Three children share a soap-bubble game in an imagined neighborhood playground. Original editorial painting, not a depiction of an actual Foundation project or a technical playground design.
Design shared play around different bodies, senses and ways of joining in, then keep listening after opening day.
By Arbab Naseebullah Kasi, Chief Executive Officer - CEO, Feel Worldwide Foundation Inc..
Imagine arriving at a playground with two children who want to play together. One uses a wheelchair. They can enter the site, and an accessible feature is marked on the plan. But that feature is occupied, the pretend-play structure has a step, and the game everyone else is inventing has moved somewhere they cannot reach together.
The family has arrived. One child is still waiting for the visit to begin.
This is an illustrative scene, not a reported family experience. It exposes a useful question for any playground project: how much choice does a child have once they get inside?
A welcoming playground offers more than a single permitted activity. It gives children different ways to be curious, move, make something happen, rest and return to their friends. It also gives families reason to believe those choices will still be available next month, after rain, heavy use and the first broken part.
Start with the children who are missing
UNICEF's 2021 report, Seen, Counted, Included, estimated that nearly 240 million children aged 0 to 17 worldwide had disabilities, approximately one in ten. Its global estimate drew on 103 countries covering 84 percent of the world's child population. The definition considered several areas of functioning, including psychosocial well-being. This is an estimate from that report, with incomplete coverage and measurement limits, not a current headcount or a local playground-demand figure. Read UNICEF's executive summary.
The practical implication is to resist designing around one imagined user. A wheelchair symbol cannot represent every child who struggles to join a game. Neither can a single sensory panel represent the preferences of children with different sensory or communication needs.
Some children want vigorous movement. Others want a predictable sequence or a place to watch before joining. A child may seek loud sound on one visit and need distance from it on another. Children who share a diagnosis can want very different things.
Begin by finding out who already comes, who comes briefly and who has stopped trying. A survey distributed only inside the park will miss families who cannot use it. Local disability organizations, parent networks and community groups can help invite those voices, without becoming substitutes for the children themselves.
Design a visit, not a catalogue of equipment
Before choosing a large structure, trace an ordinary visit from arrival to departure. Can the family find clear information about the space? Can they reach the activities together? Can a caregiver with a disability accompany a child? Is there a usable toilet nearby, and are its opening hours accurate?
These questions belong in the project brief alongside equipment. Otherwise a beautiful play area can depend on a practical detail that nobody funded.
Inside the playground, think in experiences: making a sound, creating a story, moving through space, manipulating an object, exploring texture, watching others, and taking a break. Offer different ways into those experiences. A shared make-believe setting might have elements reachable from more than one position. A game might invite a child to choose its direction, start it or change its rules without needing to climb first.
These are design prompts for discussion with children and qualified professionals, not construction specifications. Reach, clearances, fall zones, materials and other requirements need competent review for the actual site.
Also ask what happens when the most useful feature is busy. If one child has ten attractive choices while another has only one, a queue carries a different cost. Variety is part of equitable access, especially on a crowded afternoon.
Make room for the same game
Placing children near each other does not automatically give them a shared activity. A separated corner may be easy to photograph as an inclusion investment while keeping its users away from the social center of the playground.
The design question is whether children can affect what happens together. Can they exchange objects, respond to each other's actions, take turns or invent roles? Can someone join without being assigned the permanent role of spectator?
Consider a hypothetical renovation of a neighborhood play space. The first proposal puts one accessible activity at the far edge. Families reviewing the layout instead ask for several ground-level play opportunities around a common imaginative setting, with space to approach from different directions. The revised brief would be judged on whether children can share the setting, not simply on the number of labelled features purchased.
That proposal would still need technical assessment, a budget and testing. It is an example of a better question, not evidence that a particular layout works everywhere.
The social environment deserves equal attention. Where staff or play leaders are present, they can learn to offer choices, support communication and interrupt exclusion without taking over children's games. Nobody should need to perform gratitude or accept unwanted assistance to participate. Ask before moving a child's mobility device or touching their body.
Give sensory choice a place in the plan
A space designed only for maximum stimulation leaves some children with nowhere comfortable to begin. A space designed only for quiet can remove experiences other children actively enjoy. The aim should be a range of choices, with understandable transitions between them.
Discuss where louder activities belong, how unexpected noise travels, and whether a calmer area remains connected to the life of the playground. A child taking a break should not have to disappear from the family or lose the possibility of returning to play.
Useful questions include whether glare makes an activity hard to use, whether signs are understandable, and whether textures or landmarks help children recognize where they are. Provide information in more than one way when possible. Pictures can support some users; clear words, contrast, tactile information and other formats may be needed by others.
Do not assume that every sensory addition is helpful. Ask who will enjoy it, who may avoid it, and whether opting out is easy. Test proposed features with a range of users before repeating them across a site.
Listen to what children notice
A qualitative study published in 2021 examined six inclusive playgrounds in Switzerland through observations and interviews with 32 children aged 7 to 12, including 14 children with disabilities. Its findings included invisible barriers and children's own recommendations for playground design. The study shows why the users' experience matters alongside the physical plan. Its small, place-specific sample does not establish how common those barriers are everywhere. Read the study's abstract.
An adult may inspect a surface and see a completed improvement. A child may notice that their friends disappear behind a structure, that a popular game depends on an unreachable control, or that there is nowhere to pause without being left out. Those observations can change what the project team prioritizes.
Consultation should therefore offer different ways to contribute: a short accompanied visit, photographs to choose between, drawing, conversation, a supported communication method or time to respond at home. Participation should be voluntary, and a child should be able to stop. Explain how their input will be used and obtain appropriate permission for any recordings or identifiable images.
Parents and caregivers add essential knowledge about practical barriers, but their account should not automatically replace the child's preference. Where the two differ, record the difference respectfully. A good process can hold both a parent's concern and a child's desire for more independence.
Return with a short explanation of what changed, what did not and why. Keep that conversation open after construction.
Use standards accurately, then examine the experience
In the United States, the ADA Accessibility Standards apply to covered facilities in new construction, alterations and additions. Sections 240 and 1008 address play areas for children aged two and older, subject to their scope and exceptions. They address matters such as accessible routes and required play components. Where two or more required ground-level components are provided, the standards require them to be dispersed and integrated with other play components. The Access Board's accompanying advice also explains that some children cannot, or choose not to, use transfer systems. Review the U.S. Access Board's standards.
These are U.S. requirements, not a worldwide certification system or a complete statement of every obligation at an existing site. A project team must establish the rules that apply in its jurisdiction and circumstances, with qualified access and design advice.
Compliance matters. So does asking what the compliant arrangement allows children to do together. A drawing cannot settle whether a particular child enjoys an activity, feels welcome or has enough choice. Those questions need observation and conversation after the space is in use.
Pay for the years after the opening
An accessible route can become difficult to use when a surface deteriorates, material shifts or an approach is blocked. A failed feature may remove a much larger share of one child's available choices than another's.
Maintenance should have a named owner, a dependable budget and a clear route for reporting problems. Specify who inspects surfaces and equipment, who responds to an access failure, how repairs are checked, and how families learn about closures. The U.S. standards explicitly require regular, frequent inspection and maintenance of relevant ground surfaces to preserve their accessibility performance. See section 1008.2.6.1.
Beyond the required inspections, give attention to everyday usability. Keep a dated record of a reported obstruction, the interim response, the repair and the check that access has actually been restored. An invoice for a repair is not the same as a successful return visit.
Ask suppliers about replacement parts, repair skills and the expected care of their products before purchase. A feature that can be bought but cannot be maintained locally deserves serious scrutiny. Donors can help by accepting maintenance and evaluation as legitimate project costs rather than expecting every contribution to produce a new object.
Measure belonging with more than an opening-day photograph
A 2024 Australian study audited 25 free-entry playgrounds in Victoria and New South Wales using an Everyone Can Play checklist. Scores ranged from 29 to 96 percent of available points. The researchers also identified limits in the checklist's attention to disability needs, particularly beyond mobility. Those scores describe this sample and this tool. They are not percentages of children included, and they do not measure the effect of a redesign on friendship or well-being. Read the playground evaluation.
For a local project, combine a technical access review with a small set of clearly defined service measures and voluntary user feedback. Record whether important features are working, how long reported barriers remain unresolved, and which requested improvements recur. Ask children whether they could do something they wanted to do, whether they could play with others if they wished, and what they would change.
Keep the meaning of a measure honest. More visits do not necessarily mean more choice. Time spent alone does not automatically mean exclusion; a child may prefer it. A busy feature might be popular, or it might be the only usable option. Numbers need explanation from the people behind them.
Repeat observations at different times and in different conditions. Do not infer a child's disability from appearance or collect diagnoses simply to fill a dashboard. When families choose to share access needs, protect that information and report patterns without identifying individual children.
Compare findings with the project's own starting point and stated aims. If an improvement falls short, publish the practical next step rather than hiding the difficulty behind a broad claim of success.
A smaller project can still ask better questions
Not every community can rebuild an entire playground at once. A phased plan can identify the barriers that prevent use now, secure the necessary technical advice, and protect funding for upkeep. Work with families to choose an initial improvement that expands real options, then check whether it did.
Be clear about what remains unavailable. A precise description of usable features, surfaces, toilets and current closures is more helpful than an unqualified promise that a site works for everyone. Larger destination playgrounds may offer valuable experiences, but communities should also ask whether children can enjoy ordinary, repeatable play closer to home.
The strongest ambition is a place where a child can make a choice without a negotiation, find a way into a shared game, or take a quiet moment and return. That ambition requires attention from designers, operators, families, children and supporters over time.
If your organization would like to explore a possible collaboration with Feel Worldwide Foundation Inc. around more inclusive community spaces, submit a partnership inquiry with the need you see and the contribution you could offer. Any project would require discussion of local priorities, responsibilities, feasibility and resources. To support the Foundation's broader mission, make a donation, reviewing the giving options and any designation terms. These invitations do not announce an existing playground program or a dedicated playground fund.
