly

ways to improve the comfort and convenience of the observing adults.

Results of Surveys of Users. Eighteen children, with guardians present, were

“interviewed”. Please note that Figure 3.8 represents the ages of these children but not

the ages of the users; many of the children were simply too young to survey and though

the parents were asked about the ages of their children, it was impossible to sort out. The

user age ranged from less than one year of age to eighteen years with the average age of

approximately seven. The number of boys and girls appeared to be even. While some of

the older children had some insightful observations, most of the younger children could

only remain focused long enough to answer one question at a time. All but one group of

the users traveled to the park by car; a single group of boys, around age thirteen and

without adult supervision, rode their bicycles. All children said they liked splash parks.

The children mentioned enjoying running, cartwheels, the mist hoop, geysers, and

splashing water.

57
 4

Number 2

0
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Years of Age

Figure 3.8: Ages of Children Surveyed at Pecan Bottoms

When asked which they liked best; playgrounds, swimming pools or splash parks,

most answered “pools”. “Swimming pools” was the response of six-year old Aleia but,

according to her mother, she was unable to swim and intimidated by the water in a pool.

Abbey, age four, stated that she likes splash parks better than pools, and then announced,

to her mother’s surprise and amazement, that she knows how to swim. All the children

claimed to be able to swim. Based on conversation with the parents, it appeared that the

younger children liked the idea of a pool more than the reality of a pool. The older

children, ages eight and above, did in fact appear to prefer swimming pools; they

mentioned jumping from the sides, water slides, and diving boards. An analysis of the

surveys, yielded very little information in the manner of trends or consensus. Children

who had experienced other splash parks wanted dumping buckets. The most common

answer to “What would you like changed?” was “Add a pool.” Two or more mentioned

wanting a slide, restrooms, or a bigger splash pad.

58
 Observations. The following statements or conclusions are based on direct

observation by the author and general conversations between the author and guardians

and/or users at Pecan Bottoms Splash Park. Although the children were enthusiastically

using their “outside voices,” the sound was not invasive to conversations.

The park sign asked that users wear swim suits and not wear footwear.

Approximately 60% of the children were not wearing swim suits but instead were

wearing shorts or other reasonably appropriate clothing. Several children were wearing

only underwear (Figure 3.9) and one very young child even removed all of his clothing.

Some of the older boys wore tennis shoes and one little girl had boots on. The little girl

in Figure 3.9 had obviously not planned to participate but after about ten minutes of

standing on the sidelines, she could no longer resist and joined the action.

Figure 3.9: Boy in Underwear and Girl in Boots at Pecan Bottoms

59
 Two parents commented that they could make an unplanned stop at the splash

park and stay just a few minutes or, pack a lunch and stay all day. Because of the cost,

going to the pool with the proper swimwear and other paraphernalia, required a major

commitment of time. One mother commented that if they went to the pool they had to

stay all day to “get their moneys worth,” but they could stay at the splash park for as little

as thirty minutes. There were at least two groups consisting of five children with only

one observer for each group. This would be difficult at a swimming pool. With the

splash pad integrated into the park, all day family outings including picnics and adult

socializing were common.

At Pecan Bottoms, it was interesting to observe that the children always looked

toward the pad when pressing the activator. When the feature they wanted didn’t come

on, they continued to press which indicated that they did not understand the cycle of the

water features.

There was much interaction among children of various ages. The toddlers often

played independently or sat next to drains, on the periphery of activity, and contently

played with the trickle of water. It was remarkable to observe the younger children

intently watching the older ones who were often oblivious to the younger children’s

attention. After the older children moved away, the younger ones would imitate their

actions, with various degrees of success. At other times, the older children helped the

younger children and interacted with them. However, when several older children were

playing together, the complexity and speed of their activity increased. They creatively

use plastic cups to throw water on their friends as a form of “tag”. Some of the older

60
children slowed down on occasion and played with the features which are typically

attractive to younger children or rested on the splash pad or surrounding deck.

Children actually had more interaction with flush mounted sprays (Figure 3.10)

than with the elevated water features, especially the geysers with multiple holes. All ages

would stand on it, put their face over it, and block it with their feet or other body parts.

Unlike when using the activator, the children are looking down at what they are doing.

Many children when asked did not realize that the higher sprays of the adjacent nozzles

weren’t simply part of the cycle and did not realize that they had caused the change.

Figure 3.10: Children Playing with Flush Mounted Sprays at Pecan Bottoms

61
Based on children’s use, the equipment in order of popularity on that weekend was:

• Flush mounted sprays,

• Puddle,
• Misty hoop,
• Spray pole, and
• Dumping pole.

Children actually spent more time with the activator than with the dumping pole.

The children ingested the water (Figure 3.11). Sometimes they appeared to

swallow and other times they filled their mouths to squirt their friends. It was amazing

how often this action was repeated and the pleasure it caused the child doing the

squirting. Several observers asked about the water recycling and were surprised to learn

it flowed into the river after a single use.

Figure 3.11: Children Drinking Water at Pecan Bottoms

62
 The standing water was centrally located and a favorite play area for all ages of

children. The children seemed to use it as an area to rest. However, four parents

expressed concern about the standing water.

When asked about specific designs or colors of the pad, none of the children

could make any comments until they turned to look at it. Then they only stated that it

was blue, like water. Of the guardians surveyed, four had been to other splash parks

without a padded surface and three of the four thought it made a difference and preferred

the cushioned surface. They didn’t worry about the children falling or being accidentally

pushed over by older children.

The maximum number of children observed on the splash pad at any one time was

twenty-six. Parents and guardians said that in the middle of the summer there would

often be as many as double that number of children. Figure 3.12 is included to show the

temperatures and the number of children on the days of observation at the first splash

park studied. However, with limited data, conclusions about temperature, time of day,

and user numbers would be inappropriate.

63
 Air Temperature Air Temperature
12 8:

60
65
70
75
80
85

:0

60
65
70
75
80
85
0 30

1: 9:
00 30
2:
00 10
:3
0
3:
00
11
:3
4: 0
00
12
:3
5:
00 0
Number of Children Number of Children

0
5
10
15
20
25
6: 0 1:
5
10
15
20
25

12

64
8: 00 :0 30
30 0

9: 1:
30 00
2:
10 00
:3
0
3:
00
11

Figure 3.12: Correlation between Temperatures,

:3
0 4:

Time of Day
00

Time of Day, and Number of Children at Pecan Bottoms

Time of Day

12
:3 5:
0 00

1: 6:
30 00
 Evaluation of Pecan Bottoms. The play value is discussed in this chapter in the

section on child development. The only safety issue observed was the standing water.

This was probably much more of a perceived risk by the parents and guardians than an

actual risk to the children. This puddle did add to the play value. The splash pad is well

integrated with the rest of the park with appropriate pathways which are properly

maintained and provided for easy movement from the parking area to the park. The

splash pad is separated from the dangers of vehicular circulation and the river is not

readily visible or accessible due to the height of the mound between the splash pad and

the river. An entryway would help define the area. The only sign is positioned near the

parking and designed for adults. Overall, based on the number of users and the attitudes

of the users and guardians, it is an excellent play value and is successful as it is.

Improvements such as solving the drainage problems, adding restrooms, increasing

seating with shade, and improving signage would resolve the only notable problems.

The Splash Factory Splash Park

The second splash park observed was The Splash Factory, in Grand Prairie,

Texas. It first opened in the summer of 2001 and has been well received by the

community (Boykin 2005). The Splash Factory is located next to a community center,

near a baseball field, and on the edge of a residential area. It is easy to travel to by car as

it is located near a stoplight on a major through street. However, it is behind a strip mall

and is only visible from less than a block away. Unless someone is deliberately looking

for the splash park or in the neighborhood for other reasons, it is unlikely to be observed.

65
 The Splash Factory (Figure 3.13) appears to be accessible to people with

disabilities, has excellent walkways, and is enclosed by a chain-link fence. There are

shade canopies next to two of the three splash pads and one large covered area with

picnic tables. The fourth and smallest shade structure located on the site plan on the

south side in the design was not constructed. However, a rectangular canopy was

installed in that approximate location after the splash park opened. The splash pad is

broom-finished concrete with colorful designs painted on the surface to create and

enhance the themes. The water features and water treatment system were supplied by

Kraftsman Playgrounds Parks and Playground Equipment Inc. Their representative, Pat

Kennedy, estimated the cost of the facility at $750,000, including the canopies and

parking for approximately twenty cars.

Figure 3.13: Diagram of The Splash Factory as Designed

Adapted from: Schrickel Rollins & Associates

66
 There are three separate splash pads designed for different ages: (1) the “Toddler

Area” with flush features, (2) the “Nature Area” with three upright features, and (3) the

“Gun Area” for older children with several upright features. They have a combined area

of 3,375 square-feet and the total paved area inside the fence is 9,100 square-feet

(Tidwell 2005). Each splash pad has a trench drain, promotes a different theme, and was

designed to attract different ages. Janna Tidwell, ASLA, of Schrickel, Rollins &

Associates was the designer and project manager. A restroom facility was installed

recently. There is always at least one lifeguard in attendance, and users are charged a fee

of $1 or $2.

Figure 3.14: Rules at The Splash Factory

67
 Results of Surveys of Guardians. Only seven of the twenty adults present were

available to survey. Most said they brought their children to the splash park once a

month and stayed one to four hours. The observers and users were a very diverse group

of people and at least three ethnicities were represented. All income categories were

represented. Groups included:

• Young couple with their fifteen-month old son,

• Father in his forties with his seven-year old daughter,
• Non-English speaking family with son,
• Couple with two children, an infant, grandmother and a friend,
• Non-English speaking couple with three children and their niece,
• A group of three adults and two children, and
• Two extended families.

12

10
8 Not Surveyed
Number

6 Not Surveyed
4
Surveyed
2
Surveyed
0
Male Female

Figure 3.15: Gender and Number of Guardians,

Present and Surveyed at The Splash Factory

68
 5

3
Number
2

0
<20 20s 30s 40s 50s 60s

Figure 3.16: Ages of Guardians Surveyed at The Splash Factory

3.5
3
Number of Responses

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6

Figure 3.17: Average Length of Stay (Hours) at The Splash Factory

Of the seven parents who were asked what they liked, four mentioned safety,

especially for younger children. Two mentioned that it was fun for the entire family and

in fact, when only a few children were present, some of the parents participated. Two

69
mothers said that the concrete surface on the benches and play surfaces were rough and

would like for that to be changed, two others suggested that vending machines or a

concession stand would be nice, and three parents appreciated that it was inexpensive.

Two commented that they had either hosted or their children had attended birthday

parties at The Splash Factory.

Results of Surveys of Users. The author was able to get meaningful responses to

survey questions from nine children. Their ages are shown in Figure 3.18. The greatest

number of children at any one time on the observation day was eleven; many were too

young to survey and several guardians refused permission. All users arrived by

automobile except for three boys, who rode their bicycles and were not accompanied by

an adult.

4
Number

0
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Years of Age

Figure 3.18: Age of Children Surveyed at The Splash Factory

70
 When asked their favorite thing about the splash park, of the nine children

surveyed, five responded, “The chicken.” This was actually a pelican’s head with an

oversized lower bill which filled with water and dumped. Two children preferred splash

parks and the rest favored swimming pools over splash parks and playgrounds. It was

interesting to note that when asked if they could swim, the closest answer to “no”, of all

the children surveyed, was “Not yet”. Some of the children’s suggestions for

improvement were:

• Water slide 3
• Stuff for little kids 3
• Warmer water 3
• More hold and dump features 2
• Control of sprays 2
• Snack machine 2

Observations. The following statements or conclusions are based on direct

observation by the author and general conversations between the author, guardians,

lifeguard, and /or users at The Splash Factory. The following specific activities were

observed:

• Seven-year old child who acted much younger than his age. He
followed groups of other children but did not interact though invited
twice. He seemed content and the other children accepted his
behavior,
• Group of four related children who played as a group of four or two
groups of two,
• Three boys on bicycles who were in the neighborhood all day. They
stopped and asked about the cost and wearing jeans. They didn’t come
into the splash park until 4:00. One child demanded a lot of attention
from the lifeguard,
• Seven-year old girl with her father was the only child at the time and
asked several times when other children would get there,

71
 • Benches were used only four times: once by two female adults, two
young girls, a father with his son, and one girl alone,
• Children playing with the guns typically clustered at one end,
• Two toddlers were observed sitting and patting puddles, and
• A father carrying his fifteen-month old son throughout entire area.
The child never complained though he had water in his face several
times.

In the “Toddler Area” there are seventeen flush mounted sprays in a pattern and

three horizontal sprays mounted on the side of a low concrete seating wall (Figure 3.19).

Children played with the three horizontal sprays by sitting on the wall and dangling their

feet. The seating wall creates separation of the areas and provides users and guardians a

place to sit in the water spray area without actually participating. A seven-year old was

overhead telling her four-year old sister, “Let’s do it both together”, referring to standing

on the sprays.

Figure 3.19: Toddler Area with Sprays at The Splash Factory

72
 The “Nature Area” (Figure 3.20), which was used predominately by children

about ages four and up, or younger if with a parent, has the most popular single feature.

The pelican, known to the children as “the chicken”, has worn the paint from the surface

and the texture from the concrete with the dumping action of the water. A seven-year old

boy slipped and fell and had to have ice put on a lump on his head. The lifeguard, Terry

Lewis, then placed a mat on that area to prevent further slips. Also in the “Nature Area”,

the flower (Figure 3.2) did not spin as designed as it was home to several baby birds.

Several children, who had played at The Splash Factory previously, asked about it. The

girls expressed concern about the baby birds and the boys wanted to know when it was

going to be turned on. When operating, the flower spins and throws the water out over

the children’s heads (Lewis, T. 2005).

Figure 3.20: Nature Area with Pelican and Flower at The Splash Factory

73
 The “Gun Area” (Figure 3.21) for older children has two upright features which

dump or spray water from different spouts but the main attraction is several upright

features designed to be used by a group. There are two pairs of guns facing each other

with poles which dumped water behind each gun onto the child using it when the

activator is hit by the player at the opposing gun. This area was favored by older children

and by some of the parents who participated in the play. On the day this author observed

play, the computer system was malfunctioning, due to mechanical problems (Lewis, T.

2005), and all of the features were operating simultaneously rather than cycling on and

off in series. Therefore, the game was not working as designed. In fact, the movement of

the children in all areas was effected by the water not cycling as explained: “With

everything going at once, it allows more kids to get wet, but is also tends to be like a

pool: It’s less interactive, and kids don’t get to run from one [feature] to another” (Yu

2005, 23).

Figure 3.21: Gun Area for Older Children at The Splash Factory

74
 The children tended to run when they moved from one area to another. Even

without the features cycling, Lewis had to remind the children at least once every fifteen

minutes to “Slow down,” or “Don’t run.” This made for a very different atmosphere than

that experienced in Waco. The hard, rough concrete surface with areas worn slick is not

“child friendly.” To further exacerbate the safety issue, the children obviously wanted to

run. Based on observations of the author and conversation with the guardians, the

surfaces of the seating walls and the splash pad are abrasive, provide no cushion, are

uncomfortable for sitting, and offer little to reduce injury from slips. Most importantly,

the surfaces restricted the children’s freedom to play as they desire.

When few children were present the parents often played with their children,

especially the younger children (Figure 3.22). More adults were participating at The

Splash Factory than at the Pecan Bottoms splash pad in Waco. As mentioned previously,

though the water features were not cycling on and off as designed, several children

attempted to activate features anyway, mainly the pelican. There was much watching and

waiting for the pelican to dump water. Children of similar ages who did not know each

other previously did play together and move through the features as a group. However,

because of the minimal number of children, prohibition against running, and all of the

features operating simultaneously there was not as much “chasing” the water and other

children as observed at Waco. There was a problem with drainage in two of the three

areas. Again, as in Waco, the shallow standing water was a play area enjoyed by the

children.

75
 Figure 3.22: Playing in Standing Water at The Splash Factory

Three of the shade structures are on the northeast, northwest, and north sides

causing guardians at times to face into the sun when observing the children. All of the

parents placed towels and other gear within the filtered shade created by these. Several

parents were observed watching the children with their hand held above their brow to

block the sun. The fourth shade structure on the south side did not provide any seating

and was not used by any parents. None of the adults brought blankets or lawn chairs.

Apparently, at least for this limited number of users, the shade, seating, and restroom

facilities were adequate as these were not mentioned by respondents as in Waco.

When asked what she would do differently, Tidwell addressed the issues which

are the areas for suggested improvement. In 2001, when The Splash Factory was

constructed, the only cushioned surface material available was for a dry environment

76
such as a playground and it was designed for vertical falls not sliding falls. The

manufacturers would not warranty their products for a water environment or for

protection against running falls which can occur on a splash pad (Tidwell 2005).

Tidwell’s original design included more shade, restrooms, and concessions but these

were not constructed due to budget constraints.

Evaluation of The Splash Factory. The facility is clean and well maintained. The

entrance area is functional with adequate space for drop off and pick up. A wall, arching

up four feet high and encircling one side of the Nature Area creates a minor issue as it

blocks the view of the splash pads from the entrance area. This was a problem for the

lifeguard who needed to remain near the entrance. The entire park is accessible to people

with disabilities. The paths and walkways throughout the park are appropriate. The

overall layout is interesting and seating is plentiful. However, the separation of the three

splash pads caused children to cross the walkway to move from space to space. This was

not an inherent problem as all the surface material is the same.

The fact that the water was not cycling decreased the play value. Another factor

which affected the pace of the play was the surface material. In Waco, the children ran,

skipped, and jumped in a manner which was not in evidence at The Splash Factory.

Indeed, these activities were discouraged by the lifeguard, justifiably, for safety reasons.

There is absolutely no doubt, in this author’s mind, that a cushioned surface enhances the

play value while a broom-finished concrete surface inhibits many behaviors and reduces

the play value. The children simply did not play with the same energetic abandon that

they did on the cushioned surface in Waco.

77
 The Splash Factory has several advantages over the Pecan Bottoms Splash Park,

namely: seating, shade, and restrooms. The parents seemed comfortable and the children

were laughing and smiling. In addition to amenities, it is larger and has many more

features. It also cost several times more; however overall, the play value on this

particular day for the children appeared to be lower than at Pecan Bottoms. The activity

was slower and less carefree. Also, though there were some extended families there, no

one brought picnics and only a few brought drinks. Terry Lewis did say that more

families came to the splash park than to the pool where it is not unusual for children to be

dropped off. The picnic area (Figure 3.23) is shaded, but the tables and chairs are close

together, fixed to the surface, and do not facilitated small separate group gatherings. At

The Splash Factory, while the children appeared to have fun, there was less enthusiasm.

The following factors probably all contributed:

• Location not clearly visible,

• Low number of children,
• Features operating simultaneously,
• Hard rough surface, and
• Lifeguard admonishing not to run.

Figure 3.23: Picnic Area at The Splash Factory

78
 Social Capital

Public spaces are vital to creating social capital which is defined and discussed

in Chapter I. “The primary needs that people seek to satisfy in public space are those for

comfort, relaxation, active and passive engagement, and discovery” (Carr et al., 1992,

19). As a public space, an appropriately designed splash park can provide for some of

these needs for children and adults. To truly gain an understanding of the contribution

toward social capital provided by a splash park, an in depth analysis directly focusing on

this subject is needed. This should be over the course of several months, if not years;

however the following observations were made.

Splash parks attract a variety of ages, ethnicities, and physical abilities which

encourages use by families with one or several children. It does not favor one gender

over the other, require athletic skill, or encourage aggressive competition. Children can,

and often do, interact with one another and with children they have never met. Many of

the features offer opportunities for children to create a greater effect if they play

cooperatively. Also, when one child discovers something, he or she shares this success

and knowledge with others. Users who chose to play alone are afforded that opportunity.

The children observed appeared to be totally accepting of each other. There is a

casualness of the atmosphere that brings the users and observers together in a social

manner. It is an open outdoor environment which belongs to everyone equally, including

the adults.

A splash park allows a flexibility of use not offered by other recreational

opportunities. It is available for stays of a few minutes but comfortable and entertaining

79
enough to stay for an entire day. One of the main differences between this and many

other play environments is the parents’ attitude. Most have no purpose in being there

other than their children. The park setting offers recreation for the entire family,

including adults who often simply choose to relax. While this author was present, parents

at both splash parks did not appear concerned about children running and never attempted

to control the play except for one minor incident. Some parents did play with the

younger children and often the younger children left the splash pad and ran over to their

parents briefly. This freedom and lack of parental control allow the children to make

personal choices and enjoy the benefits of unstructured play. The relaxed mood of the

parents also helped create an overall attitude of congeniality.

Acceptance by other users, choice of complexity, flexible length of stay, and

relaxation for the parents, create an atmosphere of easy interaction and are conducive to

the development of social capital. It becomes very natural for the parents of the

interacting children to also interact and this was observed on several occasions in Waco.

This very specifically occurred when a toddler was feeding Cheetos to a newfound friend,

an infant in a stroller. Laughing, the grandmother and mother intervened and

subsequently began to talk. This would especially be likely to occur if the same adults

recognized each other from a previous visit to the splash park or from other functions,

such as school events. This is a concept which deserves more time and analysis than is

available for the current research.

80
 Splash Parks Contribution to Child Development

It only took a few minutes of observing the children to realize that a splash park

can be a very active and joyful place for children. The four major categories of child

development presented in Chapters I and II are: physical, social, cognitive, and

emotional. The clearest way to understand how development occurs in splash parks is to

watch the interaction of children with the water, water features, adults, and one another.

This section focuses on the behaviors exhibited at the Pecan Bottoms Splash Park, where

the children’s behavior was much more active and energetic.

Physical Development

The key to physical development is to practice actions repeatedly. As children

mature, they will perform a greater variety of actions, more complex actions, and

combinations of actions. It takes the repetition of a variety of movements and behaviors

for children to develop physical strength, agility, stamina, body control, and self-

awareness. Children were observed to be doing the following activities on the splash

pad:

• Patting • Kicking • Bending

• Leaning • Splashing • Throwing
• Balancing • Stomping • Twisting
• Crawling • Squatting • Hopping
• Walking • Stooping • Jumping
• Running • Stretching • Dancing
• Dropping • Reaching • Resting

81
The following photographs (Figure 3. 24) taken over a short period of time are examples

of the physical actions of children playing on The Pecan Bottoms splash pad. During this

time, there were no accidents, tears, or disagreements among the children or observing

adults. There was much laughter and interaction of all ages, genders, ethnicities, and

physical abilities.

82
Figure 3.24: Physical Actions

83
Social Development

In addition to the physical actions shown in the photographs, it was easy to see the

interaction which leads to social development. Observations of the activity on a splash

pad quickly confirmed that there was much social interaction which results in social

development. Some of the features encouraged cooperative play and children often

moved as a group from feature to feature. As can be seen in the photographs in Figure

3.25, the following activities occurred repeatedly and promote the development of social

skills and abilities as the children played:

• Taking turns,
• Holding hands,
• Anticipating,
• Watching others,
• Imitating others,
• Play fighting,
• Playing chase,
• Encouraging others, and
• Older helping younger.

84
Figure 3.25: Social Activities

85
Cognitive Development

Children playing on a splash pad are developing physically and socially, and they

are also learning. While they are playing with water and learning how it feels, tastes, and

smells, they learn how they can affect the water with their bodies. What initially might

startle a child becomes a challenge and then a pleasant experience as they master it. The

children invent new games by using objects to add to the play experience. Often the

children, especially the younger ones, are learning by watching and imitating the other

children. Much of the opportunity for child development in the splash park setting

appears to be due to the interaction of a wide range of ages.

Some of the learning was obvious and took place in a very short time period. As

can be seen in the following series of photographs in Figure 3.26, the father showed the

toddler the nozzle and the geyser of water. After the father stepped away, the water came

on with more pressure. The child was startled (Figure 3.27) and not very happy. In

Figure 3.28 as the child continued to play, he mastered this feature and moved away

towards the next with confidence.

Figure 3.26: Father Explains

86
 Figure 3.27: Child Startled

Figure 3.28: Water Geyser Mastered

87
 The little girl in the orange shirt in the following series of photographs (Figure

3.29) wanted to play with an arch spraying a fine mist of water. This was usually the

domain of much older children as the younger ones don’t enjoy the sensation. When the

older children abandoned the arch, she very tentatively investigated by inserting on arm

into the mist, and then hesitantly walked through. Eventually she began running in

circles through the mist and around one pole. The smile on her face showed that, like the

young child with the water geyser, she has learned to enjoy it. Her expression and

actions indicated that this success created a sense of confidence and positive feelings.

Figure 3.29: Building Confidence

88
Emotional Development

Emotional development is more difficult to see and usually occurs over a longer

period of time, but some initial conclusions were drawn. The shared environment, where

everyone’s needs were being met, fostered tolerance and acceptance. The children were

developing patience through the limited amount of turn-taking. Older children were

respectful of the rights of the younger children and often helped them. Everyone seemed

to belong and the emotions which were continually demonstrated were joy and

enthusiasm (Figure 3.30). Along with the energy of activities, there was a sense of

delight among the participants and onlookers.

Figure 3.30: Emotions Demonstrated

89
Within the research criteria, splash parks clearly provide for the first four of the five

requirements of justification presented at the first of this chapter. The final requirement

relates to the impact on the natural environment.

Environmental Impact

The environmental impact was assessed in two ways. Several sources are quoted

in Chapter I stating that splash parks can use less water for more participation than

swimming pools, themselves considered an acceptable use of natural resources. The

second is also established and is beneficial: studies have shown that providing children

and adults with memorable, pleasant experiences in an outdoor setting will promote a

positive attitude towards nature (Cooper-Marcus, 1998). Therefore, splash parks are

environmentally acceptable by current standards.

Conclusions

Based on the observations and surveys, the children enjoyed playing outdoors in

the splash parks. At Pecan Bottoms, this author believes one of the major reasons for the

high spirits was the freedom the children had to move all over the splash pad and in the

general area without the parents intervening in the children’s activities. The children

were allowed this freedom because the parents perceived this to be a low risk

environment and it held the children’s attention as the parents relaxed. The fact that the

parents initiated the trip to the splash park reinforces the premise that the park must be

comfortable and inviting to adults to be accessible for the children.

90
 The types of activities differ from the other two most common public outdoor

recreation choices for children: playgrounds and swimming pools. Splash parks provide

the opportunity for water play with children defining the activity level. Because of the

free play and the interaction of a variety of ages and abilities, it is developmentally

beneficial. Splash parks appeal to a broad age group and are safe and accessible. They

have an acceptable impact on the environment and can create goodwill toward nature.

Overall, it appears that splash parks meet the five requirements of a new type of outdoor

public play environment for children.

91
 CHAPTER IV

ELEMENTS AND DESIGN CRITERIA

This chapter focuses on the information required to evaluate a site, various

components, design elements, and special issues as well as propose criteria for locating

and designing splash parks. When creating any successful play environment for children,

the designer must maintain a constant awareness that children are the clients and their

needs and desires must be understood and addressed as the main priority. However,

parents should perceive the splash park as a safe, enjoyable form of play for their children

and a comfortable environment for themselves, or they will not bring their children to

such a facility. A splash park is much more than a splash pad with water features; it

includes the surrounding area, amenities provided, and the overall environment created

by the design elements. Understanding these elements and their functions within the

context of the chosen site is vital to creating a successful splash park.

Site Selection Criteria

The site selection criteria listed here are based in part on the design guidelines for

play areas established by Moore, Goltsman, and Iacofano and overall concepts from

Rutledge’s Anatomy of a Park. The following information was used to evaluate the

physical aspects of a site to determine the appropriateness for the development of a splash

park and are applied in Chapter V.

92
Size of Site

The site must adequately provide not only for the splash pad, including the

surrounding deck, but should also allow space for comfortable observation and other

amenities including parking, shade structures, picnic tables, showers, and restrooms.

“As a rule of thumb, a 3,000-square foot splash play area will accommodate about 150

children” (George 2001, 6). This general rule is referring only to the splash pad itself,

which should be located in a sunny area for the comfort of the users. The surrounding

deck, typically six to eight feet wide, serves an important function. “Do not attempt to

have the children go from grass or bark or sand directly onto this wet surface itself

[splash pad]. You would not build a pool and not put a deck around it” (George 2002, 7).

Like the deck surrounding a swimming pool, the deck of a splash pad, serves to avoid

contamination. If water is to be recirculated, the site must be of sufficient size to include

the installation of a storage tank and an equipment vault.

Slope of Site

The splash pad itself must be sloped to allow for collection and drainage of the

water. If the site is fairly flat, it will facilitate grading for the splash pad and the

amenities to be included in the surrounding area. It is crucial that no portion of the site,

except for the splash pad itself, drains onto the pad and into the drain(s). In addition to

the water spraying from the features, only the rainwater which falls onto the splash pad

should be allowed to run into the drainage system to avoid contamination. For ease of

use and safety, most of the splash park should be of approximately equal elevation as

93
children will be moving from the splash pad to the observation area and back again. This

freedom of movement is a vital part of the play and must be accommodated by the

design. The ideal slope for the site is less than five percent.

Soil Types

Most splash park sites will be located within an urban area that contains urban

soils which will have to be evaluated for their specific qualities. As a general rule, the

soil must not react corrosively with concrete, have a cemented pan, or have high rates of

shrink-swell. If the site can support small commercial buildings and allow for shallow

excavation to trench for the underground water piping, the soils should be adequate. If a

holding tank or a vault is to be located underground, the soils must be adequate for

deeper excavations. These qualities can first be estimated based on the information in the

Soil Surveys prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation

Service, but specific tests may be needed.

Access to Utilities

The water must meet the requirements of the local health department before it can

be used for the splash park. For the operation of the splash park, access to an appropriate

water source, sanitary sewer, and electricity are necessary. The costs of installation will

increase if these are not available within the parameter of the site.

94
Fencing and Separation from Traffic

Some splash parks have fencing to deter access by bicyclists, skateboarders,

vandals, and animals (George 2002). Fencing can be decorative and add to the creation

of a sense of enclosure and space, which can be desirable in large outdoor settings

(Rutledge 1971). A nearby enterprise which generates a high volume of vehicular traffic

could endanger children and may cause the rethinking of the design. Depending on the

specific situation, a fence or other barrier might be needed to avoid the possibility of a

child running into traffic or leaving the splash park without the knowledge of a parent.

Visible for Safety and Awareness

Many children using splash parks are very young and for their protection, the

view should be unobstructed from all points of observation. Another aspect of visibility is

offering a good view into the splash park by passersby, especially while children are

actively playing. This is very helpful for marketing and creating public interest and

awareness. While a location next to a busy road is to be avoided for safety, a location

visible from a busy road is desirable as it will stimulate interest.

Appropriate Climate and User Comfort

The site should provide for the comfort of the user with shelter from excessive

sun and wind. The surroundings which will not be altered by the design should be

pleasant and not discourage use. The surrounding area must be appropriate for children

to walk through and not detract from the facility.

95
 Design Elements and Components

The heart of the play experience for children is the water as it falls or sprays from

the features. Understanding the ways children of different ages respond to and interact

with the various types of water features is vital to selecting the most appropriate

equipment. The surface, the surrounding amenities, and other elements comprise the

splash park. The relationship and design of these elements directly influence the play

experience and ultimately, the successful creation of a play environment.

Water Features

Water features come in a variety of shapes, sizes, and designs, yet there are some

basic categories. The variety of features should be chosen based on the age of the users,

water action, water direction, and type of interaction. While it may contribute to the

overall theme, whether the water falls from a pole, giraffe, or tree has little affect on the

play value. The child’s imagination will turn it into whatever fits with his or her current

fantasy (Forrest and Fraleigh 2004). To maintain the child’s interest, variety and

complexity are paramount. “The play process signals a chain of events which eventually

leads the player to experimentation” (Bruya 1988, 73). This is illustrated by Figure 4.1.

96
 Figure 4.1: Diagram of the Play Process,
Adapted from: Beckwith 1988, 73

This play process applies to all play environments and is not exclusive to splash parks or

even children. As children develop and mature (Figure 4.2) activities will shift to

different play patterns and equipment.

Less water volume Greater water volume

Lower spray Higher spray
Flush mounted Elevated features
Simple More complex
Directional control
Larger spray pattern

Age of Child

Smaller area Larger area

Play Patterns

Meandering Darting
Sitting, squatting, standing Many positions
More time with features Less time with features
Solitary More social
Slow pace Faster pace
Joy, discovery, freedom Joy, creativity, spontaneity, freedom

Figure 4.2: Splash Park Activity by Age

97
 To create a successful splash park, the age of the users must be considered in

choosing the appropriate equipment. Younger children usually prefer flush mounted

rather than elevated features (Figure 4.3) and lower water volume features: “Toddlers are

most fascinated by the flush mounted spray features because they [the features] are not

aggressive and also create a surprise element for all users when turned on and off

unexpectedly” (Hamelin 2002, 23). The children can sit on or next to the sprays and not

be overwhelmed. Younger children will play alongside other children rather than

actually interacting with them. Turn-taking is also inappropriate for the less mature

children as young children do not master this skill at this point in their development

(Kvashny 1969). An area which has features which attract younger children should not

interfere with the play of older, more physically active participants. Older children prefer

higher water volumes, diverse water action, and more control. They love to direct the

water and squirt friends, move from feature-to-feature freely, and anticipate the water

action prior to a feature being “on.” Older children are more social in their play but turn-

taking should be limited by providing a variety of features.

Figure 4.3: Flush Mounted and Elevated Features

98
 Feature Styles. Water features are either elevated above or flush with the splash

pad. They can be elevated to greater or lesser heights, but most features fall into one of

these two categories. Manufacturers use different nozzles and have a variety of water

usage and volumes. Rain-Drop Products asserts “the wetter, the better” (www.rain-

drop.com), while others try to get the most action with the least amount of water.

Caution should be taken that the water pressure is not so high as to damage eyes or cause

pain (Ryan 2005).

Other variants are the water action and spray patterns created by different nozzles.

The water may stream, pour, fan, mist, spray, pop, pulse, foam, or fall in a sheeting action

from a single or multiple nozzles. Water direction will also create a different play

experience for the child. The water may spray straight up, directly down, to the side, in

an arch, or from multiple directions. Differing heights and pressures will give different

effects. Some form a bubble of water under which a child or children can play. The

equipment should be analyzed carefully to choose features which offer multiple ways to

interact depending upon the child’s age, ability, interest, and current whim. Water

volume will promote different activities which will help develop fine and gross motor

skills, physical coordination, balance, and dexterity (Soderberg 2005). It can encourage

the child to run through, stand under, or attempt to redirect the water. The water feature

should provide opportunities for the child to be creative and imaginative.

Some features are non-interactive; the child cannot affect the water volume,

direction, or action. The child can interact with the water and the feature but the water

will be in a preset pattern. That pattern can be a simple spray or a series of buckets which

99
flow into each other. The water pressure or volume may cause a part of the feature to

move or rotate (www.waterplay.com). This type of feature appeals to all ages.

An interactive feature, conversely, will provide some control for the child. It may

be as simple as a valve to adjust the volume of water or as complex as water cannons

with targets. Some features allow the child to flex or twist part of the water feature and

scatter the water.

One of the features included in many shallow pools looks like a mushroom with

water sheeting from the top. The family aquatic centers in Odessa, Texas have these and

they look interesting but Patton, the Parks Director, noticed that children did not

congregate under them as was expected. After asking several children, he learned that

children find them boring because there is nothing to do but stand and it is unpleasant

because the water is too cold. Observing children interacting with features will reduce

the likelihood that an inappropriate feature will be included.

The feature style and anticipated activity impact the placement and relationship of

features to each other and the site itself. Water features need to be placed in accordance

with how children will play and interact with the features and other children. Some

features will need an unobstructed linear space for children to run through them; others

will require a more circular space. These are important safety issues that are to be

considered in the layout.

Feature Materials. Features are built from a variety of materials and the

environment or design can influence the choice. “Manufacturers build their features to be

rugged and withstand the wear and tear of the users as well as the elements. Today metal

100
and structural fiberglass are widely accepted for their durability and strength” (George

2001, 7). While different manufacturers use their own unique materials and coatings, it

should be confirmed that the chosen equipment is designed in accordance with the

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Each manufacturer has reasons

that support their choices; however, some materials may be more appropriate depending

upon circumstances.

Stainless steel is the strongest and is claimed to be the most resistant to corrosion

from the high levels of chlorine in a recirculating system (www.waterplay.com).

Stainless steel features have a special coating for durability, but they also have the

highest price tag. Waterplay Manufacturing, Inc offers aluminum, which they claim to be

sufficiently resistant to corrosion in a system which uses non-recirculating potable water

(www.waterplay.com). A third option is centrifugally formed fiberglass, more

commonly known as spun fiberglass. It is coated with a marine base paint. In the

opinion of one designer, fiberglass can be more vulnerable to vandalism than stainless

steel (Johnson 2005). One selling point of fiberglass is that it does not act as a lightening

rod like metal. However if a splash park is unsupervised, which is typical, lightning

sensors which stop the flow of water are available.

Water Feature Activator. An activator or sensor, usually on a separate bollard,

allows a child to activate the water system (Figure 4.4). The features will not always be

“on” during the operating hours of the park nor will they be functioning concurrently.

This conserves water and allows the child to feel a sense of control and power when

activating the system. When a child presses the button or breaks an electronic beam, the

101
individual features will turn on and off according to a preset, computer controlled series.

The series will vary and part of the pleasure for an older child is anticipating the relay of

active features (Hamelin 2002). Complexity and variety will help maintain their interest

and successful prediction promotes good self-esteem (Forrest and Fraleigh 2004).

Having a sensor which detects movement and activates the system automatically is

preferred by the maintenance personnel in Houston, Texas. According to Johnson, these

do not get vandalized as often (Johnson 2005). Some larger parks have multiple

activators but most owners indicate that more than one activator is an unnecessary

expense (Patterson-Brachli 2005).

Figure 4.4: Child Pressing the Activator

Splash Pad Surface

One of the major differences between a splash park and a playground, aside from

the element of water, is that the water features are not designed for climbing. Also, there

102
are no elevated platforms or moving obstacles such as swings to be avoided. Therefore,

there is not a “fall zone” to be padded to protect a child from injury if he or she falls from

a height. Any cushion on the surface of a splash pad will be to prevent slips by allowing

for grip and provide a comfortable surface (Cook 2005). In order to be safe, the surface

must be slip resistant to discourage falls and to eliminate standing water. This surface

need not extend to the deck surrounding the splash pad. There are several options, each

with advantages and some potential disadvantages.

Broom-finished concrete is championed by some because it is durable and

effectively: reduces slips, encourages drainage, and resists chemicals. It can be colored

with an additive prior to being poured, chemically stained, or painted. Concrete is the

base on which other surfaces, except asphalt, are applied. Broom-finished concrete can

be the least expensive, with the possible exception of asphalt, but also the least gentle on

little knees and feet.

Asphalt surfacing is touted as an option which is relatively comfortable on bare

feet and provides some gripping. New colored and textured asphalts designs are

available. Asphalt is promoted by Waterplay as being the least expensive; however it

fades with time and retains heat.

Rubberized granules mixed with adhesive and trawled in place creates what is

known in the industry as pour-in-place surfacing. It is softer and therefore more

comfortable to children’s feet than most surfacing. It is available in several colors and is

trawled to the thickness desired. It is probably the most expensive to apply and maintain

103
but provides wonderful cushion to a child’s knees and feet. However, pour-in-place has

ambiguous results in the industry:

Pour-in-place surfacing commonly used in playgrounds has had mixed success

in the water environment of a splash park. “Water, especially chlorinated
water, is a bleaching agent; it often causes the pour-in-place surfaces to
breakdown and deteriorate in a short period of time, a costly repair problem. In
addition, these surfaces are often absorbent. They trap water, creating problems
with water returning fast enough to the reservoir…” (George 2002, 7)

Other non-skid surfaces are similar to a product used on ship decks by the United

States Navy and Coast Guard. This skid resistant material comes in a variety of colors

and is applied like paint over sealed concrete. It provides a gripping surface but no

cushion.

As concluded in Chapter III, based on direct observation and surveys, the freedom

of play is enhanced by the pour-in-place surfacing which provides cushioning. This

surface is the most desirable as it allows for vigorous activity by children.

Zero Depth Water and Drainage

Splash pads are designed to allow the water to begin draining as soon as it hits the

surface. This is accomplished through sloping the pad, usually two to three percent,

surface texture, and proper placement of drains (Ryan 2005). A well drained surface will

pose no risk of drowning even to the youngest child. A single drain should be avoided as

it could become plugged. Trench drains have the advantage of being more difficult for

the industrious child to obstruct. “Drains should have smooth grates and no large

openings in them that could invite entrapment. Children, especially small children, often

104
like to sit on water sprays and drains. It is recommended that multiple drains be designed

into the layout to prevent puddling or standing water” (George 2001, 7). Children treat

the drains as a water feature.

Water Treatment System

A water treatment system (WTS) will use less water than a system which only

uses the water once. It will also allow for more features to operate simultaneously as the

volume can be better controlled.

Communication

If a site is unsupervised, signs may be the only form of communication. They

should indicate the hours of operation, rules of use, safety awareness, and emergency

information; these should be highly visible and possibly posted in multiple places.

Johnson emphasized, “Splash parks are new and you need to educate people on where

and how to activate the system” (Johnson 2005). Because some older children participate

in the activities without a parent or guardian in attendance, the signs need to be simple

and straight-forward. None of the issues for users are complicated and most signs can be

pictorial to increase the level of understanding (Figure 4.5). The majority of the signs

should address the children; this helps children to feel like it is their park.

105
 Figure 4.5: Example of Signs

Vandalism Prevention

Vandalism is a potential occurrence and must be considered in the design,

especially when splash parks are not enclosed. Accordingly, Timothy D. Crowe author

of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) recommends the

following three overlapping strategies of target hardening be integrated to reduce crime:

• Access Control,
• Natural Surveillance, and
• Territorial Reinforcement.

If access is not restricted, sidewalks and signs can be helpful in directing users while

discouraging inappropriate use or abuse. Increasing visibility through the design of the

general layout, landscape, and lighting will be helpful in deterring vandalism by

providing natural surveillance. Defining the area of the splash park, also known as

territorial reinforcement, will discourage non-users from entering the area. Locating the

splash park in a neighborhood that develops a sense of ownership in the facility has

106
proven to be the one of the best vandalism preventatives. Vandalism has been an

extremely minor issue in the splash parks in Waco which are located in residential

neighborhoods (Black 2005). “Vandalism is usually associated throughout our

communities with areas where activity is low. It doesn’t usually occur when someone is

around” (George 2001, 7). Design should consider lighting, visibility, signage, and the

location of the splash park as part of vandalism deterrence.

Parking and Walkways

Parking should be adequate to accommodate the expected number of users and

modes of transportation. The number of users will vary with the size of the splash pad

and due to their ages, many of the children will be accompanied by an adult. Some

splash park operators suggest one parking space for every three children accommodated

by the splash pad. If the splash park is to be located within an existing park or

playground, the current parking may be sufficient.

Steve Patton, Parks Director for the City of Odessa, Texas, offers parking as close

as possible to deter users from driving up onto the grass to be just a few feet nearer to the

picnic tables at community facilities. Depending upon the ages of the children, their

ability to assist, and the amount of “supplies,” the parent may need to make more than

one trip to the car. Families will be less likely to participate if parking is inconvenient or

unavailable. If the park is located in a neighborhood, some users may come by bicycle or

on foot and bicycle racks should be provided to encourage this desirable mode of

107
transportation. Parking surfaces should be shaded because of the tendency for young

children to be barefoot in a water environment.

All walkways to the splash park should be accessible for wheelchairs and strollers

and not be constructed of a loose material such as wood chips or sand. In addition to

damaging the surface, the greatest problem of tracking debris onto the splash pad may be

plugging the valves, inlets, nozzles, and draining.

Landscape Planting

Landscape planting is not done just for the aesthetic quality of the site but also has

an appreciable impact on the comfort of the users and ease of maintenance (Dahl and

Molnar 2003). Properly placed trees reduce winds and airborne pollutants including sand

and odors. Shelter from the sun and wind through plants also improves the attractiveness

and comfort of the site. The types of plants to be located near the splash park directly

impact the cleaning requirements of the pad itself and influence the efficiency of the

filtration system (Ziegler 2005). Landscape planting needs to be addressed in the design

phase:

[I]ssues of keeping the area clean and maintained overall will create a serious
problem with whoever is responsible for maintaining the facility. Trees and
their impact on maintenance and operation are major concerns often overlooked
in the context of creating a park-like setting. They can be incorporated, but the
design of your system and maintenance issues must be addressed. (George
2002, 7)

For example, trees nearby, though not overhanging the splash pad, provide shade and

increase aesthetic value and comfort.

108
Restroom Facilities

Parents or others, who have been around young children, understand that when a

child gets sprayed by cool water, he or she will often tense up and need to use the

restroom facilities (Soderberg 2005). Restrooms are amenities which improve the

comfort of and reduce the health risk to the users but also decrease the burden on the

water treatment system. It is this author’s opinion, that convenient restroom facilities is

necessary as an amenity as well as to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.

Regulations

Like playgrounds, splash park equipment must meet standards of no protrusions,

pinch points, entrapments, or trip hazards. If purchased from a reputable dealer, the

equipment and materials used will meet these standards and be designed in accordance

with and certified by the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM). It is also

advisable to choose equipment which has the International Play Equipment

Manufacturers Association (IPEMA) certification. IPEMA provides a third party

verification that the equipment conforms to established standards. The Consumer

Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has published guidelines regarding safety

performance and recommended practices for public playgrounds and has a guide for

owners and operators which can be applied to splash parks. The water features, all

amenities, and the park itself must also meet the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

and any applicable state accessibility standards. Other regulatory agencies are the local

health department and in Texas, the Texas Commission on Environment Quality.

109
 Because most states don’t have laws specific to splash parks, the industry has

adapted and applied the appropriate standards for playgrounds and swimming pools

(Soderberg 2005). Regulations will likely change and be specific in the future.

Swimming pools are defined as water in excess of eighteen inches by the Texas

Department of Health. They must be supervised, fenced, and have restroom and shower

facilities. While splash parks are not required to provide these, inclusion is often

appropriate and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Criteria Developed

The following criteria have been developed by the author based on the evaluation

of splash parks:

Physical Aspects of Site:

1. Site large enough to accommodate:

i. Splash pad and overspray deck,
ii. Space for shade, tables, and seating,
iii. Space for restrooms,
iv. Space for parking, and
v. Space for equipment,

2. Slope of site < 5%,

3. Appropriate soil type,

4. Access to utilities,

5. Fencing and Separation from traffic

6. Visible for safety and awareness, and

7. Appropriate Climate and User Comfort.

110
Composition of Water Feature Selection:

1. Accommodate all designated ages,

2. Attract a wide range of users on most features,

3. Choose a mixture of flush and elevated features,

4. Include simple and complex features,

5. Variety of water volume, action, direction, and spray patterns,

6. Include non-interactive and interactive elements,

7. Proper placement according to manufacturer’s suggestions, and

8. Adhere to safe regulation:

i. No climbing,
ii. Proper water pressure, and
iii. Certified by ASTM and IPEMA.

Relationship of Water Features:

1. Encourage interaction by layout and water cycling,

2. Allow space for active play and resting,

3. Provide for safety and observation of younger children,

4. Support safe and independent play of older children,

5. Promote safe movement from feature to feature,

6. Orient directional sprays away from non-participants,

7. Avoid looking into the sun to observe or play, and

8. Minimize runoff from splashing.

111
Overall Design Considerations:

1. Near other park facilities,

2. Splash pad surface:

i. Comfortable for active play, and
ii. Slip resistant,

3. Deck:
i. Slope away from pad,
ii. Comfortable for bare feet, and
iii. Wide enough to reduce debris,

4. Observation area:
i. Seating with and without tables,
ii. Space with and without shade, and
iii. Rest area for children on splash pad,

5. Drainage:
i. Maintain zero-depth,
ii. Allow for play, and
iii. Difficult to clog,

6. Water Treatment System:

i. Reduce water usage,
ii. Improve sanitation, and
iii. Provide proper volume,

7. Signs to communicate:
i. Rules of use,
ii. Instructions for use, and
iii. Hours of operation,

8. Define area for access control:

i. Lighting,
ii. Fencing, and
iii. Entrance(s),

9. Parking and walkways:

i. Near the splash park,
ii. Solid surface material, and
iii. Shaded,

112
 10. Landscape planting:
i. Define area and entrance,
ii. Reduce debris,
iii. Protect children by restricting movement,
iv. Facilitate adult access,
v. Control pedestrian traffic, and
vi. Enhance visibility,

11. Restrooms:
i. Convenient to users,
ii. Provide for user comfort, and
iii. Improve sanitation,

12. Safety:
i. Appropriate equipment,
ii. Deter vandalism, and
iii. Meet regulations.

While this list is extensive, a designer must always consider constraints and opportunities

which are specific to the chosen site or project.

Conclusions

There are many factors to be considered when designing a splash park including:

desires of the children, comfort of the guardians and users, opportunities and limitations

of the site, available features, and desired amenities. Because of the many factors

involved, the advice of those in the industry and design profession is absolutely necessary

to create a safe, enjoyable, and lasting play environment for children. There is no single

right way to design and install a splash park but there are wrong ways. The criteria

established in this chapter will be used to evaluate the proposed sites and be the basis for

the design proposed.

113
 CHAPTER V

ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED SITES

In earlier chapters, it was determined that splash parks present an opportunity to

fulfill the recreational and developmental needs of children. This chapter evaluates the

appropriateness of developing a splash park in Lubbock, Texas through evaluation of

pertinent local information and possible sites. The opportunities and limitations of each

site were documented and evaluated, which facilitated a comparison of the sites. Existing

amenities, current activities, variety of users, and their impact were determined by direct

observation and evaluation. Potential and desirable users and other relevant factors were

ascertained by analyzing information from various sources. The physical aspects of the

sites were evaluated based on the criteria established in Chapter IV. Because this splash

park is designed for an existing City of Lubbock park, desirable social and cultural

characteristics are based on conversations with various personnel of the City of Lubbock

Parks and Recreation Department.

Appropriateness in Lubbock

Development Trends

The Planning Department divides Lubbock into four quadrants, using Indiana

Avenue and 19th Street, for planning and analysis purposes. Figure 5.1, which was

created by overlaying the 1986 Land Use Map and the annexed regions map on the City

114
of Lubbock’s website, shows the regions. Figure 5.2 shows in various colors the new

development areas. The majority of this new development is residential housing with

some consumer oriented commercial development.

Figure 5.1: Lubbock Development with Regions,

Adapted from: City of Lubbock Planning Department Website

115
 Figure 5.2: Lubbock New Development Areas August 2004,
Adapted from: City of Lubbock Planning Department Website

The Lubbock population, projected increase, and region are depicted by the Figures 5.3

and 5.4. The total number of people in Lubbock, especially in the southwestern quadrant

is increasing.

116
 300,000

Number of Persons
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
1970 1980 1990 2000 (2010) (2020)

Figure 5.3: Lubbock Population (Projected),

Adapted from: City of Lubbock Planning Department Website

90,000
80,000
Number of Persons

70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000 North East
South East
20,000
North West
10,000 South West
0
1970 1980 1990 2000 (2010) (2020)

Figure 5.4: Lubbock Population (Projected) by Region,

Adapted from: City of Lubbock Planning Department Website

117
Outdoor Recreational Opportunities

The City of Lubbock’s goal for public facilities is to provide one elementary

school site and one neighborhood park site for each square-mile of residential

development. Playa lakes, which are often located in parks and are a part of the storm

drainage system, are to be an aesthetic amenity (City of Lubbock 2005). The City of

Lubbock has open space and public space scattered throughout the developed residential

areas (See Figure 5.1). However, not all of this space is attractive for outdoor recreation

mostly due to a lack of shade. Many of the newer spaces have immature trees which do

not provide respite from the intense sun.

Ivette Eads, Outdoor Recreation Supervisor for the Lubbock Parks and Recreation

Department, encouraged selection of a site to provide water activities in neighborhoods

without ready access to existing city provided aquatic facilities. Participant use days at

the four city-owned swimming pools for the summers of 2001, 2003, and 2004 were

58,350, 54,979, and 51,881, respectively (Maples 2005), indicating that demand for

public water recreation, though decreasing for this time span, is still high.

118
 Figure 5.5: Lubbock Public Swimming Pools

The following chart (Figure 5.6), adapted from one provided by the Parks and Recreation

Department’s Spring Activity Guide for 2005, shows the parks and the amenities which

they offer. The locations marked A, B, and C are discussed on page 125. The west and

south sides of Lubbock outside Loop 289 are currently underserved by publicly provided

aquatic recreational facilities.

119
 Bench

Fisheries

Museum

Restroom

Soccerfield
Playground

Memorials
Boat Ramp

Golf Course

Party House
Picnic Areas

Tennis Court
Softball Field
Baseball Field

Group Shelter

Multi-use Field

Swimming Pool
Multi-use Court

Volleyball Court
Equestrian Trails

Mountain Biking
Basketball Court

Skate/BMX Park
Community Center
Boat/Canoe Rental
Facilities

Walking/Jogging Track

Snack Concession Area

Reserved Picnic Pavilion

Waterfall/ Lake Fountain

O=Open during league play only

Parks
n
n

Andrews Park - 76th & Memphis

n
n
n
n
n
n

Atzlan Mackenzie Park - 1st Ave K

n
n
n
n
n

Berry Park - 36th & Cedar

n

Burgess - Rushing Tennis Center - 66th & Gary

n
n
n
n
n

Burns Park - 23rd & Ave K

n
n
n
n
n

Butler Park - E. 4th & Zenith

n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n

120

Carlisle Park - 28th & Ave X

n
n
n

Carter Park - N. Globe & N Loop 289

n
n
n
n

Casey Park - 66th & Ave W

n
n
n
n
n
n
n

Chatman Park - E. 29th & Juniper

n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n

Clapp Park - 46th & Ave U

n
n
n
n
n

Cooke Park - 18th & Kirby

n
n
n
n
n
n

Crow Park - 91st & Belton

n
n
n
n
n
n

Davies Park - N. Ave N & Clemson

n
n

Davis Field - 15th & Inler (FM 179)

Figure 5.6: Lubbock City Parks and Amenities,

n
n
n
n
n
n
n

Davis Park - 40th & Nashville

n
n
n
n

Dupree Park - 59th & Toledo

n
n
n
n
n

Duran Park - 26th & Kewanee

n
n
n
n
n
n
n

Elmore Park - 66th & Quaker

Adapted from: City of Lubbock Parks and Recreation Department

n
n

Gateway Plaza - Broadway & Ave Q

n
n
n
n
n
n

Guadalupe Park - 2nd & Ave P

n
n
n

Guadalupe Link - 1st & Ave O

n
n
n
n
n
n

Guy Park - 93rd & Memphis

n
n
n

Hamilton Park - 22nd & Ave X

n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n

Higginbotham Park - 19th & Vicksburg

n
n
n
n
n
n
n

Hinojosa Park - Viola and 22nd

n
n
n
n
n
n

Hodges Park - Marshall & N. University

n
n
n
n
n

Hoel Park - 91st & Chicago

n
n
n
n

Hollins Park - 1st & Vernon

n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n

Holly, Buddy Recreation Area - N. University & Canyon Lake Dr.

n
n
n

Hood Park - 23rd Ave P

n
n
n

O
O

Huffman, Berl Athletic Complex - N. Loop 289 & Landmark Dr.

n
n
n

Huneke, Henry - 82nd & Nashville

n
n
n
n

Jennings Park - 73rd & Winston

n
n
n
n
n
n

Kastman Park - JOLIET & s. Loop 289

n
n
n
n

n
Leftwich Park - 60th & Elgin
n

O
O

Lewis Park - 54th & Ave J

n
n

Long Park - 56th & Aberdeen

n
n
n
n
n

Lopez Park - Auburn Ave

n
n
n
n

Lusk Park - E. 25th & Oak

n
n
n
n
n
n
n

n
Mackenzie Park - 301 Interstate 27

n
n
n

Maedgen Park - 1st & Boston

n
n
n
n
n
n

n
Mahon Park - 29th & Chicago

n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n

O
Maxey Park - 30th & Nashville

n
n

O
O
McAlister Park Milwaukee & Brownfield Hwy
n
n

McCrummen Park - 19th Ave T

n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n

McCullough, B. Park
n
Meadowbrook Golf Course - Municpal Drive & N. Park Rd.

n
n
n

Miller Park - Memphis Ave & Memphis Dr.

n
n
n
n

Neugebauer Park - 83rd & Grover

n
n
n
n
n

Overton Park - 14th Ave U

n
n
n
n
n Pioneer Park - 6th & Ave T

n
n
n
n
n
n

n
Ratliff, Park - 50th & Chicago

n
n
n
n
n
n

n
Rawlings Park - 40th & Ave B

n
n
n
n
n
Reagan Park - Colgate St. & Olive Ave

n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Ribble Park - 62nd & Temple

n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n

n
Rodgers Park - Amherst & Gary

n
n
Sedberry Park - E. 10th & Guava

n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n

O
O

n
Simmons Park - E. 23rd & Oak

n
n
n
n
n
Sims Park - Marlboro & King

n
n
n
n
n

n
Smith, Preston Park - 15th & Chicago

n
n
n
n
n

n
Stevens Park - 75th & Slide

n
n
n
n
n
Strong Park - 81st & Ave U

n
n
n
n
n

O
O

n
Stubbs Park - 36th Ave N

n
n
Tech Terrace Park - 23rd & Flint

n
n
n
n
n
n
Underwood Park - 74th St. & Cedar Ave

n
n
n
n
n
n
Wagner Park - 26th & Elgin

n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Washington Park - E. 22nd & Cedar

n
n
n
n
n
n
Wheelock Park - 40th & Elgin
Wisperwood Median - 4th & Wisperwood Blvd

n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n

n
Woods Park - Erskin & Zenith

n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Conquistador Lake (Lake#1) - Canyon Lake Rd & N. Loop 289

n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Llano Estacado Lake (Lake#2) - Canyon Lake Rd & N. University

n
n
n
Comancheria Lake (Lake#3) - N. Ave U & Erskine Ave

n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Dunbar Historical Lake (Lake#6) - MLK Blvd & Canyon Lake Rd
Climate Data

In most regions, the operational season for splash parks is loosely tied to summer

vacation from school and ambient air temperature. The water can be heated to extend the

season, but the real issue in most climates is air, rather than water temperature. The

season will vary depending upon the climate but, the season can typically be longer than

that for an outdoor pool. The average high temperature for Lubbock exceeds 70º

Fahrenheit (F) from April through October (Figure 5.7) with sunshine more than 70% of

those months (Figure 5.8). Lubbock has more sunshine, but slightly more wind (Figure

5.9) than the comparison cities of Buffalo Grove, Illinois and Waco, Texas (www.city-

data.com 2005).

Lubbock, TX
120 Buffalo Grove, IL
100 Waco, TX
80
Farenheit

60
40
20
0
l
ug
n
n

pr

ov
ar

ay

ct

ec
b

p
Ju
Ju
Ja
Fe

Se

O
M

A
M

D
N

Figure 5.7: Average High Temperature,

Adapted from: www.city-data.com

121
 Lubbbock, TX
16 Buffalo Grove, IL
14 Waco, TX
12

Miles per Hour

10
8
6
4
2
0

l
n

ug
n

pr
ay

ov
ct
ar

ec
b

p
Ju
Ju
Ja
Fe

Se

O
M

A
M

D
N
Figure 5.8: Percent of Sunny Days,
Adapted from: www.city-data.com

Lubbock, TX
100 Buffalo Grove, IL
80 Waco, TX
Percent

60
40
20
0
l
n

ug
n

ov
pr
ay

ct
ar

ec
b

p
Ju
Ju
Ja
Fe

Se

O
M

D
M

Figure 5.9: Average Wind Speed,

Adapted from: www.city-data.com

The climate is suitable for a splash park but an extension of the splash pad or deck

to retain overspray, due to wind, would be appropriate.

Also, according to the National Weather Service, Texas is second only to Florida

for the number of annual lightning fatalities each year in the United States. Therefore,

installing a lightning sensor is appropriate for an unsupervised splash park.

122
 Site Selection Criteria

There were two aspects evaluated with regard to the site: social and cultural

characteristics of the neighborhoods and physical aspects of the site. Based on

conversations with various personnel of the City of Lubbock Parks and Recreation

Department, the following desirable attributes for the location of a splash park were:

• An existing park in a growth area,

• Near families with less access to recreational opportunities,
• Area not currently served by an aquatics facility,
• Serve a broad spectrum of the population, and
• Near a large number of potential users.

This was interpreted by this author to mean a splash park should be located in a

residential neighborhood park with diverse users, at least two miles from a public pool,

and with a greater percentage of age appropriate population than Lubbock as a whole.

Social and Cultural

Families with lower incomes typically have less money to spend for leisure-time

activities and are more dependent upon the opportunities provided by the city

government. Therefore, for social benefit, it was determined that is desirable to locate a

splash park in a neighborhood with less financial affluence. A park which currently has a

variety of users is more likely to attract a more diverse group of new users. It was

concluded that locating in an area with:

• Lower income and

• A park with a wide range of users

will facilitate access to a wider variety of children with fewer recreational opportunities.

123
Physical Aspects

The desirable physical aspects of the site were determined in Chapter IV and are

listed on page 110. Desirable items which can be added but would be advantageous if

they currently exist on the site are:

• Restrooms,
• Shade structure, and
• Physically challenged access.

It is also desirable for a site to have the following items which take time to create, require

redevelopment of the entire park, or are beyond the designer’s control:

• Established trees,
• Aesthetically pleasing, and
• Reduced wind exposure.

The social and cultural criteria were applied to the neighborhoods surrounding the

proposed parks and the physical criteria were applied to the three proposed parks. One of

these sites is recommended based on its merits relative to the other two sites.

Neighborhoods of Proposed Sites

Several sites were suggested by personnel from the City of Lubbock Parks and

Recreation Department. After narrowing the choice to three specific sites, the

neighborhoods surrounding the existing parks were evaluated based on social and cultural

issues and the parks themselves were evaluated based on the established criteria.

124
Choice of Sites

Nine sites were considered in the initial evaluation of a location for a splash park

in Lubbock. Two were eliminated because of the adverse condition of the site. Four of

the remaining seven sites are within one mile of existing swimming pools. Elimination

of these four sites left three remaining potential sites located in dissimilar neighborhoods

and more than two miles from public swimming pools. Figures 5.5 and 5.10 show the

parks and open spaces as they exist, public swimming pools, and the three neighborhoods

suggested for the proposed splash park. The sites within the neighborhoods are marked

as A: Cooke Park, B: Hoel Park, and C: McCullough Park and were individually

analyzed.

Unless otherwise noted, the statistical information for each of the three

neighborhoods, in which the parks are located, was based on the census data from 2000.

Two of the three neighborhoods were almost fully developed prior to this date. Based on

data obtained from the City of Lubbock Permit Department, it was estimated that the

Northridge Neighborhood was less than ninety percent developed when the census was

taken in 2000.

125
Parks:

A – Cooke
B – Hoel
C – McCullough

Figure 5.10: Lubbock Open Space, Parks, and Pools with Proposed Neighborhoods,
Adapted from: City of Lubbock Website

126
 Northridge Neighborhood – Cooke Park. Northridge Neighborhood is located in

the northwest region of Lubbock outside Loop 289. This location is marked as “A” in

Figure 5.10. It is the newest of the three neighborhoods, with the majority of the

development occurring since 1995. As is typical in Lubbock, by design, the entire

section is residential except for some commercial development on the outer edges and at

intersection nodes (Figure 5.11). The majority of the housing is owned by first-time

homeowners with a few rental units scattered throughout. There are also two apartment

complexes. As can be seen in the aerial photograph from 2002 (Figure 5.12), much of

the neighborhood was undeveloped when the 2000 census was taken in February 2002.

Based on records examined in the City of Lubbock Permit Office, more than 130 houses

were permitted and constructed in this neighborhood from the date of the aerial

photograph in February, 2002 until the present time. In addition, at least half that number

were constructed after the 2000 census and prior to the aerial photograph (City of

Lubbock 2005). For purposes of this study, it was estimated that 200 houses were

constructed after the 2000 census with families averaging 2.5 members. All relevant data

has been adjusted accordingly and noted.

127
 Figure 5.11: Northridge Neighborhood Land Use Plan,
Adapted from: City of Lubbock Planning Department Website

128
 Figure 5.12: Northridge Neighborhood Aerial, Taken February, 2002,
Adapted from: City of Lubbock Planning Department Website

The median value of the houses, which were mostly constructed during the 1990s,

is $75,400. A photograph (Figure 5.13) helps visualize the overall neighborhood.

Frenship Independent School District’s North Ridge Elementary campus for pre-

129
kindergarten to fourth grade is located three blocks north of the park (Figures 5.11 and

5.12). The student population is 717 and the building is currently being enlarged.

Figure 5.13: Northridge Neighborhood Photograph

Preston Smith Neighborhood - Hoel Park. Preston Smith Neighborhood is located

in the southwest area of Lubbock outside Loop 289 (Figure 5.10 marked as “B”). The

Phil Hoel Park, at 91st Street and Chicago Avenue, is centrally located in the

neighborhood and adjacent to the Lubbock Independent School District’s Preston Smith

Elementary school for kindergarten through sixth grade. The campus has 749 students

currently enrolled. Chicago Avenue is a main thoroughfare for this neighborhood.

Developed during the 1980s, this is the most affluent of the three neighborhoods with a

median value for housing of $91,700. The land use plan in Figure 5.14 shows the

residential areas and the street layout as well as the location of the park within the context

of the neighborhood. The photograph in Figure 5.15 shows the housing typical of the

neighborhood.

130
 Figure 5.14: Preston Smith Neighborhood Land Use Plan,
Adapted from: City of Lubbock Planning Department Website

131
 Figure 5.15: Preston Smith Neighborhood Photograph

University Pines Neighborhood – McCullough Park. University Pines

Neighborhood is located in the west edge of the southeastern quadrant of Lubbock

outside Loop 289 and is directly two miles east of the Preston Smith Neighborhood

(Figure 5.10 marked as “C”). The land use plan in Figure 5.16 shows it to be a

residential area with nodes of commercial development at the corners. This

neighborhood was developed during the 1970s and the median value of the houses is

$71,800. The photograph in Figure 5.17 illustrates the appearance of the houses in the

surrounding neighborhood. This neighborhood has two city parks and no schools. The

N.B. McCullough Park is centrally located in the western half of this neighborhood and

Crowe Park, which is not a proposed site, is located on the eastern edge of this

neighborhood near University Avenue.

132
 Figure 5.16: University Pines Neighborhood Land Use Plan,
Adapted from: City of Lubbock Planning Department Website

133
 Figure 5.17: University Pines Neighborhood Photographs

Comparisons of Neighborhoods

The neighborhoods were assigned points based on relative merits of the social and

cultural qualities and additional points were awarded or deducted for other physical

aspects. It has already been established that none of these neighborhoods has a public

aquatics facility (Figure 5.6). Based on desirability of being in the growth area of

Lubbock using Figure 5.4, the ranking of the three locations from highest to lowest is

• Preston Woods – Southwest (3 points),

• University Pines – Southeast (2 points), and
• Northridge – Northwest (1 point).

Further comparison was done based on demographic and economic information for the

neighborhoods surrounding the sites in order to assist in projecting the relative number of

potential users and their financial ability to access recreational opportunities.

134
 Demographics. The splash park should be placed in an area which will allow

ready access by the largest number of age appropriate children. Figure 5.18 shows the

number of children under age fifteen in three categories for each of the neighborhoods

based on available statistics. The number of persons living in the Northridge

Neighborhood was adjusted to account for the increase in population which occurred

after the 2000 census. All three neighborhoods have a slightly greater percentage of

children under age fifteen than the City of Lubbock as a whole (Figure 5.19). Preston

Woods has the most children under age fifteen; however, there isn’t a significant

difference for children under age ten. Therefore, each park location was given a rank of

three based on number of children.

7000
15 years plus
6000 10 to 14 years
Number of Persons

5 to 9 years
5000 Under 5 years
4000

3000

2000

1000

0
Preston Pines

Northridge Woods University

Figure 5.18: Number of Persons under Age 15,

Adapted from: City of Lubbock Planning Department

135
 100%

80% 15 years plus

60% Under 15 years

40%

20%

0%
Preston Pines

Northridge Woods University Lubbock

Figure 5.19: Percent of Population by Age Groups,

Adapted from: City of Lubbock Planning Department

Economics. Providing ease of access for children with limited recreational

opportunities is also desirable. Children of families with lower income are assumed to be

more dependent on publicly provided recreation. Of the three neighborhoods, Northridge

has the lowest median income (Figure 5.20) and the greatest number of families living in

poverty (Figure 5.21). Even though the median income in this neighborhood exceeds the

average for the City of Lubbock, there is still a greater rate of poverty in this

neighborhood than Lubbock as a whole. The ranking for relative affluence, with lower

being given preference is:

• Northridge (3 points),
• University Pines (2 points), and
• Preston Woods (1 point).

136
Annual Income
Median Household
60000 Income
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0

s
ge

ock
ds

Pi n
r id

oo

bb
nW

ity
rth

Lu
rs
No

s to

ive
Pre

Un

Figure 5.20: Median Income of Households,

Adapted from: City of Lubbock Planning Department

100%
Families Above
80% Poverty
60% Families Below
Poverty
40%
20%

0%
es
ge

k
s

Pin
ood

c
rid

bbo
nW

y
rth

Lu
rs it
No

s to

ive
Pre

Un

Figure 5.21: Poverty Status,

Adapted from: City of Lubbock Planning Department

137
 General Information on Parks

The physical characteristics of each site were determined though direct

observations and information from City of Lubbock personnel. All three of the park sites

are: relatively flat, have available electricity, accessible to people with disabilities, and

have access to city water and sewer infrastructure. They are surrounded by curb and

gutter, are bordered by paved streets with curbside parking, and have irrigation systems.

The amenities include benches, drinking fountains, and adequate lighting. All are large

enough to accommodate the desired facilities and have good visibility for safety and

awareness. As it is typical of Lubbock, it was assumed initially that all have appropriate

soils.

Alex & Verna Cooke Park – Northridge Neighborhood

Cooke Park, constructed in 2003, is the newest of the three sites. It contains two

sets of modular playground equipment, a group of picnic tables, a .39 mile long

walking/jogging track, and a multi-use court on a seven-acre site. There are two separate,

but adjacent, play structures for older and younger children. The grass is new but given

time and the use of the irrigation system, it should fill in soon. It has numerous trees

planted recently, including some evergreens on the west side of the site; these are not

established and do not have large enough canopies to provide any shade currently. The

only shade on the site is provided by sun shades at the top of each of the two modular

play structures. There was no evidence of prairie dog activity, including burrowing, on

the site but a large community was observed to the west near the playa lake bed.

138
 One of the most notable features of the site is on the west and north sides, located

on the same parcel of land. It is a deep playa lakebed (Figure 5.11) which has had much

of the topsoil removed. The bottom is at least twenty feet lower than the surrounding

area, has very little water, and is owned by the developer. This playa lakebed is not an

aesthetic amenity and may be a hazard. West of the playa lakebed is Milwaukee Avenue

which is four lanes wide and serves as a major thoroughfare. The park is visible from

Milwaukee Avenue but the traffic poses no threat to children in the park because of the

distance and separation provided by the playa lakebed. However, Milwaukee Avenue has

a 50 MPH speed limit and would be difficult for a user to cross on bicycle or foot.

Across Milwaukee Avenue and towards the north, there is a developing residential area

which means more potential users in the area but also greater traffic volume. Southwest

of the site, a scattered commercial and residential development exists. To the south and

the east sides of the park, the traffic is light on the streets which feed into the

neighborhood. Figure 5.22 shows the park and Figure 5.23 shows the relationship of the

elements within the park.

139
Figure 5.22: Photographs of Cooke Park

140
 Figure 5.23: Site Plan of Cooke Park,
Adapted from: City of Lubbock Parks and Recreation Department

The park was observed several days outside of normal working hours when the

weather was conducive to outdoor play. The most activity at one time consisted of:

• Six teenagers on the multipurpose court,

• A girl on the playground structure with her mother observing, and
• A father with a young boy leaving the park.

There were four vehicles located near the teenagers. The mother stated that she never

stayed long because of the lack of shade and that she had only seen one group try to use

the picnic tables and they left because of the wind. As the vegetation matures, Cooke

Park could become a pleasant neighborhood park however, at this time it is rather stark

141
and is not well used. As it will require several years for the trees to mature, the addition

of shade structures is imperative to the comfort of potential users and their guardians.

Phil Hoel Park – Preston Smith Neighborhood

Hoel Park is in the heart of the Preston Smith Neighborhood and was constructed

in 1988. It contains a playground with modular equipment, a picnic pavilion, and two

tennis courts on an eleven-acre site. The picnic pavilion is rather small but is used often.

Unlike the other two sites, it does not have a paved walkway. However, it does have a

path worn around the entire perimeter which was created by people using it to jog and

walk dogs. This surface is hard-packed and smooth enough for a wheeled vehicle. An

aesthetically pleasing playa lake supports a duck and goose population and is stocked

with fish. Birds were the only wildlife visible. The grass cover is good, and there are

several trees providing small patches of shade. The playground is located on the

southwest corner of the site, is totally devoid of shade, and has pea gravel underneath.

The surrounding neighborhood provides some wind protection. To the east is Chicago

Avenue (Figure 5.14), which is the major feeder street for the neighborhood. It has

moderate traffic in the mornings between 7:30 and 8:00 a.m. and in the evenings after

5:00 p.m. To an untrained observer, these cars tended to travel at a rate of speed near the

30 MPH speed limit. The photographs of the park (Figure 5.24) and the site plan of the

park (Figure 5.25) show the layout and the overall site.

142
Figure 5.24: Photographs of Hoel Park

143
 Figure 5.25: Site Plan of Hoel Park,
Adapted from: City of Lubbock Parks and Recreation Department

144
 The park was observed several days when the weather was pleasant, before 8:00

a.m. and after 5:30 p.m. on weekdays, and on weekends. At one time, the following

activities were occurring:

• Three children on the playground equipment with one adult

observer,
• Three teenagers with one car playing tennis,
• Four separate men fishing, each with a vehicle,
• Two teenagers on a blanket under a tree,
• A mother and two children picnicking in the shade of a tree,
• A jogger and a woman walking a dog on the dirt path, and
• A young adult playing with a dog.

The majority of the users of the park did not have vehicles and the activity was scattered

throughout the entire park. In fact there were several people walking or jogging in the

neighborhood near the park as well. If the chosen activity was possible in the shade of a

tree, this was the site the users selected. This is a pleasant and well-used neighborhood

park which draws users from within the surrounding neighborhood and, possibly, from

other parts of town.

N.B. McCullough Park – University Pines Neighborhood

This neighborhood park is the oldest and largest of the three sites. Constructed in

1983 on a 23.3 acre site, it is centrally located in the neighborhood, at 88th Street and

Flint Avenue. It contains a playground with modular equipment, a large picnic pavilion,

restrooms, a volleyball court, and a paved walking track eight-tenths of a mile long. The

large, attractive playa lake is stocked and fishing is allowed. The swales, which direct

storm water runoff into the lake, are concreted. The site has a good grass cover, with

145
some established trees. However, like those in Hoel Park, they provide only minor areas

of shade. The only wildlife observed were a few ducks and some geese on or near the

lake. Like the other users, they seemed to be attracted to the shade. Being surrounded by

existing neighborhood developments helps shelter the park from the wind. The

restrooms, playground equipment, and the other facilities of the site are accessible to

people with disabilities. In addition to curbside parking, there is a parking lot which

accommodates seven automobiles. As shown in Figure 5.13, there are no major feeder

streets for the neighborhood surrounding the park so traffic on adjacent streets is kept to a

minimum. The photographs (Figure 5.26) and the site plan of the park (Figure 5.27)

show the layout and the overall site.

146
Figure 5.26: Photographs of McCullough Park

147
 Figure 5.27: Site Plan of McCullough Park,
Adapted from: City of Lubbock Parks and Recreation Department

The park was observed several days after 5:00 p.m. and on one weekend when the

weather was pleasant. Vehicular traffic was always light and the parking lot was always

full, with the exception of the handicapped accessible space; there was an average of

fifteen cars parked around the parameter. At one time the following activities were

occurring:

148
 • Approximately ten children on the playground equipment,
• Multiple adults observing, usually from a shady spot,
• Several teenagers playing basketball on the court,
• Three men fishing separately,
• One jogger on the crushed aggregate path,
• Two women pushing a stroller on the path,
• Two women walking several dogs, and
• Approximately ten children practicing soccer with several
adults supervising.

While activity was scattered throughout the entire park, there were definitely nodes of

activity. The shaded picnic pavilion, playground, and volleyball court are clustered on

the north side of the park and most users gathered there. The young children practicing

soccer were in another area and several of the cars were parked nearby. There was a

great deal of interaction of users of different ages and four ethnic groups were

represented. The restroom facilities are convenient to the playground but respectably

separate. Again, comfortable seating in the shade was treated as a premium.

Skateboarders were observed using the concrete storm swales. There were several

families and a variety of ages.

This park was used by the widest variety and largest number of people of the

three proposed sites. Like Hoel Park, it appears to attract many persons from the

surrounding neighborhood and possibly users from other parts of Lubbock. For variety

of users, the parks would be ranked as:

• Northridge (3 points),
• Preston Woods (2 points), and
• University Pines (1 point).

149
For separation from traffic, restrooms, and shade structure, University Pines was given a

bonus point for each amenity. For aesthetically pleasing and reduced wind exposure, Phil

Hoel and University Pines each received two bonus points. Due to the possible danger

and unattractiveness of the playa lakebed, one point was deducted from Cooke. A chart

(Figure 5.28) was developed to determine which of the three sites has the most desirable

elements for the development of a splash park.

150
 Figure 5.28: Comparative Analysis of Parks

Preston University
Neighborhoods Northridge Woods Pines
Social and Cultural Qualities Ranked:
Population Growth Direction 1 3 2
Number of Children 3 3 3
Relative Affluence 3 1 2
Variety of Park Users 1 2 3
Total of Rankings 8 9 10

Parks Crowe Hoel McCullough

Physical Aspects Bonus Points:
Aesthetically Pleasing - 1 1
Established Trees - 1 1
Playa Lakebed -1 - -
Reduced Winds - 1 1
Restrooms - - 1
Shade Structure - - 1
Separation from Traffic - - 1
Total Additional Points -1 3 6

Grand Total 7 12 16

Ranking of the neighborhoods is on a scale of 1 to 3, with 3 being the best.

Additional points are assigned or deducted for several physical aspects of the parks.

McCullough Park in University Pines is the best choice as it scored the highest with a
score of 16.

151
Site Conclusions

Locating in Cooke Park would allow ready access to a larger number of families

of poverty status and help to vitalize a new neighborhood park. However, the physical

aspects beyond the designer’s control such as the pit left from the excavation of the playa

lakebed make this park a poor choice. Cooke is also weak in comparison to the other two

parks in regards to user comfort due to lack of shelter from the wind and sun.

Hoel Park has the largest population of children but is also the most affluent and

has the highest average age of child under age fifteen. It is in the fastest growing

quadrant of Lubbock, and it is a wonderful, attractive park with many users and a variety

of activities. The lack of restrooms, small size of the picnic pavilion, and the major

thoroughfare detract from selecting it as the choice site.

The third site, McCullough Park, has most of the advantages of Hoel Park and

none of the disadvantages. It is the largest of the three sites, has a large shaded picnic

pavilion, and restroom facilities clustered near a small parking lot. All of the facilities as

well as the playa lake and other areas of the park are used by a diverse group of people,

including many children. While it is not in the fastest growing quadrant of Lubbock, it is

adjacent to it and readily accessible to the residents of the newly developing areas.

Of the three proposed locations, based on all of the characteristics of the sites,

neighborhoods, and qualities desired for the development of a splash park, McCullough

Park located in University Pines Neighborhood, is the best choice.

152
 Site Analysis of McCullough Park

As a location in the proximity of the existing restrooms and shade structure is

desirable, site analysis of McCullough Park was limited to the area north of the playa lake

and consisted of the following:

• Slope analysis,
• Inventory of trees,
• Soil analysis,
• View analysis,
• Visibility, and
• Safety issues.

Slope Analysis

All slopes in excess of five percent are shaded gray (Figure 5.29). These areas

will require more energy to make them acceptable for the construction of a splash park.

All of these slopes were created to facilitate the storm water drainage into the playa lake.

Inventory of Trees

The tree symbols (Figure 5.29) on the map represent the existing trees on the plan

view of McCullough Park. The size of the symbols is not reflective of the size of the

actual trees. Removal of trees is minimized in the choice of location for the splash park.

The trees are scattered throughout the site with no dominant species. Approximately half

of the trees are established and most are healthy. The remaining trees appear to have been

planted within the last couple of years, are fairly small and could be easily moved.

153
A. Restrooms
B. Playground
C. Parking
D. Pavilion
E. Volleyball Court Scale in feet 1” : 100’

Signs

Security Light

McCullough Park

Figure 5.29: Site Inventory of McCullough Park,

Adapted from: City of Lubbock

154
Soils Analysis

The soil in the entire park and most of the surrounding neighborhood is classified

as “Amarillo – Urban land complex.” This is a fine sandy loam on top of a sandy clay

loam. It does not react corrosively with concrete, have cemented pan nor high rates of

shrink-swell for buildings including those with basements and for all types of recreational

development. However, it is inappropriate for pond reservoir areas as it promotes

moderate seepage and is indicated as poor for wetland plants (USDA Soil Survey for

Lubbock County Texas). The playa lake on the site is manmade.

McCullough
Park

Figure 5.30: Soils Analysis of McCullough Park,

Adapted from: USDA Soil Survey for Lubbock County Texas

155
Views, Visibility, and Safety Issues

Walking the perimeter of the park and standing at various locations revealed that

there are no significant views looking out of the park. The best views are from the edge

of the park looking toward the playa lake. Due to the flatness of the terrain and the

openness of the area, visibility is unobstructed. The only safety issue of note is the playa

lake itself which poses a drowning threat to the park visitors.

Choice of Location

The location chosen on the site is shown on Figure 5.31. This site was chosen for

several reasons:

• Slope is less than five percent,

• Space is adequate,
• Playa lake is visible,
• Restroom facilities, playground, parking, and pavilion are
nearby, and
• Observation area can be positioned facing away from the sun
and between the splash pad and the playa lake.

This location is a relatively flat area of approximately 5,000 square-feet. This minimizes

grading which is desirable for simplicity of installation but mostly because of the existing

storm water drainage system. The removal of up to four trees is required but the

desirability of being close to the other amenities offsets this disadvantage. Also the trees

are small enough that relocation should be possible. Positioning of observers for their

comfort and the safety of the children is facilitated by this location. Older children will

be able to move independently to the restroom facilities or the playground.

156
A. Restrooms
B. Playground
C. Parking
D. Pavilion
E. Volleyball Court

Figure 5.31: Location of Splash Park in McCullough Park

157
 Conclusions

Choice of location for the proposed splash park was a complex issue and used

many variables. The location directly will affect the number of users and the overall

success of the development. This author believes it should be placed in a park which is

currently being used and is located in a neighborhood whose residents are involved in

outdoor activities. Because a splash park is a new concept for Lubbock, it is important to

increase the likelihood of it being accepted and enjoyed. The success of this splash park

will in turn, contribute to the decision to install or not to install additional splash parks in

Lubbock and possibly other communities in the Texas Panhandle. While the park will be

readily available to the residents of the neighborhood in which it is placed, it will still be

available to other potential users. Based on the physical characteristics of the site and the

social and cultural aspects of the neighborhood, the north side of McCullough Park is the

chosen location.

158
 CHAPTER VI

DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

In prior chapters, the various components and design elements which comprise a

splash park are documented and evaluated. In this chapter, a design which incorporates

this knowledge is recommended for the north side of McCullough Park.

General Design

The splash park is designed to be an unsupervised and free public space in a

neighborhood park for the enjoyment of children up to and including age twelve. There

will be no theming but a broad variety of equipment using the three primary colors is

incorporated into the design. The bright colors will stimulate interest and the entrance

will create initial attraction and identification.

The surface of the splash pad will be approximately 2,500 square-feet. This size

area will accommodate 125 children, representing approximately ten percent of the

children in the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed splash park will provide space

for a variety of water features, facilitate individual play, and encourage interaction. The

general shape will be curvilinear to discourage high speed running. The splash pad,

surrounding deck, and shade structures will encompass an area of approximately 5,000

square-feet (Figure 6.1) with no barriers or fencing above three feet high to facilitate ease

of parental observation. Shaded observation areas will face away from the sun and

accommodate parents and other guardians wishing to observe the children without getting

159
wet. A lightning sensor will be installed as per the manufacturer’s recommendations.

There will be no stairs and all slopes will be less than two percent to allow for

accessibility and to encourage use by all.

Figure 6.1: Elements of the McCullough Splash Park

160
 Relationship of the Areas

The splash park is designed to attract children up to age twelve. Older children

will be welcome but are not targeted. Water features which appeal to different age

groups will be placed in different areas but these areas are not clearly defined. They will

overlap to allow children to move from feature to feature as they choose and to reduce the

likelihood of parents controlling the play and limit turn-taking. The areas will be

positioned as indicated by Figure 6.2.

Figure 6.2: Relationship of Areas in McCullough Splash Park

161
 Water Features and Layout

Figure 6.3 shows the water features recommended by the author. There is a

variety of water action, direction, and features which appeals to a variety of ages. Its

meets the criteria detailed in Chapter IV as shown by Figure 6.4. All recommended

equipment is from Water Odyssey and made of stainless steel.

The layout of the water features on the splash pad is shown in Figure 6.5 using the

splash zone for each piece of equipment and meets the criteria developed in Chapter IV

(Figure 6.6). The splash zone for the water features includes not only the area which is

sprayed but extends to encompass the entire area which receives water splash. One

activator with a large button on the top of the pole will be used. Operation of this type of

activator is readily apparent and will empower the child by the physical action of pressing

the button to initiate the water feature cycle.

Water cannons or guns are common in splash parks and are included in the

design. Usually the guns are set up opposing each other and there is little means for

cooperative play. The targets and the position of the guns (Figure 6.7) are designed to

encourage both cooperative and competitive play.

162
 Figure 6.3: Water Features Selected for McCullough Splash Park,
Adapted from: Water Odyssey Website

Equipment Age Height Throw Splash Zone Action

A Aqua Arch (3) Connected All 2’ 4’ 4’ Upward spray
B Baby Long Legs All 2’ 5’ Multiple sprays
C Jet Way (3) Sequenced All 2’ 4’ Bubbling geyser
D Water Sprout 2-5 2’ 8’ 6’ Multiple spray
E Water Worm 2-8 Plus 10’ Various directions
F Moppet Poppet 2-10 4’ & 8’ 8’ Bubble of Water
G Water Way 4-12 10’ Down drop
H Mushroom Maze 6-8 8’ 10’ Sheeting water
I Water Rail 6-12 2’ 4’ 9’ Interactive throw
J Fill ‘n Spill 6-12 20’ Hold and dumb
K Foam Shooter 6-12 15’ 20’ Interactive A. B.
C.

D.

H.

E.

J.

G.
F.
K.
I.

163
 Figure 6.4: Application of Criteria for Composition of Water Feature Selection

Criteria Number 1 and 2 3 4 5 6 Note: All equipment will be placed according to manufacturer’s

Water Volume: Can Affect: suggestions and adhere to safety regulations.

Age Range Flush or Simple or Low, Action Spray,
Direction,
1 to 12 Elevated Complex Moderate, or
and/or
High Volume
Equipment
A Aqua Arch (3) Connected 1----------12 Flush Simple Low Upward spray Yes
B Baby Long Legs 1----------12 Flush Simple Low Multiple sprays Yes
C Jet Way (3) Sequenced 1----------12 Flush Simple High Bubbling geyser Yes
D Water Sprout 2--5 Flush Simple Low Multiple spray Yes
E Water Worm 2-----8 Elevated Complex Mod. Various directions No
F Moppet Poppet 2-------10 Flush Complex Low Bubble of Water Yes
G Water Way 4-------12 Elevated Simple Mod. Down drop No
H Mushroom Maze 6-8 Elevated Simple High Sheeting water No
I Water Rail 6-----12 Elevated Complex Mod. Interactive throw Yes
J Fill ‘n Spill 6-----12 Elevated Complex High Hold and Dump Yes
K Foam Shooter 6-----12 Elevated Complex Mod. Interactive Yes

Criteria by Number (repeated from page 111):

1. Accommodate all designated ages,

2. Attract a wide range of users on most features,
3. Choose a mixture of flush and elevated features,
4. Include simple and complex features,
5. Variety of water volume, action, direction, and spray patterns,
6. Include non-interactive and interactive elements,
7. Proper placement according to manufacturer’s suggestions, and
8. Adhere to safe regulation:
i. No climbing,
ii. Proper water pressure, and
Certified by ASTM and IPEMA.
Figure 6.5: Girl affecting pressure by blocking adjacent feature.

164
The equipment is positioned on the splash pad to allow for:

• Manufacturer’s suggestions
• Minor overlapping
• Space for all types of play
• A single activator near the entrance

See page 166 for details of criteria met.

Figure 6.5: Water Feature Layout Using Splash Zone

For McCullough Splash Park, Colors Mimic Picture Frames in Figure 6.3

165
 Design Detail
A B C D E F G H I J
Criteria
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Figure 6.6: Matrix of Design Detail and Criteria

Design details to meet criteria for Relationship of Water Features:

A. Only minor overlapping,
B. Areas for different ages are blended,
C. Spaces for resting,
D. High elements toward center,
E. A single activator near entrance,
F. Entire splash pad is visible from observation areas and other
parts of splash park,
G. Directional sprays oriented away from non participants,
younger children, and sun direction,
H. Area for younger children is near observation area,
I. Lower height and lower volume water features near
observation area, and
J. Movement from feature to feature without leaving the
rubberized pad.

Relationship of Water Features (Repeated from page 111):

1. Encourage interaction by layout and water cycling,
2. Allow space for active and active play,
3. Provide for safety and observation of younger children,
4. Support safe and independent play of older children,
5. Promote safe movement from feature to feature,
6. Orient directional sprays away from non-participants,
7. Avoid looking into the sun to observe or play, and
8. Minimize runoff from splashing.
166
Figure 6.7: Layout of Guns and Targets for McCullough Splash Park

167
 Design Options

In meeting the criteria for the “Overall Design Considerations” the site was

chosen near the other park facilities including the existing restrooms, parking, and

walkways, providing convenient access. Safety considerations are noted throughout the

design and regulations will be met by using appropriate equipment and layout as

described previously in this chapter. The site is relatively flat in require minimal

disruption of the existing park. The following design options are incorporated:

Surfacing

Cushioned, rubberized “pour-in-place” surfacing was chosen as it is comfortable

to bare feet and slip resistant. This surface increases the children’s play value and

enhances parent’s ability to relax. It is a swirl of two colors of blue to add interest.

Deck

The deck will be ten feet wide to minimize debris on the splash pad, reduce the

overspray onto the surrounding area, and allow walking around entire area without

getting wet. The surface will be brushed concrete in order to deter slipping and be

durable for moving tables and chairs. It will slope away from pad at two percent and

drain into the plant life surrounding the deck. There will be benches with backs

positioned around the deck with space on the deck for sitting and lying in the sun for both

adults and children.

168
Shaded Observation Areas

The three shaded observation areas will be placed in such a way as to protect from

the sun at different times of day. The triangular canopy structures (Figure 6.8) will

overhang onto the deck and complement the existing canopies in the playground area.

These structures were chosen because they are colorful and do not require a pole be

placed on the deck. The sides will be open for airflow and 360º observation. Picnic type

tables will be movable to allow for comfort but heavy to discourage theft. Space will be

ample enough for users to bring lounge chairs and coolers.

Figure 6.8: Sun Shelter for McCullough Splash Park

169
Drainage

Three trench type drains will be placed on three edges of the splash pad to

maintain a zero-depth environment, allow for play, and resist clogging. The location of

the drains and the drainage direction is shown in Figure 6.9.

Figure 6.9: Drainage Pattern for McCullough Splash Park

170
 Only minor grading adjustments will be made to three contours (Figure 6.10). All
slopes will be less than twelve percent.

Old contours

New contours

_____________________________________________________

Figure 6.10: Contour Changes for McCullough Park Splash Park

171
Water Treatment System

It is recommended that the water be recirculated through a water treatment system

(WTS) for as it will reduce the amount of water used by a “pump and dump” system,

improve sanitation, and the water pressure to features can be controlled. When the

system does have to be drained or flushed, the water will be disposed into the sanitary

sewer. The concept of a bio-retention pond was considered but discarded because:

• The soils are not conducive to water retention,

• The soils will not support wetland plants, and
• There is less than a four foot decrease in elevation from the
surface of the splash pad to the playa lake.

The water treatment system will be housed in a building which extends from the existing

restroom facilities. This will be nearby and costs will be minimized by the ease of

connecting to the easily accessible water supply.

Access Control, Communications, and Entrances

Access will be controlled with pathways and plantings rather than with fencing.

Lighting will be at each entrance and by observation areas. The entrances will be defined

by signs (Figure 6.11) which will help create a sense of place. There will be two

entrances, one with walkways to the existing parking lot, restrooms, and playground, and

a second, with walkways and a bridge over the concrete swale to curbside parking and the

new parking lot. A bicycle rack will be located on each walkway outside the entrances.

Signs directed to the children when possible will be placed at both entrances giving hours

of operation, rules of use, and instructions for using the activator.

172
 Figure 6.11: Entrance Sign for McCullough Splash Park

Parking and Walkways

Current parking is sufficient for the existing facilities. While curbside parking is

extensive, it will not be convenient for splash park users. A parking lot to accommodate

approximately forty vehicles will be located on the west side of the splash park across the

concrete swale (Figure 6.12). It will be constructed of concrete with trees planted to

shade the surface for the comfort of users. There will be a drop-off area and a walkway

connected to the splash pad. The curbside, concrete swale and access ramps for people

with disabilities will have to be moved about fifty feet to the east to accommodate the

entrance for the parking lot. The walkways will be concrete for comfort, accessibility,

and reduction of debris on splash pad. They will be six feet wide to accommodate both

pedestrians and bicycles.

173
Figure 6.12: Parking Lot for McCullough Splash Park

174
Landscape Planting

Landscape planting (Figures 6.13 and 6.14) will consist of low shrubs on the

perimeter to control circulation and entrances. These shrubs will effectively block young

children’s movement but will allow visibility and crossing by adults in emergency

situations. Woody evergreen groundcover will be placed between the playground and the

splash pad to discourage shortcuts. This ground cover will also extend to the area

between the deck and the playa lake and the concrete swale. Ground cover and trees will

be added to areas near the new parking lot and additional trees will be planted north of

the splash pad.

175
Figure 6.13: Landscape Planting and Walkways for McCullough Splash Park

176
 Elevation A

Elevation B

Elevation A

Elevation B

Figure 6.14: Elevations of McCullough Splash Park Showing Planting

177
 Conclusions

Wherever possible, the design recommended for the McCullough Splash Park

integrates the suggestions of the children as well as guardians surveyed earlier in the

project, considers the actions and interactions observed among splash park users and

observers, and incorporates the opportunities and limitations of the site. The design

includes those elements which maximize the enjoyment and pleasure of the children.

The water features and layout encourage interaction and cooperative play but allow both

group and individual play. The water treatment system respects the natural environment

by reducing the amount of water used. The cushioned surface reduces adult’s safety

concerns and the observation area addresses the comfort of the guardians with proper

seating and shelter from the sun, thereby increasing children’s accessibility. The ease of

access to the existing playground, restrooms, volleyball court, and large picnic pavilion

will increase the attraction for the entire family. Making the parking adequate, shaded,

and nearby will also encourage use as will the walkways. The design recommended for

the McCullough Splash Park is based on the criteria developed by Moore, Goltsman, and

Iacofano in their book Play for All Guidelines and the proposed criteria in the previous

chapters.

178
 CHAPTER VII

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions

The goals of this research were to determine both the appropriateness of creating a splash

park in Lubbock, Texas and the desirable elements for maximum play value for children.

Free play is indispensable for children’s development and children are attracted to water

play. A splash park provides the opportunity for both free play and water play in an

environment which provides for physical, social, cognitive, and emotional development.

Children want complexity, stimulation, challenges, and variety, and they have a natural

tendency towards rigorous, physical play. Exciting the imaginations and increasing the

physical activity levels of children have a positive impact on both the mind and the body.

This study has determined that splash parks:

• Allow for these types of play,

• Have play value,
• Are acceptable to parents and guardians, and
• Are appropriate for Lubbock.

In order for children to have access to splash parks, acceptance and comfort for parents

and other guardians is critical. The attitudes of guardians will determine if the children

get to use the splash park, how often they will attend, how long they will stay, and the

manner in which they play. Parental supervision without specific direction or control will

allow the children to create their own unique experience of their choice. This will only

occur if the parents are physically comfortable and feel that their children are safe.

179
 Design criteria for splash parks were proposed for:

• Physical aspects of site,

• Water feature selection,
• Relationship of water features, and
• Overall design considerations.

The study has determined that water play is desirable and environmentally appropriate in

Lubbock, Texas. A site was selected based on social and cultural considerations and an

analysis of the proposed site was conducted to determine its appropriateness, limitations,

and opportunities. On this proposed site, a design was recommended which provided for

the inclusion of the desired elements in a manner which minimized alteration of the

existing site and maximized the play value to children.

Recommendations

To expand the understanding and improve the design of splash parks additional

study is needed. Additional time observing children and guardians for their behavior in

splash parks which offer different water features would be beneficial. A focus on

individual features might provide information as to how the children play and how their

play changes with use and age. Observing the children when the splash parks are more

crowded might reveal different manners of play. Also, observation during the week days

in the summer when many parents are working could be beneficial.

The community benefits, known as social capital, which are derived from public,

social activities, are not restricted to splash parks but appear to be promoted by splash

parks. Observation and surveys focusing on this aspect could be valuable.

180
 A specific issue which the industry appears to recognize but is addressing in a

variety of ways is the issue of surfacing. The proposed design for McCullough Splash

Park includes the cushioned “pour-in-place” surfacing which provides protection and

comfort for the manner in which children actually play. However, there are technical

issues with this surface which need to be resolved. Some members of industry are

striving to find a maintainable and cost effective manner to provide a cushioned surface

in the water environment of a splash park. Others are promoting a colorful surface which

provides for gripping but no cushion. Still others are painting concrete to provide visual

interest but with no consideration for the way children actually play. One sales

representative stated that “Children don’t need to be running, anyway.” Another said that

“Children will play with anything, so it doesn’t matter what you give them.” At the risk

of offending some who were very generous in helping with this project, these attitudes do

not promote providing for the quality, positive play experiences children need. The issue

of surfacing needs to be studied by those qualified.

As designers, we must always keep children in mind when planning or designing

a play environment for them. The manner in which children desire to play should be

acknowledged and the water features and the surface should allow for this type of

activity. Splash parks will continue to become more popular because children enjoy them

and they offer an alternative to existing outdoor public recreational facilities. What is

remarkable is the total agreement of everyone consulted, “Children love splash parks.”

181
 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aaron, David. Child’s Play: A Creative Approach to Playspaces for Today’s Children.
New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1965.

Allen, Lady of Hurtwood. Planning for Play. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, 1968.

American Water Works Association. “Ultraviolet (UV) Light Disinfection.” Fact Sheet
http://www.awwa.org/Advocacy/pressroom/Ultraviolet.cfm. (Accessed January
2005).

Avrasin, Maya. “Maintenance Mishaps, Installing a Spray Playground, Spraypad, or

Spraypark could bring you more maintenance headaches.” Parks & Recreation.
October 2004, 64-66.

Bales, Beth. “Spray It Again.” Parks & Recreation. November 2003, 32-36.

Beeh, Jenny E. “A Dash of Splash.” Recreation Management. September 2001, 32.

Beckwith, Jay. “Playground Equipment: A Designer’s Perspective.” Play Spaces for

Children: A New Beginning (Vol. II). Reston, VA: American Alliance for
Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 1989.

Bengtsson, Arvid (Editor). Adventure Playgrounds. New York, NY: Praeger Publishers,
1972. ]

Bellis, Mary. “Swimming Pools – The History of Swimming Pools.”

http://www.inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blswimmingpools.htm.
(Accessed January 2005).

Black, Rusty. Municipal Services Director for the City of Waco Parks and Recreation
Department, Personal communication. Waco, TX, 2005.

Bowers, L. “Playground Design: A Scientific Approach.” Play Spaces for Children: A

New Beginning (Vol. II). Reston, VA: American Alliance for Health, Physical
Education, Recreation, and Dance, 1989.

Boykin, Danny. Superintendent of Recreation for Grand Prairie, Texas, Personal

communication. Grand Prairie, TX, April 2005.

Brown, Pei-San, Sutterby, John A., Therrell, James A. and Thornton, Candra D. “The
Importance of Free Play to Children’s Development.” www.gametime.com
(Accessed April 2005).

182
Bruya, L.D. (Editor). Play Spaces for Children: A New Beginning (Vol. II).
Reston VA: American, Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and
Dance, 1988.

Burgess, Chuck. Aquatics Coordinator for the City of Buffalo Grove Parks and
Recreation Department, Personal communication. Buffalo Grove, IL,
April 2005.

Carr, Stephen., Francis, Mark., Rivlin, Leanne G., and Stone, Andrew M. Public Space.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Cackawski, Jean Marie., and Augustin, Sally. “Playground Safety.” Landscape

Architecture. January 2005, 84-86.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). “Physical Activity Trends - United
States, 1990—1998.” MMWR Weekly, Available online.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5009a3.htm. March 9, 2001,
166-169.

_________. “Playground Injuries: Fact Sheet.”

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/playgr.htm. Updated 8/4/04. (Accessed
February 2005).

_________. “Water-Related Injuries: Fact Sheet.”

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/drown.htm. Updated 8/4/04. (Accessed
February 2005).

Chace, Elizabeth., and Ishmael, George. “Outdoor Play in Housing Areas.” Innovation in
Play Environments. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1980, 171-193.

Clements, Rhonda L., Dr. “Research Finds Decline in Outdoor Play.” Education Update
Online. June 2003, 1-2.
http://www.educationupdate.com/archives/2003/june03/issue/child_outdoor.html.
(Accessed February 2005).

_________ and Fiorentino, Leah (Editors). The Child’s Right to Play. Westport, CT:
Praeger, 2004.

Cohen, David. The Development of Play. New York, NY: University Press, 1987.

Cook, Kelly, RLA, ASLA. Founding partner of KDC-Turner Partners, Personal

communication, Midland, TX, 2005.

183
Cooper-Marcus, Clare. “For Children Only.” Landscape Architecture. December 2001,
66-71, 85.

_________. “Should Playgrounds Incorporate Risk?” Landscape Architecture.

December 2001, 71.

_________ and Francis, Carolyn (Editors). People Places (Second Edition). New York,
NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1998.

Crespo, Carlos J. DrPH. MS. and Arbesman, Joshua. “Obesity in the United States.”
The Physician and Sportsmedicine. Vol. 31 – No. 11. November, 2003, 1-9.
http://www.physsportsmed.com/issues/2003/1103/crespo.htm. (Accessed January
2005).

Crowe, Timothy D. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Stoneham, ME:

Butterworth-Heinemann, 1991.

Dahl, Bernie, ASLA and Molnar, Donald J., FASLA. Anatomy of a Park (Third
Edition). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc, 2003.

Dattner, Richard. Design for Play. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co, 1969.

DeGraaf, Don Ph.D. and Jordan, Deb, Re.D. “Social Capital, How parks and recreation
help to build community.” Parks & Recreation. December 2003, 20-27.

Dickinson, Regan. “Interactive Aquatic Strategies.” Parks & Rec Business. April 2003,
10-12.

Donahue, Mary. “History of Swimming Section – Course Outline.”

http://faculty.deanza.fhda.edu/donahuemary/stories/storyReader$700
(Accessed April 2005).

Eads, Ivette. Outdoor Recreation Supervisor for the City of Lubbock Parks and
Recreation Department, Personal Communication. Lubbock, TX, 2005.

Ellis, Michael J. Why People Play. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973.

Eriksen, Aase, M.Arch. Ph.D. Playground Design (Outdoor Environments for Learning
and Development). New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1985.

Freid, V.M., Prager K., MacKay, A.P., and Xia, H. “Chartbook on Trends in the Health
of Americans.” Health, United States, 2003. National Center for Health
Statistics. 2003. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus03.pdf. (Accessed January
2005) 1-471.

184
Friedberg, M. Paul. Play and Interplay. New York, NY: Macmillan, 1970.

Forrest, Cory and Fraleigh, Matthew M. Spray park consultants with Waterplay[R]
Manufacturing Inc. “Add Spray to Your Play.” Parks & Recreation. February
2004, 48-54.

_________. “Child’s Play.” Aquatics International. March 2004, 34-38.

Frost, Joe L. Ed.U. Development of a Play Environment. Booklet prepared for the
Division of Curriculum Development, Elementary Education Section, Texas
Education Agency. Publisher unknown, 1978.

_________ and Sunderlin, Sylvia, (Editors). When Children Play. Proceedings of the
International Conference on Play and Play Environments. Publisher unknown,
1985.

_________. Play and Playscapes. Albany, NY: Delmar Publishers, 1992.

George, Ron. President of Rain Drop Products. “Creating a Splash Play Area.”
Recreation Management. November 2002, 6-7.

_________. “Water Play without a Pool.” Recreation Management. May/June 2001,

6-7.

Gold, Seymour M. Recreation Planning and Design. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill,
1980.

Goodman, Jeff. Parks Superintendent for the City of Waco Parks and Recreation
Department, Personal communication. Waco, TX, 2005.

Gordon-Larsen, Penny Ph.D., McMurray, Robert G. Ph.D., and Popkin, Barry M. Ph.D.
“Determinants of Adolescent Physical Activity and Inactivity Patterns.”
Pediatrics, Vol. 105 No. 6. Available online.
http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/105/6/e83. June, 2000, 1-8.

Ham, S.A. MS., Yore, M.M. MSPH., Fulton, J.E. PhD., Kohl, H.W. III, PhD. Division
of Nutrition and Physical Activity, National Center for Chronic Disease
Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC. “Prevalence of No Leisure-Time
Physical Activity—35 States and the District of Columbia, 1988-2002.” Journal
of American Medical Association. April 14, 2004, Vol. 291, No. 14. April 2004,
1693-1694.

Hatchel, Mark C., RLA, ASLA. Associate and Senior Project Park Planner, Kimley-
Horn & Associates, Personal Communication. Dallas, TX, 2005.

185
Hamelin, Stephen. President of Vortex Aquatic Structures International. “Splash
Dance.” Aquatics International. March 2002, 22-26.

Hill, Polly. “Toward the Perfect Play Experience.” Innovation in Play Environments.
New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1980.

Hughes, Fergus P. Children, Play and Development. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon,
1995.

Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. “Industry Can Play a Role in

Preventing Childhood Obesity.” Fact Sheet. September 2004.
Iowa Academy of Science, Iowa Project WET
http://www.uni.edu/~iowawet/H2OProperties.html n.d. (Accessed January 2005).

Jeffery, C.R. Crime Prevention through Environmental Design. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications, 1971.

Johnson, Lisa Flood, ASLA. Project Manager for the City of Houston, Building Services
Department, Personal communication. Houston, TX, 2005.

Kaplan, Rachel., Kaplan, Stephen., and Ryan, Robert L. With People in Mind.
Washington DC: Island Press, 1998.

Kellogg, Gina B. “Get Off the Fence.” World Waterpark Magazine. June 2004, 34-35.

Kennedy, Felis, P.E. Environmental Safety Manager, Department of Environmental

Health and Safety, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, Personal
communication. Lubbock, TX, 2005.

Kennedy, Pat. Design Consultant, Kraftsman Parks and Playground Equipment, Inc.
Personal communication. Waxahachie, TX, 2005.

Kroskey, Carol. “Water, Water Everywhere.” Recreation Management. January

/February 2000, 8-9.

Kvashny, Alon, PhD, ASLA. “Creative Play Grounds.” Winter Term Paper, University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 1969.

_________. “Creative Playgrounds Research.” Morgantown, WV, n.d.

LaGro, James A. Jr. Site Analysis. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2001.

Leggiere, Phil. “What Happened to Leisure Society?” Across the Board, Vol. 39 No. 4.
July/August 2002, 42-48.

186
Levinthal, Dave. “City hopes to regain water’s edge.” The Dallas Morning News. June
27, 2004.

Lewis, Charles A. Green Nature / Human Nature. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois
Press. 1996.

Lewis, Terry. Facility Manager for the City of Grand Prairie Texas, Personal
communication. Grand Prairie, TX, April 2005.

Madden, Kathleen. How to Turn a Place Around. New York, NY: Project for Public
Spaces. 2002.

Maples, Weldon. Aquatics Supervisor for the City of Lubbock Parks and Recreation
Department, Personal Communication. Lubbock, TX, 2005.

Magee, Lori, formerly with Buffalo Grove Park District, and Parés, Alejandra, Marketing
Communications Coordinator for Vortex Aquatic Structures International in
Montreal, Canada. “Aquatic Envy.” Parks & Recreation. October 2004, 56-57.

_________.and _________. “Giving Them What They Want.” Illinois Parks &
Recreation. July/August 2004, 32-37.

Mason, John. The Environment of Play. West Point, NY: Leisure Press, 1982

Miller, Doug, Reporter khou.com 11 News, Houston, TX. “Sprayparks offer kids new
way to stay cool.” Houston, TX, July 23, 2004.

Mittelstaedt, Arthur Jr., EdD. Executive Director, Recreation Safety Institute.

“Playground Safety.” Landscape Architect and Specifier News. September 2004,
30-32.

_________. “Playgrounds & Safety Expertise.” Landscape Architect and Specifier

News. November 2004, 36.

Mogharabi, Shabnam., and Dumas, Bob. “Avoiding the Trap.” Aquatics International.
June 2004, 33-36.

Moore, Robin C., ALSA. Childhood’s Domain: Play and Place in Child Development.
Berkeley, CA: MIG Communications, 1986.

___________. “The Power of Nature: Orientations of Girls and Boys Toward Biotic and
Abiotic Settings on a Reconstructed Schoolyard.” Children’s Environments
Quarterly. September 1986, 52-69.

187
___________., Goltsman, Susan M., and Iacofano, Daniel S. (Editors). Play for All
Guidelines: Planning, design and management of outdoor play setting for all
children (Second Edition). Berkeley, CA: MIG Communications, 1992.

Morrill, Ray, CLP. “Trends: Changing Families - Are We Changing With Them?”
Illinois Parks and Recreation. May/June 1993, 26-27.

Parés, Alejandra. Marketing Communications Coordinator for Vortex Aquatic Structures

International, Personal communication. Montreal, Canada, 2005.

Patterson-Brachli, Sheryl. Operations Manager Parks and Recreation Department for

City of Omaha, Nebraska, Personal communication. Omaha, NE, 2005.

Patton, Steve. Parks Director for the Parks and Recreation Department of the City of
Odessa, Texas, Personal communication. Odessa, TX, 2005.

Power, Thomas G. Play and Exploration in Children and Animals. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 2000.

Pulliam, Christina M. “The Physical and Psychological Benefits of Hydrotherapy.”

B.G.S. Thesis, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, 1999.

Reese-Learned, Halcyon. PhD. CPSI. Playground Designer. “Children’s Outdoor Play in

Today’s Culture.” Presentation to Texas ASLA Annual Convention. April, 2005.

Rouard, Marguerita., and Simon, Jacques. Children’s Play Spaces, From Sandbox to
Adventure Playground. Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press, 1977.

Ryan, Patrick. Director of Business Development, Splashspot, LLC., Personal

communication. Waco, TX, 2005.

Rutledge, Albert J, ASLA. Anatomy of a Park (First edition). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill Inc, 1971.

Scott, Janny. “When Child’s Play is Too Simple; Experts Criticize Safety-Conscious
Recreation as Boring.” Berkeley Partners for Parks
http://www.bpfp.org/PlargoundDesign/WhenChildsPlay.htm. (Accessed
February 2005).

Senda, Mitsuru, Arch, Dr. Eng. Design of Children’s Play Environments. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill, 1992.

Shank, Carolyn, Ed.D. A Child’s Way to Water Play. West Point, NY: Leisure Press,
1983.

188
Shaw, Ron, CLP., and Arnolde, Dave. “The Pools Factor: Does Your Community Have
Enough Space.” Illinois Parks & Recreation. July/August 1993, 19-20.

Shell, Ellen Ruppel. “Kids Don’t Need Equipment, They Need Opportunity.”
Smithsonian Magazine. July 1994, 78-84.

Shephard, Roy J. “Curricular Physical Activity and Academic Performance.” Pediatric

Exercise Science, 9. 1997, 113-126.

Sipes, James L. ASLA. “Playground Safety.” Landscape Architecture. February 2000,

38-42.

___________., and Roberts, John Mack. “Playground Surfaces: Safety & Accessibility.”
Landscape Architecture. May 1994, 36-38.

St. Clair, Stacy. “Water 101.” Recreation Management. September 2004, 26-33.

Stine, Sharon. Landscapes for Learning: Creating outdoor environments for children and
youth. New York, NY: J. Wiley & Sons, 1997.

Stoecklin, Vicki L. M.Ed. “Creating Playgrounds Kids Love.”

http://www.whitehutchinson.com/children/articles/playgrndkidslove.shtml.
2000. (Accessed September 2004).

Soderberg, Mark. General Manager, Kraftsman Parks and Playground Equipment, Inc.
Personal communication. Spring, TX, 2005.

Tam, Dixon. “Sprayparks: The Theme Dream: Theming your aquatic playground
involves tough choices that pit beauty against your budget.” Parks & Recreation.
June, 2004, 40-44.

Texas Department of Health (TDH). Health and Safety Code Chapter 341 Section
341.064. http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes. (Accessed February 2005).

Thompson, Donna T., and Bowers, Louis (Editors). Where Our Children Play:
Community Park Playground Equipment. Reston, VA: American Alliance for
Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 1989.

United States Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Survey of Current Business.” Internet

Release. http://www.census.gov/prod/1/gen/95statab/income.pdf. (Accessed
January 2005).

189
United States Census Bureau (USCB). “The Population Profile of the United States:
2000.” Internet Release. http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-
profile/profile2000.html. (Accessed January 2005).

United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (USDASCS) in

cooperation with Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. Soil Survey of Lubbock
County Texas. National Cooperative Soil Survey, 1979.

United States Department of Health and Human Services. “Physical activity and health:
a report of the Surgeon General.” Atlanta, GA: United States Department of
Health and Human Services, CDC, 1996.

United States Geological Survey (USGS).

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/waterproperties.html. (Accessed January 2005).

Varela, Adolfo. Storm Water Specialist, Department of Environmental Health and

Safety, Texas Tech University, Personal communication. Lubbock, TX, 2005.

Wade, Beth. “Making a Splash in Local Recreation.” American City and County. Vol.
113, Issue 10. September 1998, 20-30.

Webb, John. Parks and Recreation Manager for City of Tyler, Personal communication.
Tyler, TX, 2005.

White, Randy. “Moving from Biophobia to Biophilia: Developmentally Appropriate

Environmental Education for Children.” 2001. http://www.whitehutchinson.
com/children/articles/biophilia.shtml. (Accessed September 2004).

Whitehead, Richard. Hazardous Waste Specialist, Department of Environmental Health

and Safety, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, Personal communication.
Lubbock, TX, 2005.

Wilkinson, Paul F. (Editor). Innovation in Play Environments. New York, NY: St.
Martin’s Press, 1980.

Wilkinson, Paul F., and Lockhart, Robert S. “Safety in Children’s Formal Play
Environments.” Innovation in Play Environments. New York, NY: St.
Martin’s Press, 1980, 85-96.

World Waterpark Association. Overland Park, KS. http://www.waterparks.org.

(Accessed January 2005).

Wuellner, Lance H. “Forty Guidelines for Playground Design.” Journal of Leisure

Research Vol.11 No. 1, 1979, 4-14.

190
Yawkey, Thomas D. Child’s Play: Developmental and Applied. Hillsdale, NJ: L.
Erlbaum Associates, 1984.

Yu, Rin-rin. “Financial Drain.” Aquatics International. April 2004, 22-26.

Ziegler, Bryan, PE. Associate Engineer/Aquatics Section, Brannon Corp. Personal

communication. Tyler, TX, 2005.

Websites:

http://www.faculty.deanza.fhda.edu/donahuemary/stories. (Accessed April 2005).

http://www.city-data.com. (Accessed January 2005).

http://www.census.gov. (Accessed January 2005).

http://www.cleanerpool.net. (Accessed January 2005).

http://www.excelwater.com/eng/b2c/water_tec_3.php. (Accessed January 2005).

http://www.gametime.com. (Accessed January 2005).

http://www.srh.noaa.gov. (Accessed June 2005).

http://www.kraftsmanplaygrounds.com. (Accessed January 2005).

http://www.planning.ci.lubbock.tx.us. (Accessed March 2005).

http://www.rain-drop.com. (Accessed January 2005).

http://www.tceq.state.tx.us. (Accessed February 2005).

http://www.vortex-intl.com/content_safety.html. (Accessed January 2005).

http://www.waterplay.com/start.html. (Accessed January 2005).

191
 PERMISSION TO COPY

In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master’s

degree at Texas Tech University or Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, I

agree that the Library and my major department shall make it freely available for research

purposes. Permission to copy this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the

Director of the Library or my major professor. It is understood that any copying or

publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my further

written permission and that any user may be liable for copyright infringement.

Agree (Permission is granted.)

Lisa J. Lewis November 8, 2005

Student Signature Date

Disagree (Permission is not granted.)

_______________________________________________ _________________
Student Signature Date