Schoolyard Affordances for Physical Activity: A Pilot Study in 6 Nordic–Baltic Countries
, Thordis Gisladottir 2, Maret Pihu 3, Lise Kjonniksen 4, Irinja Lounassalo 5, Terhi Huovinen 5, Rita Gruodyte-Raciene 1, Kristina Visagurskiene 1, Orn Olafson 2, Merike Kull 3, Ieva Rudzinska 6 and Ingun Fjørtoft 4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review manuscript
sustainability- 1393585, entitled "Schoolyard Affordances for Physical Activity: A Pilot Study in 6 Nordic–Baltic Countries" SUSTAINABILITY
1 Summary of the research and your overall impression
1.1 Reviewer comment:
The manuscript aimed to explore main characteristics of schoolyards in six Nordic–Baltic countries, to document how those facilities provided affordances for PA in 7–16 year–old schoolchildren, and how the schoolyard meets children’s preferences.
As the authors claim, the schoolyard covers the open space with sport areas that is available for the pupils to play, socialize, and be physically active during recess and lessons. Schoolyards that include space, topography and vegetation have a positive effect on pupils’ PA during recess stimulate physically active play more than inbuilt environment and increase the variety of games played by both genders at different ages. However, we don’t find any analysis about the use of the spaces regarding the genders o sex. Could you give any argumentation around it? Do you think the use the space in the same way?
On the other side, The use and argumentation of the term inclusivity is lacking in this topic.
Another important thing is that studies have focused on how schoolyards afford pupils to physical, but the quality of schoolyard design, including landscape, space, facilities, and the affordances for development of motor skills and PA, has been neglected in the current field of research. To their knowledge the current study is the first to explore and describe characteristics of six schoolyards in the Nordic–Baltic countries.
I really liked the theme. Which is current and necessary to continue evolving towards a more inclusive and egalitarian society. Congratulations on your work.
Below, I would like to make some specific suggestions:
2 Discussion of specific areas for improvement
2.1 Major issues
2.1.1 Reviewer comment:
None
2.2 Minor issues
2.2.1 Reviewer comment:
2.2.1.1 Materials and methods
Maybe I would like to structure this section with evaluation instruments and statistical analysis subsections.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewers for their invaluable assistance and constructive comments. We noticed all annotations and revised the text accordingly. The reviewers support helped us to improve the quality of the manuscript significantly.
|
1 Comment |
We don’t find any analysis about the use of the spaces regarding the genders o sex. Could you give any argumentation around it? Do you think the use the space in the same way? |
|
Answer |
We were not aimed to analyse differences on how children use potential affordances, not either difference according to age, gender, disabilities etc. We do not assume that different children use the yard in the same way, but in this study, we only looked at possible affordances in the schoolyard. We put some remarks in methodology concerning this (see P. 3, Line 130-132). |
|
2 Comment |
In other side the use and argumentation of the term inclusivity is lacking in this topic. |
|
Answer |
In contemporary education the inclusivity of all pupils to different activities is important and the authors agree this is important focus point. But in this study, it was not the focus, but we are planning in future to look in that. Inclusion and accessibility are an important issue in the public-school yard, but also different options to physical activity to all pupils. |
|
3 Comment |
Maybe I would like to structure this section with evaluation instruments and statistical analysis subsections. |
|
Answer |
We haven’t used any statistical analysis. We used geographical mapping method to explore and describe the main characteristics of six schoolyards, but in this pilot study the data did not allow for statistical analysis. Additionally, it was made some corrections in Material & Methods part, and we hope that now it looks much clear. |
Reviewer 2 Report
This study explored the main characteristics of schoolyards in six Nordic–Baltic countries, to document how those facilities provided affordances for physical activity in 7–16 year–old children, and how the schoolyard meets children’s preferences. The study was carried out in the following countries: Iceland, Norway, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. The Orto–Photo maps and standard registration forms were used to identify affordances, facilities, and equipment for physical activity in schoolyards, while the children’s preferences were collected through interviews with children in each school. A common design of schoolyards across countries indicated mostly flat topography with sparse vegetation and green areas dominating by large traditional sport arenas such as football field, areas suitable for ball games, track and field activities. The findings suggest variations in some aspects across countries.
This is not a typical research paper and provides a descriptive presentation of the main characteristics of schoolyards in six Nordic–Baltic countries. In my opinion the theme of this paper is of limited interest for the international reader, but might be useful for colleagues who have this very specific interest. The methodology is simple and no comments can be made given that the paper, in all parts is well written.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewers for their invaluable assistance and constructive comments. We noticed all annotations and revised the text accordingly. The reviewers support helped us to improve the quality of the manuscript significantly.
|
1 Comment |
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses, and methods clearly stated? The methodology is simple. |
|
Answer |
This study can be characterized as descriptive, mixed method case study. The study did not set hypothesis, but visualizations by maps (P 5), descriptions of schoolyards using registration form and group interviews with pupils. The aim of the study was to compare and find some similarities and differences between 6 schoolyards in Nordic-Baltic countries. We clarified this in research methods (see P 3-4). Based on the literature and the fact that the physical activity is low in the position of health among a big range of pupils, the schoolyard and it´s possibilities to support children´s physical activity is important research focus. Also, the geographical mapping method is still a little used but appropriate method to systematically look at schoolyards. The method has been used in similar studies, and studies within Landscape architecture and design (Fjørtoft. 2000; Fjørtoft Kristoffersen & Sageie 2007; Fjørtoft, Løvman & Halvorsen Thoren 2009; Ito, Sudo & Fjørtoft, 2016). In this study we used adopted version of mapping schoolyard protocol - The Kristiansand Municipality and University of Agder. 2006. Aktiv Ute. Kartlegging av skolegårder. (“Active Outdoors”. Mapping Schoolyards, Design and Instructions). Kristiansand Municipality, Norway. (In Norwegian). In many countries, schoolyards have not been much focused and has been more related to sport activities or just a place to go to school. The authors see that schoolyard design is an important topic for the users but also for wider interdisciplinary research groups and practitioner. |
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript entitled "Schoolyard Affordances for Physical Activity: A Pilot Study in 6 Nordic–Baltic Countries" is a pilot study that aimed to verify characteristics of schoolyards and their influence in childrens' physical activities profile.
My main concerns are regarding the possible conclusions with the experimental design proposed, the broad range for definitions provided and the loose approach to the qualitative part of the study, especially the framework for the qualitative data analysis. Other than this, I point out other aspects below.
- The adoption of a protocol for research ad/or data presentation is needed. They can be found at the EQUATOR Network site.
- The "analysis of national policy regulations" are not defined. What kind of analysis?
- The description of any kind of measurement or analysis on how the schoolyards afforded PA and motor skills is lacking.
- The description of the qualitative data analysis is lacking, since no theoretical framework was described.
- I am not familiarized with regional characteristics of the countries where the study was carried out. However, I suppose that there are socio-economic or regional differences for each country. Moreover, the description of the setting of each school, ie., city, HDI, demographics, common characteristics of compulsory schools for each country, are part of the methods in my opinion, since the the object of the study are the childrens' PA profile for each setting.
- There are methods to provide very precise estimatives of the landscape characteristics, which could improve further analysis with a bigger volume of data to analyse. In this sense, the robustness of such analysis should be tested in a pilot study in order to be improved in further research.
- At which extent each school of the study are representative of the main school ofr each country? If the authors are proposing a pilot study, it is supposed that a bigger one is being planned. In this sense, representativeness is needed, even with limitations.
- The choice for a broader age range should be explained, since interests for physical activity, as well as many other features, varies a lot from the 6-7 y.o until 16-18. How the interests could be the same. Also, gender differences are important for the study object, also due to preferences.
- The discussion states that "The aim of this study was to describe the main characteristics of selected schoolyards in six Nordic–Baltic countries and apprise the potential affordances for PA and motor skills. The pupils’ preferences for schoolyard design and facilities for PA was part of the study.", however, the objective declared in the introduction is "The aim of the present pilot study was to explore and describe the main characteris-
tics of six schoolyards in six Nordic–Baltic countries, and how they afforded PA and motor skills in 7–16–year old pupils and how the schoolyards met the pupils’ preferences.". The slight difference is not not so small if one take in account the fact that there is no clearly presented data regarding how such facilities afforded PA and motor skills.
- The discussion extensively repeats the findings presented in the results with limited dialogue with the current literature. Moreover, the major flaw in my opinion is the bridge proposed between the schoolyard structure an the childrens' perceptions that are not clearly nor systematicaly presented. In this sense, the data regarding the childrens seems much more impressionistic and vague. The consequence is that the conclusions are too especulative without the data from the interviews.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewers for their invaluable assistance and constructive comments. We noticed all annotations and revised the text accordingly. The reviewers support helped us to improve the quality of the manuscript significantly.
|
1.1 Comment |
My main concerns are regarding the possible conclusions with the experimental design proposed, the broad range for definitions provided and the loose approach to the qualitative part of the study, especially the framework for the qualitative data analysis. Other than this, I point out other aspects below. - The adoption of a protocol for research ad/or data presentation is needed. They can be found at the EQUATOR Network site. |
|
Answer |
In this study we do not apply an experimental design. We used descriptive design, mixed methods design including geographical mapping, group interviews of pupil´s voices and national policy document covering policy, planning and curriculum from each country. In this study we used mixed research methods as it allows to see the aims from many perspectives. For example, for Regulations/recommendations for schoolyard design in six Nordic–Baltic countries all authors did the content analysis to the national documents and later basing on the national data there were summative work and interpretation of the results (Mayring, 2000). Additionally, to all reviewers comments it was made some corrections in Material & Methods part and we hope that now it looks much clearly. |
|
1.2. Comment |
The broad range for definitions provided and the loose approach to the qualitative part of the study. |
|
Answer |
The aim of the present pilot study was to explore and describe the main characteristics of six schoolyards in six Nordic–Baltic countries, and potential affordances for PA in 7–16–year old pupils and how the schoolyards met the pupils’ preferences. As there are many focus points what compose one whole it was important to explain the definitions. Also authors went through the text and checked that the use of the concepts is systematic. |
|
1.3. Comment
|
The adoption of a protocol for research ad/or data presentation is needed. They can be found at the EQUATOR Network site. |
|
Answer |
In this study we used adopted version of mapping schoolyard protocol - The Kristiansand Municipality and University of Agder. 2006. Aktiv Ute. Kartlegging av skolegårder. (“Active Outdoors”. Mapping Schoolyards, Design and Instructions). Kristiansand Municipality, Norway. (In Norwegian). We are happy to share it if other researchers who want to use this method. |
|
1.4. Comment |
The "analysis of national policy regulations" are not defined. What kind of analysis? |
|
Answer |
In this study we used national policy document covering policy, planning and curriculum from each country. The documents are described in the methodologies (see page 4). Regulations/recommendations for schoolyard design in six Nordic–Baltic countries – were reviewed by the authors and key areas were described from each document (Mayring, 2000) |
|
3 Comment |
The description of any kind of measurement or analysis on how the schoolyards afforded PA and motor skills is lacking. |
|
Answer |
The aim of this study was to map the potential affordances for PA in the schoolyards. Based on Gibson`s theory of affordances [29] we decided to describe only potential affordances of the schoolyards. For this purpose, we applied registration form [35]. Se description of schoolyard mapping (p. 3, line 116-126). This includes space, landscapes design, facilities, and equipment available to the pupils. Unfortunately, we did not analyse and describe how the pupils used the schoolyard affordances, which will be a follow up study in the future. |
|
4 Comment |
I am not familiarized with regional characteristics of the countries where the study was carried out. However, I suppose that there are socio-economic or regional differences for each country. Moreover, the description of the setting of each school, i.e., city, HDI, demographics, common characteristics of compulsory schools for each country, are part of the methods in my opinion, since the object of the study are the children’s PA profile for each setting. |
|
Answer |
During composing the aim and design of the research the main aim was that basic education is compulsory in each country. There are many studies that stress the importance of school promoting the PA among pupils. We agree that different social - economic factors can influence the PA behaviour in schoolyard, but our in this research the aim wasn´t to investigate these. It is good suggestion for another article. We pointed out that it was our study limitation. Delete this? Since this is a pilot study with few cases, it is difficult to embrace socioeconomic and geographical differences. The data base in this study is too small for such analysis. In a following up study with more cases this will be highly actual. |
|
5 Comment |
There are methods to provide very precise estimatives of the landscape characteristics, which could improve further analysis with a bigger volume of data to analyse. In this sense, the robustness of such analysis should be tested in a pilot study in order to be improved in further research. |
|
Answer |
This is good idea, and we will appreciate references for such analyses. |
|
6 Comment |
At which extent each school of the study are representative of the main school of each country? If the authors are proposing a pilot study, it is supposed that a bigger one is being planned. In this sense, representativeness is needed, even with limitations. |
|
Answer |
Thank you for your comment, but we do not yet have enough data for the comprehensive analysis. |
|
7 Comment |
The choice for a broader age range should be explained, since interests for physical activity, as well as many other features, varies a lot from the 6-7 until 16-18 years. How the interests could be the same. Also, gender differences are important for the study object, also due to preferences. |
|
Answer |
In this study we choose compulsory schools which are graded 1-12 in most countries (7-13 years) and some in 7-18 years. These schools are supposed to meet the needs for physical activity of all age and gender span. This present study an overview of schoolyard design and characteristics but lacks how the schoolyards are customized to different age and gender. This is a crucial perspective that we would like to address in another a following up study. |
|
8 Comment
|
The discussion states that "The aim of this study was to describe the main characteristics of selected schoolyards in six Nordic–Baltic countries and apprise the potential affordances for PA and motor skills. The pupils’ preferences for schoolyard design and facilities for PA was part of the study.", however, the objective declared in the introduction is "The aim of the present pilot study was to explore and describe the main characteristics of six schoolyards in six Nordic–Baltic countries, and how they afforded PA and motor skills in 7–16–year old pupils and how the schoolyards met the pupils’ preferences.". The slight difference is not so small if one take in account the fact that there is no clearly presented data regarding how such facilities afforded PA and motor skills. - The discussion extensively repeats the findings presented in the results with limited dialogue with the current literature. Moreover, the major flaw in my opinion is the bridge proposed between the schoolyard structure and the children’s perceptions that are not clearly nor systematically presented. In this sense, the data regarding the children seems much more impressionistic and vaguer. The consequence is that the conclusions are too speculative without the data from the interviews. |
|
Answer |
Thank you for your remarks, we have gone through the discussion and reduce the repetition for the results as you have suggested. Additionally, we have made some corrections in Material & Methods part with more detailed explanation of structured 5 categories in group interviews method. And in turn Results 3.3. part Pupils’ opinions and preferences for schoolyard affordances and PA (P. 8-9, lines 380-410) is presented now according to these categories. |
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
In my opinion, the answers provided and the insertions to the manuscript do not resolve the questions posed and the methodological needs of an original article.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for their invaluable assistance and constructive comments. We noticed all annotations and revised the text accordingly. The reviewers support helped us to improve the quality of the manuscript significantly.
|
1.1 Comment |
In my opinion, the answers provided and the insertions to the manuscript do not resolve the questions posed and the methodological needs of an original article. |
|
Answer |
Thank you for your comment, the authors in this second round of review process have tried to improve additionally research methodological part. The biggest part of improvements was made in the part of focus group interview description research results presentation. Additionally, the manuscript has been checked for the English language. Thank you for the all the suggestions. |
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
