Behavior Mapping - A Method for ...

[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
Behavior Mapping: A Method for Linking
Preschool Physical Activity and
Outdoor Design
NILDA G. COSCO
1
, ROBIN C. MOORE
1
, and MOHAMMED Z. ISLAM
2
1
College of Design, NC State University, Raleigh, NC; and
2
University of Engineering and Technology,
Dhaka, BANGLADESH
ABSTRACT
COSCO, N. G., R. C. MOORE, and M. Z. ISLAM. Behavior Mapping: A Method for Linking Preschool Physical Activity and
Outdoor Design. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 513–519, 2010. The preschool that children attend has been shown to be a
significant but variable predictor of physical activity of 3- to 5-yr-olds, whereas the time outdoors has been found to be a strong
correlate of physical activity. Researchers speculate that variations in preschool physical activity may be attributed to variations in
preschool policies and practices, including the form and content of outdoor physical environments. However, assessment methods
linking them to physical activity are limited. Improved understanding of links between environment and activity could be used to
influence childcare policy, which is highly regulated, usually at state level, to create outdoor environments more conducive to children’s
informal play and physical activity. The purpose of this article was to introduce behavior mapping as a direct observation method on the
basis of the theories of behavior setting and affordance and to demonstrate its sensitivity to gathering physical activity and associated
environmental data at a sufficiently detailed level to affect built environment design policy. Methods: Behavior mapping data, including
outdoor environmental characteristics and children’s physical activity levels, were obtained in two preschool centers at the Research
Triangle region, NC. Results: Physical activity levels at the two centers varied across different types of behavior settings, including
pathways, play structures, and open areas. The same type of setting with different attributes, such as circular versus straight pathways,
and open areas with different ground surfaces, such as asphalt, compacted soil, woodchips, and sand, attracted different levels of
physical activity. Conclusions: Behavior mapping provides a promising method for objectively measuring relationships between
physical behavior settings and directly associated activity levels. Key Words: CHILDCARE, OUTDOORS, PREVENTION, BUILT
ENVIRONMENT, BEHAVIOR CODING
serving behavior and associated built environment
components and attributes. It provides researchers
with an innovative method of assessing behavior linked to
detailed physical characteristics of outdoor areas, and it has
been applied by the authors in studies of schools, neigh-
borhood parks, children’s museums, and zoos (28). The
purpose here was to illustrate the method’s sensitivity for
coding built environment characteristics in childcare center
outdoor environments as part of a strategy to prevent sed-
entary lifestyles of young children by influencing built en-
vironment design policy.
Apart from home, preschools are possibly the most
common built environment experienced by children (33),
potentially offering substantial evidence-based health bene-
fits. For example, the preschool that children attend has been
shown to be a significant but variable predictor of physical
activity levels of 3- to 5-yr-olds (30), accounting for the
highest variance in total daily accelerometer counts (12).
Pate et al. (30) speculate that variations in preschool phys-
ical activity may be attributed to variations in preschool
policies and practices. Because time outdoors is a strong
predictor of activity (2,32), we speculate further that out-
door physical environment factors may also influence phys-
ical activity and help explain variability in physical activity
observed among childcare centers (5). If so, investigations
of associations between physical activity and environmental
design factors could support the development of evidence-
based design policies and practices to positively influence
levels of activity and respond to the call by Pate et al. (30)
for the specific investigations in this direction.
The prevalence of sedentary lifestyles has increased
awareness about the importance of childcare outdoor en-
vironments. Childcare experts are realizing that physical
changes in play areas are required and are seeking help from
landscape architects, architects, play equipment vendors, and
contractors. However, these professionals, particularly land-
scape architects, are unable to deliver appropriate designs
Address for correspondence: Nilda G. Cosco, Ph.D., College of Design,
NC State University, 200 Pullen Rd, PO Box 7701, Raleigh, NC 27695;
E-mail: nilda_cosco@ncsu.edu.
Submitted for publication December 2008.
Accepted for publication December 2009.
0195-9131/10/4203-0513/0
MEDICINE & SCIENCE IN SPORTS & EXERCISE
Copyright 2010 by the American College of Sports Medicine
DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181cea27a
513
Copyright @ 2010
by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
B
ehavior mapping is an objective method of ob-
because evidence-based design guidelines are lacking (26).
Quality assessment scales used for licensing (16,17) are
available, but they deal almost exclusively with indoor
environments and provide insufficient guidance for out-
door design. Landscape architects show how outdoor envi-
ronments should work, be laid out, and managed (24). To
improve effectiveness, evidence-based design guidelines
would be welcomed. Because designers work through visual
imagery, behavior mapping evidence presented visually will
more likely be used and gain support from the American
Society of Landscape Architects (1).
rtoft (13) applied affordance to interpret the re-
sults of a study of Norwegian preschool children’s motor
development and fitness related to landscape topography
and vegetation. Kyttå (20) used affordance in comparative
studies of children’s environments and mobility in Finland
and Belarus. The concept of affordance stresses the relation-
ship between perception and action, which, according to
Gibson and Pick (14), helps children learn both about the
functional properties of the environment (layout, objects,
and events) and about themselves by using the environment
in relation to their developing abilities. In the context of
play areas, the concept of affordance can be used to analyze
similarities and differences among behavior settings by
describing physical attributes or qualities of behavior setting
components that offer specific behavioral responses (e.g.,
shrubs for hiding).
BEHAVIOR MAPPING APPROACH
Behavior mapping is an unobtrusive, direct observational
method for recording the location of subjects and measuring
their activity levels simultaneously. Results help researchers
understand the behavioral dynamics of the built environ-
ment. Early examples used pencil-and-paper methods to
gather data and hand graphics to spatially represent results
at the level of residential neighborhoods, parks, playgrounds,
and schoolyards (4,19,24,25,29). van Andel (36) was the
first investigator to digitally code outdoor behavior and its
environmental attributes linked to a relational database. The
advent of Geographical Information Systems combined with
handheld digital coding devices created an almost paperless
data gathering protocol, allowing many more variables to be
coded, including accurate location of physical activity (11).
Behavior mapping now provides environment–behavior re-
searchers with an efficient method for gathering, process-
ing, analyzing, and representing data. Behavior mapping
is based on the concepts of behavior setting (3,18) and
affordance (14,15).
Behavior setting.
Behavior settings are ecological units
where the physical environment and the behavior are in-
dissolubly connected. These ecobehavioral units were first
described by Barker (3) who, through direct observation of
children, noticed that behavior settings have clearly iden-
tifiable spatial and temporal boundaries with components
that function independently of adjacent ecobehavioral units.
Behavior settings are composed of people, physical com-
ponents, and behavior. The concept is applied in design
research by disaggregating the functional parts of the out-
door environment (i.e., climbing area, sand pit, water play
setting, tricycle path, vegetable garden, etc.) as opposed to
treating the play area as a generalized context for behavior.
Linking setting type and level of physical activity is essen-
tial for understanding the impact of design on children’s
behavior, for guiding design interventions, and for inform-
ing childcare licensing policy and accreditation regulations
that may support active childhoods (34).
Affordance.
Affordances are the perceived properties
of the physical environment that support the individual’s
actions (15). The approach helps investigators understand
how the physical components of built environments stimu-
late, attract, or ‘‘afford’’ children’s activities. Affordance has
OBSERVATIONAL METHODS AND
MAPPING BEHAVIOR
Several direct observation systems are available for coding
children’s physical activity, including Behavior of Eating
and Activity for Child Health Evaluation System (22),
Child Activity Rating Scale (CARS) (2,10,31), System for
Observing Play and Leisure Activity in Youth (SOPLAY)
(21), Observational System for Recording Physical Activity
in Children – Preschool Version (OSRAC-P) (7), and, most
recently, Environment and Policy Assessment Observation
(EPAO) (6). Three of these systems code for child’s loca-
tion. OSRAC-P includes codes for ‘‘indoors,’’ ‘‘outdoors,’’
and ‘‘transition’’ and also ‘‘outdoor activity context’’ (e.g.,
‘‘games,’’ ‘‘snacks,’’ etc.) and limited predefined physical set-
ting codes (e.g., ‘‘sandbox,’’ ‘‘open space,’’ etc.). SOPLAY
defines observation ‘‘target areas,’’ which include three
outdoor ‘‘area types’’ (‘‘court space,’’ ‘‘play space,’’ and
‘‘field’’), and codes for ‘‘area improvements’’ (exclusively
sports-related). EPAO includes eight ‘‘physical activity en-
vironment’’ subscales, two of which include outdoor phys-
ical environment items: ‘‘portable play environment’’ and
‘‘fixed play environment’’ (coded present or not present).
The OSRAC-P uses the CARS five-point scale (which does
not include physical environment codes). None of the tools
Physical
Activity
Mean
a
Center 1 7497.12 13 23 210 2.34
Center 2 6784.84 13 30 234 2.93
a
Physical activity was measured using five-point scale CARS (1 = sedentary; 5 = vigorous).
No.
Settings
No.
Children
Observed
No.
Observations
514
Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine
Copyright @ 2010
by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
been embraced as a construct with practical utility by envi-
ronmental design researchers and investigators of children’s
environments. Environmental psychologist Heft (18) pub-
lished a taxonomy of children’s environmental affordances
presenting a preliminary conceptual and operational frame-
work. Fj
L
TABLE 1. Play area square footage, no. settings, no. children observed, no. observations,
and physical activity mean.
Play Area
Square
Footage
TABLE 2. List of behavior settings per center.
Dramatic Play Area(s) Gathering Area(s) Open Area(s)
Pathway
Play Equipment
Porch/Transition Sand Play
Center 1
2
N/A
5
Mix (linear and loop)
1 composite structure
1
1
Center 2
1
1
2
2 Linear
5
None
1
2 composite structures
1 set of swings
1 individual play equipment
1 merry-go-round
uses a ‘‘measured base map’’ (as behavior mapping does);
therefore, square footage and precisely plotted child loca-
tions cannot be included in the analysis to produce design-
sensitive results. For that reason, Cosco (9) modified earlier
behavior mapping approaches to develop a protocol suit-
able for preschool environments (including codes for man-
ufactured, natural, and mixed environmental components;
physical activity level; wheeled toy use; and gender). The
resulting childcare center maps show the spatial pattern of
behavior delineated by behavior settings, which are usually
defined by material lines on the ground subdividing
physical components; for example, the edge of a pathway
or boundary of a playhouse.
we present data from two childcare centers. The outdoor
areas were similar in square footage and number of be-
havior settings (Table 1). However, the layout of the sites
and the mix of types of settings were different (Table 2).
Center 1 included two dramatic play settings (play houses),
three open areas, a pathway (linear and loop), one com-
posite play structure, a porch/transition area, and a sand
play setting. Center 2 included a dramatic play setting (play
house), two gathering settings (benches), two open areas, a
linear pathway, five pieces of play equipment, and a large
sand play setting.
For the illustrative maps described in Figures 1 and 2,
observers systematically scanned each behavior setting con-
secutively using a paper map to record subject locations and
a handheld computer (PDA Dell Axim Pocket PC, Austin,
TX) with pull-down menus to code for gender, behavior
setting type, physical attributes, and physical activity level
using CARS (10). Two observers collected data after pre-
defined clockwise and counterclockwise walking itineraries
to cover the whole play area while avoiding overlaps.
EXAMPLES OF BEHAVIOR MAPPING
APPLIED TO CHILDCARE CENTERS
To illustrate the sensitivity of behavior mapping as an
innovative method for assessing built environment compo-
nents and attributes associated with physical activity levels,
FIGURE 1—Center 1. Physical activity behavior map.
MAPPING PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
d
515
Copyright @ 2010
by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
FIGURE 2—Center 2. Physical activity behavior map.
Observers were trained to observe children’s behavior
and physical activity using CARS (10). Each observer col-
lected four maps during the observation session in the morn-
ing outdoor playtime (center 1 session = 55 min, 13 min
per map; center 2 session = 46 min, 11 min per map). Data
were gathered on mild climate days (center 1 = 56-F; center
2=64-F). In total, eight behavior maps were collected per
session (four per observer). The data were used to create the
attribute tables in Geographical Information Systems (11)
and represent the compilation of all observations gathered
during each observation session. Each dot represents the
observation of an individual child and his/her level of phys-
ical activity (light gray = sedentary, medium gray = light
activity, black = MVPA). Behavior settings are identified in
a numbered key.
of total physical activity. In center 2, the majority of activity
(81.6%) was again observed in three types of setting: play
equipment (42.7%), sand play setting (19.7%), and open
areas (19.2%). However, low pathway activity (11.1%) was
displaced by higher sand play activity (19.7%).
DISCUSSION
Differences in total activity created by different types of
behavior setting and by different forms of the same type of
behavior setting (pathways, play equipment, sand play, and
TABLE 3. List of behavior settings per center.
Sedentary (%) Light (%) MVPA (%)
Total Physical
Activity (%)
RESULTS FROM BEHAVIOR MAPPING
For centers 1 and 2 together, the majority of total activity
observations were distributed across four types of behavior
setting: open areas, sand play settings, pathways, and play
equipment (Table 3). However, the proportions of total ac-
tivity by setting were different in each center (Figs. 1 and 2).
In center 1, the majority (87.6%) of total activity was ob-
served in three types of behavior setting: open areas (40.0%),
pathways (32.4%), and play equipment (15.2%). The center
1 sand play setting accounted for a negligible (0.5%) amount
Center 1
Dramatic play
1.40
10.00
0.50
11.90
Open area
7.60
18.10
14.30
40.00
Pathway
5.70
3.80
22.90
32.40
Play equipment
4.30
7.60
3.30
15.20
Porch/transition
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sand play
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.50
Subtotal
19.00
40.00
41.00
100.00
Center 2
Dramatic play
0.90
1.70
0.40
3.00
Gathering area
3.40
0
0.90
4.30
Open area
4.70
6.80
7.70
19.20
Pathway
7.30
2.60
1.30
11.10
Play equipment
14.50
11.50
16.70
42.70
Sand play
13.70
5.60
0.40
19.70
Subtotal
44.50
28.20
27.40
100.00
516
Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine
Copyright @ 2010
by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
FIGURE 3—Center 1. Physical activity and ground surface material.
priate number and type of play equipment most suitable to
support higher levels of physical activity.
Sand play.
By nature, sand play is sedentary. In center
2, it attracted almost one-fifth (19.7%) of observed activity
but a negligible amount of MVPA. The difference in sand
play setting attraction between the centers may reflect the
difference in setting size. The ample size of the center 2
sand play setting may have afforded increased social inter-
action, therefore stimulating more activity, compared with
the small size of the center 1 sand play setting.
Open areas.
Observed activity and MVPA in open
areas were approximately double in center 1 compared with
those in center 2. Because facilitated activities are mainly
afforded in open areas, activity levels may be influenced by
program components (e.g., ball play) and teacher–child in-
teractions (e.g., group games). In center 1, behavior map-
ping may reflect the influence of an active play program
(including ball play) conducted in the open areas on the
day of the observation session. Further research can be
conducted to assess the impact of programming and teacher
facilitation in open areas.
Ground surface.
As a safety attribute, ground surface
has long appeared in the playground safety guidelines
published by the US government (35). However, associa-
tion with MVPA has only recently been investigated (7).
Behavior mapping provides linked physical activity data
to extend the investigation of different ground surface ma-
terials, which we speculate afford different levels of phys-
ical activity because of the variability of their responsive
qualities to children’s ambulation. In centers 1 and 2, MVPA
was found in settings with harder ground surfaces such as
asphalt, compacted soil, and concrete (Figs. 3 and 4). The
high level of MVPA attracted by the center 1 hard surface
pathways (Fig. 3) may reflect the impact of the added
affordance of wheeled toys as play objects, which are easier
to use on hard, smooth surfaces. This trend, supported by
previous research (7), has clear implications for design be-
cause ground surface selection is considered a critical de-
cision by designers, which, until now, is driven by safety
criteria rather than by physical activity objectives.
open areas) (Table 3) might help us understand the impact
of affordances. Pathway is a type of setting typically asso-
ciated with movement and higher levels of physical activity.
However, the amount of use and level of activity afforded
can be substantially affected by attributes such as surface
quality (hard, soft), path width (wide, narrow), and pathway
form (curvy, looped, linear). Cosco (9) showed that children
are attracted by and are more active on hard-surface, curvy
pathways because they afford easier wheeled toy play and
running.
Pathways.
We may speculate that children perceived
the looped pathway of center 1 as described above, thus
contributing more than half of the total MVPA (22.9% of
41.0%; Table 3) for the whole outdoor area. The playhouse
installed in the center of the loop may have added
perceptual complexity by visually blocking the direct view
across the loop, thereby affording peekaboo (now you see
me, now you don’t), which seemed to accentuate the
affordance of circular motion that young children often
find enjoyable.
In contrast, the center 2 linear pathway adjacent to the
building attracted only a small proportion of total activity
(11.1%). In this case, we speculate that a linear pathway
affords a less interesting experience to children because it
obliges them to travel back and forth, which is particularly
awkward to perform with wheeled toys and can result in
conflict as children try to maneuver around each other in
opposite directions. We also observed that the pathway was
alongside the building so that at the beginning of playtime,
children ran straight across it to more distant settings.
Furthermore, the pathway lacked additional attributes (in
contrast to the center 1 playhouse) that could have offered
additional affordances. Layouts that include continuous,
circular pathways appear intrinsically more attractive than
the affordance of linear pathways (9).
Play equipment.
The difference between centers 1 and
2 in play equipment observed activity (15.2% and 42.7%)
as well as MVPA (3.3% and 16.7%) may have resulted
from the combined affordance of five play equipment set-
tings in center 2 compared with only one in center 1.
Further research might yield information about the appro-
FIGURE 4—Center 2. Physical activity and ground surface material.
MAPPING PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
d
517
Copyright @ 2010
by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]