Project Description

Anchorage Parks and Recreation (APR) manages 10,960 acres of land, 223 parks, 250 miles of trails, and 106 playground facilities.  In 2017, APR decided to compile a strategic plan, inspired by the 2006 Park Plan and Anchorage Park Foundation’s Inclusive Play Guide. 

 

The three primary objectives for the strategic plan were to create a baseline inventory of existing assets, establish a methodology to assess what parks can be developed to meet the greatest need, and create measurable and achievable goals for APR. The plan achieved this by undergoing a comprehensive inventory and analysis at both the context and site level to facilitate an understanding of the current state of infrastructure and playgrounds. Taking these factors into account a final “park score” was created by adding individual weighted scores from each category together. Once this final score was generated, APR was able to assign a “grade” to each playground and had the tools necessary to prioritize improvements and allocate resources.

 

This “grade” or rating system separates playgrounds into different four levels of inclusivity to assess and target weak points in APR’s asset management.

• Level one is the ideal condition; The coolest thing on the playground is accessible to all, unitary surfacing is installed, the playground has a clear boundary and also has opportunities for safe access, a variety of physical experiences, sensory opportunities, and mental opportunities.

• Level two falls short of incorporating some or all of these features, but still accommodates a diverse experience for its users.

• Level three is the category given to a playground, usually one that has not been upgraded in at least a decade, that reaches the minimum ADA guidelines but does not do a great job in accommodating diverse user needs.

• Level four is a playground that needs attention and is on our list playgrounds that needs improvements. 

 

To set the foundation for inclusion, the plan breaks down the basic principles of the American Disabilities Act (ADA) and how concepts ofUniversal Design and inclusion go beyond ADA. Accessibility is being able to move into and around a space, but does not address quality ofexperience. For this reason, inclusive design accounts for other types of access that allow you to experience the space through wayfinding, movement, smell, touch, sight, and sound. Therefore, an inclusive play area must host a range of opportunities utilizing different surfaces, forms, and pathways for play. It not only pertains to the type of equipment that is selected for a space, but the way the space is arranged, the context ofthe space, and the overall amenities the space provides.

​

In order to qualify different types of inclusion within play environments the plan highlights five categories to assess the experiential qualities and site specific metrics. The categories are: access, sensory engagement, physical challenges, social prompts, and mental exposure to intellectual and cognitive moments. Within each of these categories, specific elements help incorporate dynamic and inclusive play into any playenvironment.

 

Each category contains specific questions that relate to inclusive play on a level that encourages activities for a diverse range of abilities. For example, a single play environment should have surfacing that allows a child with a wheelchair to engage in a space, as well as tactile wayfinding or nooks and crannies for children experiencing Autism. It may also include individual spinning elements and climbing activities to encourage development for children experiencing Down Syndrome and lots of handholds and intellectual moments for children experiencing Cerebral Palsy or Muscular Dystrophy. Park elements that are high contrast or have auditory elements may appeal to children who experience visual and auditory impairments.

 

Zooming out to the broader assessment of socioeconomic and infrastructure trends, a second set of categories were created and analyzed. These categories are density, social vulnerability, persons experiencing a disability, access, and natural resources. 

 

The density analysis highlighted the general distribution of playgrounds per population density in the context of a community council, but also in revealing needs based on existing development, population density, and playground density. More specifically, the plan breaks down the population density of each community council area to the number of playgrounds per community council, and the number of people served per playground.

 

According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, social vulnerability “refers to the resilience of communities when confronted by external stresses on human health, stresses such as natural or human-caused disasters, or disease outbreaks. Reducing social vulnerability can decrease both human suffering and economic loss.” This section of the plan dives into the concepts of social vulnerability by overlaying the  distribution of poverty, public assistance support, and the social vulnerability index to see the geographical distribution of vulnerable populations in Anchorage.

 

Diverse and equitable ways to access public resources were also taken into account in this plan. Inclusive play puts importance on people having sufficient parking spaces, as well as the ability to travel to a playground utilizing public transportation and the trail system. To demonstrate this, the plan examines which playgrounds are proximate to areas where people have limited access to vehicles as well as parks that have parking lots, trail access, and are within specific walking thresholds of a bus stop.

 

Nature play is a critical element for both children and adults. This plan highlights playgrounds surrounded by soft-surface trails, forests, lakes, and rivers giving people an opportunity to engage in the many natural elements in Anchorage. In order to qualify, the stream needed to be within 250 feet of the playground and a lake had to be within 500 feet from the playground without crossing any street.

 

At the conclusion of the inventory and analysis, two resources were created to articulate the departments goals. The first was a static document, intended to record and assess the state of play as it existed in 2018. The second is in digital storymap form and is maintained and managed by APR; this storymap serves as a publicly living document and allows APR to articulate their adaptive management strategies for inclusion and play.  This summary includes graphics from both the original static document as well as the annually managed and updated stor

​

Project Team and Collaborators

PLANNING & DESIGN TEAM: Taylor Keegan, Josh Durand, Michelle Fehribach (MOA P+R)

OUTREACH PARTNER: Anchorage Parks Foundation
PLAY MANUFACTURING PARTNERS: Exerplay, Playworld, Landscape Structures
AGENCY PARTNER: Tina Miller + MOA Geospatial Data Information Center