Exploring Equity in City Planning for Children’s Nature Play

Abstract

Nature play provides important health and developmental benefits for children. To address concerns surrounding children’s lack of nature connection, cities across the United States (U.S.) implement various strategies to increase children’s access to nature play. Although cities implement these strategies, inequities in children’s nature access, connection, and their corresponding benefits still exist. To gain a better understanding of the ways in which equitable access to nature play is conceptualized and implemented on a local level, we employ an exploratory case study of seven cities participating in the Cities Connecting Children to Nature (CCCN) initiative. A qualitative analysis utilizing cross-case synthesis of program documents and semi-structured interviews was applied. In doing so, we identified city-level strategies that fall within conditions of a Systems Change Framework and themes related to the framing of equity in these approaches. The findings from this study provide practical information and further insight into the implementation and framing of equitable nature play planning strategies.

1. Introduction

Play is one of the most important aspects of the human experience. When children engage in play, it furthers their cognitive, social, emotional, and physical development. Although the action of play itself is important for children’s health and development, its resulting benefits are also intertwined with the environment in which it is performed. For example, outdoor play spaces, compared to indoor spaces, can promote more creative and adventurous play and provide therapeutic benefits such as attention or stress restoration [1,2]. Although playing in outdoor spaces can provide additional development and well-being benefits, there is a concern in Western societies that children today are spending less time playing outdoors [3]. This concern has been characterized as a “nature deficit disorder”, attributed to several factors including urbanization, technology, as well as lifestyle and perception changes in both adults and children [3,4].

In particular, children living in urban areas may experience negative effects from a lack of nature and the inability to receive additional health benefits from outdoor play [5]. Additionally, historic and continued social inequities are reproduced in city planning efforts, as access to natural spaces and features can vary, depending on differing historical, social, and environmental factors [6,7]. To address environmental issues, there has been a sustainable green turn in urban planning and design, yet concerns surrounding social equity persist, such as processes of green gentrification, which results in the furthering of social and environmental inequities, calling for an expanded conceptualization of environmental justice [8,9,10,11]. Similar expansions of equity and social justice have also been conceptualized in the climate planning literature [12].

On a global level, the United Nation’s Child Friendly Cities Initiative (CFCI) provides a framework for local governments to include projects and policies that seek to enhance participation, safety, and access to green spaces and promote play for children. Ultimately, in combination with greening initiatives, cities seek to address the health of children and the sustainability of natural spaces [13]. Due to the potential benefits of nature play to children’s health and well-being, the implementation of nature play spaces in formal green spaces, such as parks and schoolgrounds, has become a strategy that cities use to address issues related to equity in access to nature. For example, across the globe, initiatives such as Plan for Play in Barcelona, Spain; the Playtime in Africa initiative in Accra, Ghana; Grün macht Schule (Green grounds at School) in Berlin Germany; and ravine restoration in Guatemala City, Guatemala increase children’s access to nature through various design and education strategies—encouraging play, connection, and exploration [14]. Although these types of projects aim to promote equitable nature play access for children, the strategies to address equity can be interpreted and operationalized in many ways. Therefore, this study does not aim to use specific measures to quantify equity in nature play space access or its associated outcomes but instead provides practical examples of the ways equitable planning is implemented and framed to better understand the “what” and “how” questions related to these issues [15]. We are interested in how cities operationalize equity and how these relate or contribute to larger theoretical discussions surrounding equitable planning and nature play access.

In the United States (U.S.), the Children and Nature Network advocates for naturalizing children’s lives. In partnership with the National League of Cities, the Children and Nature Network supports local governments in the implementation of policies and projects that aim to increase children’s engagement with outdoor spaces through the Cities Connecting Children to Nature (CCCN) initiative. Through this initiative, cities implement a range of strategies to increase children’s nature connection, including the planning and programming of designated nature play spaces located in public parks, and/or partner spaces, such as schoolgrounds. These spaces differ from traditional playgrounds by providing natural features, including boulders, logs, stumps, and natural loose parts, increasing opportunities for children to engage and play with and/or in a natural environment.

The CCCN initiative and seven of its participating cities implementing nature play strategies are used as an entry point in this study to explore city-level efforts related to the local planning of equitable access to nature play and the framing of equity in these cases. Like other studies that explore the application of equity and/or equitable strategies in planning initiatives, the focus of this study is not to compare whether or to what extent participating cities have achieved outcomes related to equity [16,17]. Rather, we employ an exploratory, qualitative approach to further understand cities’ application of equitable strategies related to children’s nature play and the ways in which equity is framed in these cases. In doing so, we aim to synthesize within-case patterns to answer questions related to the “what” and/or “how” in the implementation of these strategies, which cannot be answered using quantitative approaches [15].

A Systems Change Framework, set forth by the initiative, is used to organize the data, and a cross-case synthesis is employed to program documents and interview transcripts to identify the specific actions related to the planning and implementation of equitable access to nature play and the framing of equity [15]. Common strategies and themes were identified by applying a general inductive approach [15,18]. Findings from this study address knowledge gaps in how equitable access is conceptualized and addressed in city planning, within the context of increasing nature play as part of the CCCN initiative.

2. Research Background

2.1. Exploring Concepts in Equitable Planning

Despite recent movements in the U.S. that aim to restrict the use of the term “equity” in political and institutional settings, there is longstanding scholarship centering equity as an essential value in the study and practice of urban planning [8,9,19,20,21,22,23]. For example, equitable planning practices can include increasing public participation and/or expanding impact assessments and evaluation to go beyond physical aspects of the environment and include economic and social impacts, as well as considerations of people’s experience of space [19].

Drawing on theories of spatial justice, the term equity may be operationalized in different ways. One approach to promoting equity is the enabling approach, which seeks to address barriers in infrastructure, institutions, and perceptions, pointing to the influence of socio-political constructions of spatial access [24,25,26]. As suggested by Harvey [27] (p. 13) the right to the city is in “the hands of a small political and economic elite”. These views point to hierarchical power, such as the neoliberal influence on the production and design of space, including formal play spaces for children. In this framing, equity includes addressing structures of power through identification of structural differences across social groups and power imbalances in decision making. Even in participatory settings, adults may have power over children and youth by using “an ideology designed by them but with children as the appointed agents of influence” [28] (p. 25). For example, children’s participation rights rely on the context of decision making that is ultimately in the hands of adults, where neoliberal utopian ideals can influence adult concepts of space, and ultimately shape children’s geographies [29]. Expanding on these concepts, which address the material and social productions of space, equity may also include understanding differing ways of knowing through exploring power relations in the intersections of children’s physical, social, and lived experience of space (e.g., Soja’s concept of Thirdspace) and aspects of their subjective well-being [30,31]. The observance of children’s play in public places can work as a form of resistance and lead to the exploration of new possibilities of the use of space [32]. Making room for knowledge of equitable access and ways to connect children to nature may be implemented through adults in formal decision-making processes but can also be found in children’s own knowledge and participation.

The environmental justice literature also calls for the expansion of the ways equity and access issues are addressed [9]. Outlining different aspects of environmental justice, specifically related to parks and recreation, Rigolon et al. [33] applies a socio-ecological model, situating common environmental justice categories such as distributive, procedural, and interactional justice in various interrelating factors of the policy, physical, perceived, social, and individual environment. This model provides a contextual framework of the complex interrelationships between our socio-political and physical environments and the importance of addressing these multiple levels when working toward environmental justice and equity [33]. As discussed by Pratt [12], in reviewing the climate justice literature, there is a need to expand beyond the model of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice, where there is transformation in power dynamics and the achievement of greater well-being for marginalized populations. These expanded frameworks provide context for the importance of accounting for politics, power relations, agency, and subjectivities in planning for equitable nature play spaces [34].

2.2. Measuring Equitable Access to Nature Play Spaces

Equitable access to outdoor places where children can engage or play in nature is often assessed using spatial analysis, highlighting disparities in nature, green space and/or park access along with its availability, quality, and/or associated outcomes among social groups [35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42]. In the U.S., inequities in park spatial access and quality have been studied, with disadvantages commonly found among neighborhoods with lower incomes and higher percentages of people of color [7,43]. In relation to outdoor play spaces, a study of a large sample of children ages 0–17 in the United States found that almost one-quarter lacked access to a neighborhood park, while children living in poverty and Black children living in urban areas were more likely to lack access [38]. These data are useful in identifying generalizations in areas of need yet may only provide a partial picture of inequities and factors related to systems such as institutional racism [44]. To further understand distributional inequities, it is also necessary to consider underlying historical social and political processes of exclusion [45]. For instance, access, perceptions, motivations, and green space use may be influenced by previous and current government policies, social attitudes, processes of exclusion and discrimination, and related processes in the provision of green space [46,47].

Limiting how accessibility to nature play spaces is conceptualized to solely measures of its distribution, such as its availability, proximity, or distance, not only fails to capture the underlying processes that produce space, but also the unpredictable side of human behavior and experiences [48]. For example, in a scoping review related to children with disabilities’ access to outdoor play spaces, it was found that studies focused on physical access but failed to reveal or recognize the aspects of the social environment [49]. When conceptualizing equitable access, it is important to explore factors that influence well-being benefits, such as feelings of belonging, which affect both children’s and their caretakers’ perceptions, circumstances, and embodied identities in these spaces [50].

In this study, accessibility is understood as “a multidimensional concept determined by a variety of geographic, social, and economic factors” and “the relative importance of each dimension of access is context-specific” [51] (p. 443). Although assessing spatial distribution or availability of nature is an important aspect of equitable planning, we seek to explore the ways in which universal narratives about equitable access to nature play and its well-being benefits can “obscure the ways in which the everyday urbanism of children’s green spaces actually enables or prevents construction of play and access to play” [24] (p. 4). Narratives inform how we understand accessibility and underlying assumptions of for whom and what purpose may be overlooked. As Hamraie [52] argues, in the post-American with Disabilities Act (ADA) era, accessible design has become something taken as common sense, yet its conceptualizations and narratives should be critically analyzed to understand the influence of social values behind the construction of space.

2.3. CCCN Systems Change Approach

“With a majority of children living in urban areas, city policies and programs play a critical role in connecting kids to green spaces and outdoor experiences. We help cities across the U.S. increase equitable access to nature”

Children and Nature Network [53]

Through their partnership with the National League of Cities, the Children and Nature Network supports local governments in the implementation of policies and projects which aim to increase children’s engagement with outdoor spaces through the Cities Connecting Children to Nature (CCCN) initiative. Beginning in 2016, the initiative provides annual funding and technical assistance to cohorts of cities across the U.S. to implement various strategies for increasing children’s connection to nature. Guidance documents, case studies, research, and additional technical assistance is provided to participating cities through the CCCN initiative, which outline a framework of strategies for planning, programming, and policymaking implemented through local organizations [53]. The term equity is stated as a central value and goal of the initiative. In a resource document provided by the initiative, equity is defined both through outcomes of equal opportunities and resources and inclusive processes, with a focus on racial equity:

“Cities achieve equity when children and families stand on relatively equal footing, and race no longer predicts resources and opportunities for nature connection. Equity comes about through implementation of inclusive policies and practices and elimination of institutional racism” [54].

Equity mapping, identifying the spatial distribution of nature play, is promoted to cities as an initial step, but the program also encourages a more holistic approach to address issues of inequitable access to nature in cities and touch on aspects of a socio-ecological model of health and interrelated issues of environmental justice. To do so, the CCCN outlines a systems change approach, drawing from Kania et al. [55], which includes six conditions organizations can address through their CCCN strategies to enact structural, relational, and transformative change (Figure 1 and Figure 2). This framework aims to touch on not only the material distribution of nature access, but also underlying power dynamics and ideologies influencing decision making [55].

The CCCN initiative provides cities with resources for creating systems change and addressing issues related to equity through multiple resources, such as the “Creating Systems Level Change in Cities: A Toolkit” [54]. These resources include approaches for adopting policies and practices, building partnerships, engaging leadership and other stakeholders, and educating about the benefits of nature and existing inequitable socio-spatial structures.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Design

The purpose of this study is to explore the application of equity and/or equitable strategies in nature play planning initiatives. The guiding research questions include the following:

• What are cities’ CCCN efforts to increase children’s nature play access in the U.S.?
• How is equity framed in these efforts?

Within the contexts of spatial and environmental justice, we seek to explore the approaches implemented, as well as the dominant narratives surrounding equity. This study does not intend to compare whether or to what extent the participating cities have achieved outcomes related to equity. The findings and discussion of this study shed light on theoretical concepts or principles, which led to theoretical generalizations, rather than statistical generalizations [15].

To address our research questions, we applied an exploratory case study method that employs qualitative cross-case synthesis, as outlined by Yin [15]. Documents and program materials were selected based on their stated visions, goals, or objectives specifically relating to the city’s CCCN nature play initiatives. Planning documents outline the intended goals and activities, and program materials further reveal the official narratives used to operationalize those goals, serving as sites of “knowledge practices that physically construct a material reality” [56] (p. 199). Since publicly available documents and webpages may not be fully representative of actual events, semi-structured interviews via telephone and/or video call were employed (Appendix A). A point person at each city was identified either by city staff or referred to us by the NLC to participate in the interviews due to their related work on nature play. The interviews provided additional understanding of planning processes and intentions—information that may not be revealed from the reviewed documents [15]. Data collection and analysis were also guided by the six conditions outlined in the Systems Change Framework set forth by the CCCN initiative [55]. This framework provided a way to organize and focus the analysis, rather than set expectations about specific findings [18]. Using an inductive cross-case comparison, common strategies and themes were identified until it appeared that findings were overlapping, and no new themes emerged. These findings are summarized below with example quotations that serve as representations of common findings across the data. Although there are a small number of cases included in this study, we are concerned with collecting information from real-life examples, which can provide insight into questions surrounding city program implementation and the complexity of this topic, guiding future research questions [15].

3.2. Case Selection

Due to the national reach of the CCCN initiative and its unique focus on supporting cities in efforts that increase children’s connection to nature, this initiative was chosen as an entry point to engage with cities from different regions across the country, working on specific strategies related to nature play. Since this study is specifically interested in equitable planning for nature play access, the scope was also limited to those cities that had implemented strategies to increase equitable access to nature play in public spaces. Within the initiative, nature play spaces are explained as places that “provide kids with hands-on outdoor fun” and include “the addition of natural elements such as boulders, logs, vegetable gardens, and looping pathways into public spaces, like parks, and childcare centers” with a focus on providing these for “unstructured activities such as dramatic play or building and creating works of art” that provide health and developmental benefits [57,58].

Reviewing the cities that have participated in specific CCCN activities related to nature play access, a snowball approach was applied using web searches and referrals from a staff member at the NLC to identify participants for the study [59]. CCCN initiatives were reviewed, and staff at the NLC provided a list of potential participants as well as email introductions. Each city was identified or referred based on their inclusion of nature play in their CCCN strategies. Emails were sent to multiple cities to gauge interest in the study and to inquire about the willingness of a staff member to participate in a phone and/or video interview. Out of the cities who were engaged in these strategies in the CCCN initiative, and staff willingness to complete the semi-structured interviews during summer 2023, seven cities were included in the study. These cities are Austin Texas; Houston, Texas; San Francisco, CA; Louisville, KY; Chicago, IL; Milwaukee, WI; and Providence, RI (Figure 3).

In a review of each city’s demographic data, the selected cities have a range of city size (based on population), percent of children under 18, and median household income (

Table 1. Overview of participating cities (2023 ACS 5-year Estimates) [60,61].

City	Population	% Persons Under 18	Median HH Income
Chicago, IL, USA	2,707,648	19.8%	USD 75,134
Houston, TX, USA	2,300,419	23.6%	USD 62,894
Austin, TX, USA	967,862	18.3%	USD 91,461
San Francisco, CA, USA	836,321	13.7%	USD 141,446
Louisville-Jefferson County, KY, USA	627,210	22.5%	USD 64,731
Milwaukee, WI, USA	569,756	25.6%	USD 51,888
Providence, RI, USA	190,214	20.2%	USD 66,772

). The cities also vary in their locations across the country, ranging from the West coast, East coast, Southern, and Midwest regions. We aimed to include cities from differing regions to support further representativeness of cities in varying locations across the country.

3.3. Data Collection

Documents and files related to the CCCN program and nature play space implementation were collected from each city, including publicly available website pages, reports, planning and/or program documents, and videos. To identify documents, a search on each city’s official website was conducted, using the keywords “CCCN” or “Cities Connecting Children to Nature”. A snowball approach was then employed to identify relevant and available data related to the city’s CCCN nature play initiatives [59]. The data collected from these documents provided background of the initiatives related to equitable nature play. The information collected also provided context for questions asked in semi-structured interviews with program staff [62].

Emails were sent to program contacts with an inquiry about their willingness to participate. A total of eight interviews were conducted during summer 2023, based on participant availability. Participants included program staff working directly with the CCCN initiative and/or nature play space/park strategies at the selected cities (Appendix B). Seven of the interviews were conducted with staff who work for the local city municipality and/or an organization working in partnership with the local government on implementation of the program. One interview was conducted with a program manager at NLC to provide background and further understanding of the initiative’s mission and structure. Interviews were conducted over telephone and/or video conferencing and lasted between 30 and 60 min. Each interview was recorded, upon participants’ agreement. Interview transcripts were transcribed and then manually reviewed and edited for accuracy. Due to the small number of cities included in this study, quotes within the findings are shared anonymously to protect the identities of interview participants. Interview transcripts, program documents, website snapshots, and videos were organized by city and file type. File classifications included city documents (e.g., planning/guidance documents, program overviews, policies), general CCCN program documents, website pages, videos, and interview transcripts.

3.4. Analysis

A qualitative cross-case synthesis of documents and interview transcripts was employed using an inductive approach. This approach included the preparation of the data, close reading of text, creation of categories and themes, overlapping coding and uncoded text, and continuing revisions and refinement of category systems [18]. Since the CCCN initiative applies a Systems Change Framework to its programs, this framework was used as a guide in the data collection and development of a question-and-answer database to focus the study but not to set expectations about findings or to test a specific hypothesis, theory, or model [15,18].

Matrices were developed for cross-case synthesis and the comparison of the data across the six conditions of the levels of systems change (policies, practices, resources, relationships and connections, power relations, and mental models) [15,55]. Two separate matrices were developed, one of the document reviews (city/program documents, webpage snips, videos) and one of the interview transcripts, to also compare across data type. Through an iterative cross-case comparison, common strategies for equitable access to nature play, in addition to patterns and themes surrounding the framing of equity emerged. During this process, additional content topics were also identified, including equity definitions, difficulties, important and/or key strategies, decision-making processes, relationship building, leadership support, and overall program vision and/or goals. These themes intersect with various conditions of the Systems Change Framework and are discussed in Section 4 as they arose in each of the conditions. The quotes chosen in the following section are representative of insights into the common findings across examples or how they may differ within the cross-cutting themes. The analytic generalizations that were made in the analysis aim to expand and generalize theories, rather than provide statistical generalization, which extrapolates probabilities [15].

4. Results

4.1. What Are Cities’ CCCN Efforts to Increase Children’s Nature Play Access in the U.S.?

As outlined by the CCCN Systems Change approach, there are three levels of change that cities seek to address through various conditions. These levels include structural, relational, and transformational change [55]. Through cross-case comparison of collected files and interview transcripts, it was revealed that the selected cities consider each of these aspects of change by addressing similar conditions of change, such as policies and practices, yet differ in their strategies based on interrelating themes of resources, power and relationships, and mental models. A graph is provided in Figure 4, where the bars represent the total number of strategies identified across all cities included in the study, while the color of the bars indicate strategies either generally related to green space access or directly related to nature play access. For example, some strategies or references broadly related to nature play (such as general park access initiatives), rather than explicitly stated as being implemented for nature play access were included in the analysis. Since we do not aim to measure or compare the cities’ efforts, this figure is only intended to provide a visual account of the number of strategies that fall within the different levels of systems change. The findings reveal that strategies that address structural and relational change were most common, in particular, those addressing conditions of practices and relationships and connections. Transformative change, such as approaches to mental models, were less evident, along with formal policies. Transformative change strategies are implicit and generally more difficult to capture, yet practices that indicated efforts to shift mental models were included.

Table 2. Common strategies and the six conditions of systems change.

Structural			Relational		Transformative
Policies	Practices	Resource Flows	Relationships and Connections	Power Dynamics	Mental Models
1. Children’s Outdoor Bill of Rights 2. Alignment with broader strategic planning goals and/or policies	1. Needs identification and equity mapping 2. Community-led application processes to implement nature play spaces 3. Collaborative and strategic planning processes 4. Development of nature play design guidelines 5. Design charrettes, workshops with community input 6. Installation of nature play features and/or “loose parts” 7. Nature play signage 8. Green schoolyards 9. Education and programming 10. Newsletters, workshops, surveys, and other community education/engagement methods	1. Dedicated staff positions 2. Dedicated city funds 3. Non-profit partners 4. Public–private partnerships 5. Intergovernmental agreements 6. Contracting 7. Grants 8. Volunteers 9. Donors, fundraisers	1. Citywide collaboratives 2. Community engagement, programming, education 3. Intergovernmental agreements 4. Non-profit partners 5. Public–private partnerships	1. Stated city leadership support 2. Inter-departmental city support and coordination 3. Formal city approval processes 4. Community-led application processes 5. Neighborhood councils, associations, community group input 6. Partnerships, funding	1. Workshops and training 2. Engagement with community or community-led processes 3. Volunteer opportunities

provides a summary of common strategies identified, which are then discussed further in the sections that follow.

4.1.1. Policies

Overall, the specific policies implemented by cities participating in the CCCN initiative include policies that set intentions for providing equitable nature play access on a citywide level. Policies included actions such as proclamations and statements and/or alignments with citywide visions/goals in strategic planning processes.

Policies included the following:

• Children’s Outdoor Bill of Rights
• Alignment with broader strategic planning goals and/or policies

A policy step promoted by the CCCN initiative includes the development of a Children’s Outdoor Bill of Rights (COBOR). As defined by the CCCN, in a guide provided to cities, the strategy of creating a COBOR “illustrates what equitable access to nature should look like and establishes a common foundation and high aspirations for nature connection in a community” [63]. Further, the COBOR allows cities to set forth the following [63]:

• A list of outdoor experiences that every child has a right to experience.
• A public-facing symbol of the overarching goals a city or state has for its children’s outdoor experiences.
• A messaging tool that raises awareness of the importance of children’s connection to nature.
• A mayoral proclamation, city council resolution, value statement, or a framework for a program.

At the time of this study, multiple cities, such as the City of Austin, Houston, and San Francisco passed resolutions for their cities’ COBOR. Additional cities, such as Louisville, indicated preliminary discussions surrounding this approach. This policy step served as an indicator of leadership support and was noted as a helpful first step in shifting resources and narratives toward nature play. Although COBORs were important to city efforts, staff were also aware of the limitations. These points are exemplified in one respondent’s characterization of their city’s COBOR:

“…an initial policy, it’s kind of soft policy, it’s a resolution. So, it doesn’t necessarily have any teeth, but it’s helped align people into the vision”

(Interviewee Response)

Along with the COBOR strategy, cities noted the development and inclusion of nature play design guidelines and the alignment of nature play goals in citywide strategic planning. These actions may formally pass into the policy arena; however, in this review, they mostly overlapped with city practices or partnerships formed both internally and externally to promote nature play access.

4.1.2. Practices

Out of the six conditions of the Systems Change Framework, practices are one of the most frequently implemented categories among the cities included in this study. Cities often have a collection of strategies related to practices, which are employed to address three main aspects: design elements; decision-making and implementation processes; education and programming; and the promotion or communication of nature play. These practices include the following:

• Needs identification and equity mapping
• Community-led application processes to implement NPAs
• Collaborative and strategic planning processes
• Development of nature play design guidelines
• Installation of nature play features and/or “loose parts”
• Nature play signage
• Green schoolyards
• Education and programming
• Newsletters, workshops, and other community engagement methods

The practice of implementing design and construction of nature play features in public or partner spaces included the development of guidance documents outlining design features for natural playgrounds, ecological features, and/or programs promoting nature connection, education, and free play at identified sites. Cities implemented a range of features, such as trails connecting existing natural spaces, trees and plants, logs, gardens, and loose parts, along with signage that indicated the space and its purpose. The material implementation of design/environmental practices intersected with each city’s vision/goals, partnerships, decision-making processes, and additional practices such as their programming and communication initiatives. Existing city parks were often used as locations to implement these features, yet through partnerships, many of the cities also focused on the additional locations where children frequent, such as schoolyards. Through these partnerships, cities also focused on activating the space through educational and promotional efforts, such as training for teachers and parents, hands on nature education for kids, and the use of loose parts kits.

Most cities applied some form of the practice of equity mapping to inform decision-making processes and identify spaces for nature play implementation. The CCCN initiative promotes needs assessment or equity mapping in the beginning of the nature play planning processes. A reference guide developed by the CCCN is made available for cities, noting that:

“Nature equity maps depict how natural green space appears in a city relative to key demographic, economic, and social vulnerability data. CCCN cities use these maps to prioritize park and natural spaces programming, renovation and acquisition projects, inform city plans, apply for funding, and develop public-facing messages to promote greater access to nature for young children”

(Children and Nature Network, [64])

Some cities utilized established citywide equity measures and maps, which identified historic and current disadvantaged areas across the city, aligning with broader city equity goals. Others indicated the use of and/or desire to develop nature-specific equity factors for these assessments. The City of Austin’s CCCN program developed a Nature Equity Map, identifying disadvantaged zip codes that also lack access to nature to inform their strategies [65]. Although the design of nature play spaces and use of equity mapping were common approaches, the identification of installation sites and the development of partnerships differed in these practices. These variations reflect the differing conceptualizations of equity or nature play access. For example, cities often take a “get nature to those who need it most” approach. In this approach, equity mapping and relationship building are used to identify areas of need, while approaching design processes in a collaborative manner. Cities also take a “provide nature play to those who want it” approach, exemplified by an interviewee’s framing of equity in their initiatives:

“…getting nature play to people who want it…” and “…answering, responding to the people who are interested in nature play and taking them through the steps”

(Interviewee Response)

Going beyond equity mapping, the “provide nature play to those who want it” approaches include practices such as application processes for communities or schools to initiate their own nature play space implementation. In Milwaukee, the organization Reflo manages a process for schools across the city to apply to be a part of a cohort that receives funding and assistance for green schoolyards. The Chicago Parks District manages and promotes community-led application processes for all types of nature play spaces. These differing approaches were sometimes used together but reveal how program staff see the necessity in both identifying areas of needs and empowering the community to identify their own needs.

4.1.3. Resource Flows

A significant aspect of resource flows depends on the commitment, on a budget-level, from the city government, which includes context-specific levels of leadership support and relationship building both internally and externally. For example, designated staff positions to implement nature play infrastructure and/or programming showed dedicated resources and leadership support to program staff. This is noted by one interviewee who describes how a dedicated position was an important aspect of their efforts and representation of leadership support:

“…a permanent full-time position…that’s when I began in 2018…that I think speaks volumes”

(Interviewee Response)

There is also an interconnection between the ability and coordination between organizations to direct funding and/or apply for funding based on perceived difficulties within government processes. To address these difficulties, partnerships, particularly public–private partnerships between local governments and non-profits, were seen as providing flexibility in the application and acceptance of grant funding. This is explained by one of the interviewees:

“…one of the challenging pieces is that trying to find grant funding as a city agency can become a bit of a challenge. We often seek to do that through partnership because it’s a lot easier for our nonprofit partners to even go after funding. But also, to hold and manage that money”

(Interviewee Response)

Similarly, cities also noted that external partnerships provided resources that increased the ability to expand their program reach:

“… we collectively work with project partners and the school district, we’re raising USD 5 to 6 million a year to support 5 projects and that’s primarily grant funding”

(Interviewee Response)

“…we work with the Low-Income Investment Fund…they’re like a banking organization that creates loans for programs but also provides grants. They’re working with the Department of Early Childhood; they’re the ones that are helping to fund and do the transformations at early childcare spaces for nature”

(Interviewee Response)

These resource-sharing partnerships involved strategies of relationship building and point to potential power imbalances with internal city decision-making and budgeting processes.

4.1.4. Relationships and Connections

The development of relationships included many strategies that occurred on multiple levels, such as the officially organized, legal, internal, and community engagement level. In some cities, relationship building on an official organized level, included the formation of citywide collaboratives of government staff, non-profits, community organizations, and additional partners who have an interest in expanding access to nature play. As an example, the City of San Francisco works through an official collaborative organization, called SF Children and Nature. This organization “actively involves over 30 local organizations and city agencies with the guidance and support of a full-time coordinator” [66]. Similarly, additional cities organized collaborations that assist with strategic planning, decision making, and formed work groups guiding and coordinating programming efforts for nature play initiatives.

A common legal partnership included one with school districts through the development of green schoolyards. These partnerships required official agreements, such as interlocal and joint use agreements for nature play spaces to be used by the public after school hours. These relationships may alter power dynamics in decision making and legal ownership of land but often stem from relationship building and provide staff and partners the ability to engage with students and teachers.

Internally, cities also formed partnerships across departments. These relationships were sometimes influenced by leadership support or a result of relationship building. As noted by an interviewee, internal relationships were also important for community buy-in:

“…with forestry, with all of these different branches of city has been really helpful for us to come in again keep that community buy in and keep the momentum going”

(Interviewee Response)

Another level of relationship building was on a community level, which intersects with efforts addressing the issue of power dynamics in decision making. Staff and their partners engage with children and parents, particularly through education/programming and design processes. These included design sessions with children, giving them an opportunity to provide input on the features for nature play spaces. As noted by an interviewee regarding knowledge of nature play design and the importance of engagement with children:

“…that’s why we go to the experts [the kids]. And so, we do. We do at least two of those sessions. We share all the quotations the kids take; we hand them our phone and the kids take a picture”

(Interviewee Response)

4.1.5. Power Dynamics

Power dynamics were often influenced by intersecting themes of decision-making processes and leadership support. Community participation and input was a common strategy to change power dynamics. For example, as noted by an interviewee:

“Definitely in every case we want community buy in and that’s like the commitment it takes to like getting the petition signed and like doing the surveys and kind of being an active part of the design sessions”

(Interviewee Response)

These types of participation efforts seek to include children, particularly in design processes, as explained by one interviewee:

“So as part of the process, we tried to be as intentional about outreaching to the community, about including youth voice in the design and the construction of the nature play space and at providing opportunities in multiple language so that many different people could participate”

(Interviewee Response)

Within broader decision-making processes, particularly during needs identification, strategic planning, and resource allocation, existing official (and adult) structures play a large role. Therefore, depending on the stage and scale of the planning process, there can be, as one interviewee notes:

“…direction from above and below”

(Interviewee Response)

Interviewees also noted formal structures of approval and planning processes through city council or other governing boards that influence power dynamics. An example of this is noted in an interviewee’s reference to official approval processes:

“Anytime you go after grants, there is a chain of command that happens. So, there’s an official proposal request that we have to put forth and that goes up through Council, because you’re basically amending the city budget, so you have to receive Council approval in order to receive grant funding”

(Interviewee Response)

Similarly, the importance and usefulness of mayoral support was often specifically noted, pointing to the need to have leadership support and approval at a political level.

“The mayor is the one that signs off on proclamations and things like that”

(Interviewee Response)

“We have been incredibly lucky that the mayors that we have had over the past 10 years have been very big advocates for outdoor access”

(Interviewee Response)

“We had a ton of support from the mayor. So he was very on board, very supportive, contributed funds to the infrastructure projects, was very vocal about the support of the programming and the initiative in general”

(Interviewee Response)

In addition to the support of mayors, supervisors or managers were also seen as serving important roles in developing partnerships and taking risks in implementing projects, suggesting hierarchical power structures in decision making.

“The head of the parks really is #1 supporter for this work, without that, I don’t think we could do what we could do, but also the cochairs, which are other heads of organizations”

(Interviewee Response)

4.1.6. Mental Models

City strategies addressing mental models were reflected in the implementation of training or workshops and concentrated efforts to engage in conversations around or promote both the concept of nature play and the inclusion of equity in these efforts. The strategies to change mental models varied depending on the practices implemented and the definition of equity conceptualized. A few cities provided both external and internal training and hands-on experience to explore the benefits of nature play and issues related to equity. For example, the City of Austin provides internal staff training and workshops on these topics and seeks to continue learning opportunities. These trainings point to the internal work of learning and potentially shifting mental models surrounding social structures, such as race.

Also, the City of San Francisco utilizes volunteer opportunities for internal and external partners to engage people in the processes of creating nature play, allowing communities to network, and for people to see the importance of transformations firsthand. Efforts to shift or reinforce mental models surrounding children’s play may also be achieved using communication strategies, such as signage at nature play areas that explain the importance of free and unstructured play or newsletters that educate and connect people to the initiative.

Interviews revealed an acknowledgement of the influence of language and how strategies or issues are framed, for example, one interviewee noted:

“…working on that kind of collective learning around racial equity we will bring in speakers that can talk about this, you know, much better than I ever could, and it runs the gamut. You know it’s anything. Language you know and words that we use and how do we reframe things to where we are not intentionally harming certain groups. It is looking at it from a different kind of strategy perspective”

(Interviewee Response)

4.2. How Is Equity Framed in These Efforts?

Three general themes related to the framing of equity in city nature play initiatives emerged: (1) equity as an overall value or lens applied to program strategies to address a set of issues, (2) equity as a statement of envisioned outcomes, and (3) equity as a set of processes that seek to reach outcomes. The general conceptualizations of equity in these themes are outlined in

Table 3. Framings of equity.

Equity as a Lens	Equity as an Outcome	Equity as a Process
1. Equity/inequity as a problem to identify and solve 2. The problem is a complex set of issues 3. The problem can be seen or identified through spatial analysis 4. The problem includes historic and persisting exclusions, identified by differences in spatial access across income, race/ethnicity 5. There are metrics to identify problem but depends how data are examined, what is included in analysis 6. There is not one solution	1. General increases in access, safety, and health for “all” 2. Achieving specific outcomes of increasing availability, safety, and quality of nature to areas identified as lacking access 3. Achieving outcomes that increase nature access for people who may need it most based on identified disadvantages 4. Identified target populations, such as low-income individuals or people of color, based on historic and current data 5. Providing access to those who want nature play	1. Equity as something to work towards 2. A journey 3. Process of learning/unlearning 4. Incorporation of inclusive design processes 5. Engagement with families, communities 6. Collective processes with partners 7. Input in decision making 8. Processes for those who express wants

. Within the themes, the definition of equity varied, emerging both as a specific state that could be reached and as an ongoing or iterative process itself, which requires plurality in its conceptualization. The strategies to address equity therefore varied and typically included a blend of approaches.

The first theme reveals equity as a lens, which can include multiple conceptualizations of its definition and therefore the approaches cities applied to address it. A common, initial lens among the cities in this study includes seeing equity as a problem to be solved, which is often incorporated into documents or webpages, such as program visions and stated missions. This lens situates equity as something that can be identified and achieved by addressing material and social power imbalances, echoing a view of spatial justice concerned with uneven rights in the production of these spaces [27]. It is stated as a general lens or value statement, such as wanting to focus on equity and access for “all” or adopting the lens of equity as a culture of the program, indicating the use or intention of practices that aim to address procedural and distributive justice issues. In this framing, there is not necessarily a precise or clear definition of the term equity—which may point to assumed norms surrounding the term [52]. Although there was a sense of knowing what equity is and how to address it through a set of specific strategies, interviews with program staff revealed the difficulty in defining equity in a single manner. These difficulties also point to the complexity of the term. For instance, expanding on considerations of the material and social structures of power, the lived experience of these spaces and the variation in wants or needs are acknowledged as holding power as well [67]. Although public facing documents may assert a normative lens, interviews with staff provided depth to the term. As noted by one interviewee in reference to defining equity:

“It’s not a one sentence. You know, it’s not one thing that solves this problem.”

(Interviewee Response)

The second theme identified the framing of equity as an assumed outcome, typically in relation to nature play space or park distribution, such as eliminating disparities in the availability and material aspects of nature. This theme therefore sees equity as an outcome that seeks to create access and address needs through the physical environment, applying strategies such as equity mapping and the implementation of nature play spaces in public places or at partner sites. These conceptualizations point to a more rationalist perspective of equity—particularly in needs assessments and the use of the term within program documents and webpages. In these materials, equity is outlined as an overall goal related to the purpose of implementing nature play initiatives. An assumed understanding of the definition of equitable access and what that includes is a desired outcome for many cities and generally for the CCCN initiative. As exemplified below, one interviewee emphasizes equity as providing distributional access, although briefly noting that it may look different for everyone.

“I think it’s just access to green spaces is sort of how we define the equity. Do you have access to some space that you can find nature in? And that space may look very different for everyone. And we want to make sure that those spaces are created equitably throughout the city and not just in certain parts of the city.”

(Interviewee Response)

Further, another interviewee reiterates the “who needs it most” perspective.

“So, we approached equity more on who needs more nature rather than like who has it. But when you look at the map, you also realize that the ones that need it the most are also the ones that live in the areas with less opportunity to connect with nature.”

(Interviewee Response)

On the other hand, cities also sought to achieve an outcome of providing nature play to “those who want it”. These approaches may include shifts in power relations and mental models. As one interviewee describes, this approach frames equity as an outcome that is dynamic and includes the process of ongoing learning.

“…The map doesn’t really tell us everything about the city or the community. So answering, responding to the people who are interested in nature play and taking them through the steps to kind of to get it to be a part of it together, to be a part of the process, and knowing that it’s an ongoing process that we’re evolving, that we’re learning as we go and how are different opportunities or access needs identified in regard to access to nature play”

(Interviewee Response)

Similarly, the third theme revealed equity as a process, one that includes various levels of participation, depending on the lens in which program staff are operationalizing it [28]. Approaches included reliance on partnerships and a centering of collaborative input processes. Depending on factors related to power relations in decision-making processes, these approaches may be limited in their ability to make transformative changes. Although, when considering the everyday implementation of activities, program staff have more nuanced conceptualizations that may require additional ways of viewing equity and its approaches.

Overall, the cities in this study conceptualized equity as a lens, outcome, and process through multifaced approaches, including strategies at multiple levels of the Systems Change Framework. The framing of equity in these themes touch on contrasting views and experiences of the role of power and knowledge in the planning of nature play spaces—ones constrained through hierarchical powers or ones that expand into learning through the multiple ways that children may express needs or experience nature play spaces.

5. Discussion

The CCCN initiative and cities in this review apply strategies at various levels of change within the Systems Change Framework, with structural changes and relational changes occurring most often, and transformational the least. Although the types and mix of strategies identified within the six conditions of change (policies, practices, resources, relationships, power dynamics, mental models) differed across cities, this study revealed that there are complex interrelations among these aspects of the framework. For example, the practices of identifying target populations and locations for nature play spaces based on demographic information were common practices, in addition to the implementation of nature play space infrastructure and programming to address physical access concerns. Yet, commonly, these policies and practices were completed within the context of differing relationships and power dynamics and/or operating under certain assumptions that may change the way relational and transformative change can occur. As noted by some of the interviewees, simply implementing a structural change may have varying influences on desired outcomes based on other socio-political contexts, such as city decision-making processes, resources, or leadership support. A city could have leadership support and extensive practices and partnerships, but barriers may remain in the perception and experience of the nature play spaces.

These interrelations of the social and physical environment and the influence of individual behavior and health outcomes point to similarities in environmental justice literature and frameworks, such as the socio-ecological model of park environmental justice developed by Rigolon et al. [33], where socio-political aspects of the environment may influence outcomes, which include multiple aspects of justice. Within this model, procedural, interactional, and distributive justice are outlined within varying levels of actions within the policy, physical, perceived, social, and individual environments. Conceptualizing environmental justice within this framework parallels the levels of change and the six conditions outlined by Kania et al. [55] and leveraged by the CCCN, which seeks to address various aspects of these environments. Strategies to address the uneven distribution of power on a structural level are reflected in a reliance on identification methods, partnerships, and a centering of collaborative input processes. Some approaches identified in this study fell within the transformational levels of the Structural Change Framework. However, as shown in the interviews with program staff, there are more complex interrelations and influences of the relations of power and the conceptualization of equity that may influence their ability for this type of change. In this sense, strategies for equitable access to nature play space can be constrained by context-specific hierarchical powers within city decision-making structures. Through deterministic concepts, needs and inequities are identified and transformed through practices that address the distribution of nature play spaces and approaches that consider children’s rights [27].

Through the implementation of the Children’s Outdoor Bill of Rights, the CFCI outlines a rights perspective that provides “a priori right for children’s participation in public space and discourse” that considers the ways in which children are recognized as an interest group, for example in the design of nature play spaces [68], p. 477. Although these rights are outlined, acknowledging them may be met with concerns, such as those from adults and caretakers regarding a loss of control over children. As described by Hart [69], these rights call for more open communication but do not seek to remove the decision-making abilities of caretakers. Further, there are procedural inequities related to children’s ability to voice their own opinions in these environments, as they may be silenced by other competing powers [69]. For example, larger systems and neoliberal influences on city development initiatives and prioritization may obscure the ways in which equitable access to places for children’s outdoor play is normalized and constrain the ways it can be addressed [29].

Visions and policies seeking to create outcomes related to equitable access to nature play include unseen narratives, which assume a “common sense good”, as noted by Hamraie [52] (p. 5). For example, the general use of the term equity and access within stated visions and goals reviewed in this study pointed to an assumed understanding of its meaning, such as physical barriers to nature play access, yet interviews with staff revealed complexity in how equity may be defined and addressed. Some program goals specifically outline the desire to address past and current social inequities, but practices addressing normative mental maps of social constructs of children, equity, and outdoor play are more difficult to identify and implement. The term equity is framed as both a rational set of outcomes or processes and as a more nuanced set of issues, conceptualizing it as a continuous learning process that involves new and multiple ways of knowing [56]. Program staff expressed awareness of these aspects of transformational change and the complexity of defining equity within the context of the program, particularly since equity is conceptualized regarding both processes and outcomes and how power dynamics may affect what can be done.

Although there were many strategies that address material and social aspects of equity, there is a need to further explore ways to consider a politics of difference across race, gender, and sexuality; how identities are constructed through nature play spaces; and factors related to the inclusion and/or exclusion of children’s identities and preferences [70]. For children, these considerations may also include understanding caretakers’ identities, perceptions, and circumstances as well as other interrelated factors that influence children’s behavior and access to nature play [47]. For example, a study in the United Kingdom found that barriers among low-income and multi-ethnic families included physical barriers but also parents’ fears of safety and crime, both real and perceived, and their level of confidence in abilities to access green spaces. Alternatively, encouragers of their use included seeing opportunities for social connections and support [6]. In this study, city strategies included participatory processes with children, the acknowledgement of the agency that children have in these spaces and their knowledge, revealing that equity was conceptualized in ways that expand beyond centralized material and social structures of power, to the convergence of material, social, and spatial factors [67]. For example, cities highlighted community-led initiatives and participatory processes, which have been found to allow children and youth to inform the planning process but also to be change agents and “balance power dynamics between youth and adults” [71] (p.56).

Further discussion with program staff provided insight into the complexity of program staff’s approaches to operationalize equity in relation to nature play spaces. Through speaking with staff, there are both assumed norms surrounding the term but also openness and acknowledgement in seeing equity as an ongoing process or generally illusive term that involves strategies that assist in challenging assumptions. Strategies, such as internal and external training, partnerships, and engagement sought to shift the mental models surrounding equity and nature play. It is unclear whether power dynamics, particularly external development initiatives and/or processes, still dominate the normative assumptions made in these efforts and influence the ability for true transformative change. For example, larger cities may have more resources and statements of organizational support, yet external power dynamics, such as citywide economic development influences, may limit the ability of new narratives to emerge surrounding equitable nature play access.

6. Conclusions

Cities within the CCCN initiative work collaboratively within their communities to provide a broad range of strategies, including polices, practices, and partnerships to address issues related to equitable nature play for children. These strategies aim to follow a systems change approach, which outlines the various levels at which staff work to achieve structural, relational, and transformational change [55]. The strategies identified in this study show the interrelated nature of addressing issues surrounding environmental justice and the complexity of creating transformative change. The framing of equity within these initiatives revealed that there are both normative and dynamic understandings of the term. The findings from this study therefore point to both assumed aspects of equity but also an acknowledgement of its complexity. This highlights the need to consider additional aspects of power relations and mental models in the planning of equitable nature play spaces.

Qualitative, cross-case synthesis, inductive analysis was employed in this study. As with any study design, there are limitations. Due to these limitations, findings can be influenced by the participants’ and our own experiences and perspectives. Data were collected based on the availability of information at the time of the study and may not include a comprehensive understanding of all work completed by cities implementing these initiatives. It should be noted that due to the methods applied and limits of the case study approach, the findings and discussion of this study use real-world examples to shed light on theoretical concepts or principles, which led to theoretical generalizations, rather than statistical generalizations [15]. Future research could expand on these topics to include the literature and studies from additional countries, particularly those in the Global South. For instance, a review by Rigolon et al. [72] found that studies in the Global South show similarities in trends and inequities in nature access as cities in the Global North.

This review explored the framing of equity in relation to cities’ CCCN nature play space planning initiatives. Further analysis should consider planning discourses in relation to the experiences of children in these spaces. Chawla [1] (p.445) suggests finding “a balance between ethnographic and experimental/correlational designs”, to reveal how caretaker and children influence each other’s experiences. These analyses could also include how city visioning and transformations moderate aspects of children’s relational well-being in nature play spaces [24]. The cities included in this study revealed a plethora of examples of strategies that address systems change related to equitable access to nature play spaces. The findings from this study discuss policy implications, such as the importance of relationship building and partnerships in addressing issues related to equitable access to nature play. Further, specific strategies such as internal training and considerations of narratives using collaborative processes, knowledge sharing, and promotional efforts may assist in shifting power dynamics. The findings also point to the complexity of the concept of equity and local organizations’ ability to implement equitable planning strategies. This complexity highlights the need for consideration of various interrelated social and environmental factors when planning for and researching children’s access to nature play spaces and their corresponding benefits.