Outdoor (anti-)play spaces and places: a qualitative study of Polish large city backyards seen from children’s perspective

ABSTRACT

This paper focuses on children’s perspective on their outdoor play environment. The research took place in settings with designated disadvantaged status—in the backyards of Przedmieście Oławskie—a small district of a large city of Wrocław, Poland. The research aimed to reveal dimensions of children’s perception and understanding of studied backyards. Multimethod qualitative research procedure was used: the ethnographic research strategy with elements of mosaic approach were combined. Around 70 children aged 3–10 years were observed in their natural play environment and 23 of them were engaged in guided-tours and meetings in backyards. The results of this research show multidimensionality of children’s experiences of their play environment. The study underlines the importance of considering children’s experience as competent social agents while planning outdoor play environments.

KEYWORDS:

• Children
• research ‘with’ children
• outdoor play
• outdoor environment
• childhood studies
• risky play

Introduction

Current research on children and childhood seems to discover them anew: it reveals a diversity of children’s growing and living conditions, relations between play and children’s development, and the wealth of children’s experiences, their variety and ambiguity (Gray, 2011, 2013; Hughes, 2010; Moyles, 2010; Scarlet, Naudeau, Salonius-Pasternak, & Ponte, 2005; Smith, 2010; Sutton-Smith, 1997; Thorne, 1993). Such research is accompanied by a multiconceptual approach where their entanglement in a complex network of socio-spatial, socio-cultural, political, or economic relations is discerned (Horton, 2014).

Children’s play, together with such categories as ‘children’ or ‘childhood,’ have for years been belittled or disregarded in the social and media discourses. Children have been considered as ‘miniadults’ that are ‘human becomings’ rather than ‘human beings’ (Postman, 1982, p. 14). At the end of the 20th century, the social vision of children underwent transformations. The paradigm called a ‘new sociology of childhood’ has emerged. Children were recognised as active agents capable of making significant decisions in their lives (Corsaro, 2015; James & James, 2004; James & Prout, 2015) with the right to be heard (Murray, 2019). As the social image of the child changed, so did the role and significance of play. The issues of children’s play are currently considered by researchers, social activists, and parents around the world, especially in the contexts of the ‘minority world’ (minority world are the countries where a small percentage of the earth’s population live; they are mostly considered as ‘developed’ countries. The term stands in opposition to ‘majority world’—countries where most of the population lives) (Brown & Patte, 2013, p. 6). An international document that guarantees children’s right to play is the Convention on the Rights of the Child ratified in 1989 by most of the world’s countries and by Poland in 1991. However, it turns out that the conditions and possibilities of children’s play are very diverse, ambiguous, and relative as is play itself (Sutton-Smith, 1997, p. 296; Hart, 1979). One of a major issue in ongoing debates is children’s free play outdoors without the parents’ supervision (Brown & Patte, 2013, pp. 77–78–84). Free play is indicated, controlled and directed by children themselves and it is perceived as necessary to their subjective sense of well-being (Hewes, 2014). This type of play creates an opportunity for children to explore the natural environment by themselves and socialise with their peers. It is seen as very beneficial to child`s development: through testing of physical limits it allows to achieve self-confidence and facilitates socialisation (Budny et al., 2011). Many researchers have come to the conclusion that spontaneous free outdoor play is becoming a smaller part of children’s daily routine. Thus, children barely explore and discover their closest surroundings accompanied by peers. Gill (2007) demonstrates that opportunities for children’s outdoor play have been diametrically constrained in recent decades. According to the author: ‘Activities and experiences that previous generations of children enjoyed without a second thought have been relabelled as troubling or dangerous, while the adults who still permit them are branded as irresponsible’ (p. 10). This phenomenon has been termed ‘play deprivation,’ and its main causes have been found to include: exceedingly long time spent by children at school and in front of the screens of computers, televisions, and various ‘smart’ devices, the lack of close bonds between children and nature (Wilson, 2012), parents’ overprotective attitudes, and unattractive outdoor play spaces and playgrounds themselves (Brown & Patte, 2013; Shackell, Butler, Doyle, & Ball, 2008).

The concepts of place, space and outdoor play

Currently, the new meaning of the category of space developed at the end of the 20th century and with the beginning of post-modernism is noted. A departure made from the unambiguous, geographic understanding of space, and its relations to the human beings are frequently underlined. Studies undertaken by Sommer (1959) made a crucial contribution to the development of research on the relationality of human life and space. The researcher was interested in the influence of the surroundings on human behaviour and human relations with space. Human beings ‘tame’ spaces and assign to them their own senses and meanings, i.e. mark them. The process of ‘taming space’ is explained by Tuan (1977), who stated that ‘enclosed and humanised space is place’ (p. 54). The author considered both the concepts, space and place, in the context of experience. He associated place with security, and space with freedom: ‘we are attached to the one and long for the other’ (p. 3). Place is explored and ‘tamed,’ familiarised space.

There is an increasing number of multidisciplinary research focused on children’s play spaces recognised from children’s perspective. Veitch, Salmon, and Ball (2007) examined the use of public open spaces by children aged 6–12 and discussed the impact of these spaces on children’s active free play. In turn, Thomson & Philo (2004) questioned ‘play’ as an unproblematic category of children’s daily routine and discussed it as a construct of adult’s practices. The authors deconstructed ‘play’ through verifying what children think about their own activities and how they experience the spaces, places and social encounters in everyday situations. Another example is the study by Rautio (2013) who discussed materiality of children’s everyday life environments in the context of posthumanistics theories. Sandseter, Storli, and Sando (2021), on the other hand, examined relationship between outdoor environments and children’s play. They pointed out that children’s engagement in different types of play is related to spaces and materials they use. Such studies provide exemplifications of research that aim at empowering children on matters that are important to them and are part of their lives.

The aim of this paper is to contribute to those processes through revealing diversity of the children’s perception and understanding of their everyday outdoor play environment. This research shows children’s perspective on backyards located in Przedmieście Oławskie in Wroclaw, Poland. Studied backyards are examples of so-called backyards-wells—semi-public small square areas separated from the street by tenement houses. In this way, backyards-wells provide a private space for their communities. It is also worth noticing that in this type of backyard, bonds of solidarity and loyalty develop between its users (Zwiernik 2009, 413).

This surrounding seems to create a very specific backdrop to children’s play experiences—it is often identified with crime and deprivation (Lokalny Program Rewitalizacji, 2016). The research points out: the nature of play itself together with the processes of space taming and space appropriation, and the wide range of emotions that children expressed during their play among many others.

Methodology

AIM of study and research questions

The research objectives were to examine children’s experiences of everyday outdoor play environment in terms of their free and unsupervised play, in the way children saw them. The main research question stated as follows: What are the children’s experiences of their backyard play spaces (on the example of backyards of Przedmieście Oławskie in Wrocław)?

In order to answer the main research question the following research questions were identified:

• What activities do children undertake in their backyards?

• What is the emotional contexts related to children’s experiences of backyards? What are the spaces that children like/ dislike in their backyards?

• What are the spaces that children tamed in their backyards? What are the spaces that remained untamed/ unknown?

• What are the spaces that children claimed in their backyards?

• What is the social context of the children’s use of backyard spaces?

Methods

The study was conducted with qualitative methods, working broadly within the humanistic traditions (Weber, 1991), drawing upon elements of symbolic interactionism (Blumer, 1969). In this context, the research was founded on the interpretative paradigm that emphasises the subjective dimension of the creation of reality by individuals (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018). Subject, goals, and questions of the research have determined the triangulation of strategies and methods. In view of the unique nature of research questions, the qualitative ethnographic research (Wolcott, 2008) together with participatory methodological framework of research ‘with’ children (Kellet, 2010) were used (for methods see Table 1, Research methods). The research ‘with’ children was conducted using a variety of methods and techniques derived from the classical ethnographic strategy and inspired by the mosaic approach (Clark, 2005; Clark, Moss, 2011). Such research is a complex activity that requires the researcher to adopt an open, non-imposing, and non-dominant attitude. As pointed out by Christensen & James (2017): ‘Children are not adults. Researchers need, therefore, not to adopt different methods per se, but to adopt practices which resonate with children’s own concerns and routines’ (p. 7). The nature and methods of research ‘with’ children undergo constant changes and depend on the current policies of states or dominant theoretical positions. Children often play the role of co-researchers—they are seen as active social-life agents and experts on their own lives. Thus, adults find themselves in the position of individuals co-learning from them and transferring a part of their authority to them (Kellet, 2010, p. 88). Defining children as co-researchers is not a simple query. Spriggs and Gillam (2019) created their own definition that has got two following key features: ‘the child meets the criteria for participating in a study or is a peer of the participant population; and the child actively collects data from other participants (their peers)’ (p. 6). Research ‘with’ children makes it possible to learn children’s perspectives: obtaining data directly from them in a way that enables children to take part in the research as decision makers. The researcher abandons the principle of ‘I know what’s best for you’ in favour of the principle of ‘Show me what’s best for you.’ For instance, outdoor local area tours are seen as one of the methods that enable young children’s first-hand experiences on their outdoor spaces (Hammarsten, Askerlund, Almers, Avery, & Samuelsson, 2019; Merewether, 2015). Such research creates conditions for hearing and respecting children`s voices and brings a new quality to children’s lives (Murray, 2019; Roberts, 2003). In the light of above the research ‘with’ children described in this paper was planned, organised, conducted and analysed by an adult. The subject matter concerned issues close to the children, namely their natural living environment: the play spaces and places. The children were invited to take a proactive part in the research project and informed about the project’s aims and their assigned functions—they learned what their roles as experts and the role of the researcher would involve. Their participation in the research was voluntary, following their prior expressions of consent and willingness to participate. During the research, children carried out tasks inspired by techniques of mosaic approach: they gave five tours of their backyards as experts on them—they set the direction of the walks and pointed out places worth seeing, told stories, commented and expressed opinions on events, and replied to researcher’s questions. Thus, it is worth noticing children—in the process of collecting data—played the role of co-researchers. Children also attended three meetings set up in their backyards. During the meetings, they marked play spaces and places with colour paper sticky notes which meaning differed depending on the colour. The meetings were documented with audio recordings and photographed by the adult researcher. Brief characteristic of children as research participators is described in Table 2, Characteristics of children’s participation in research.

Table 1. Research methods.

Research methods—child-centred research			Notes
Leading methods:	Exploratory walks	observation with ethnographic elements such as free talks with the social groups studied in their natural living environment.	designed and conducted by adult researcher.
	Elements of mosaic approach	five tours of four to five children guided by them in backyards, three meetings in backyards: marking play spaces and places by children with colour paper sticky notes (colour depending on emotion: purple—I love it; green—I like it; red—I don`t like it; black—I hate it; blue—I am scared of it).	designed by adult researcher and conducted by children.
Supplemental data collection methods	document analysis (documents regarding the revitalisation of Przedmieście Oławskie: Local Revitalisation Program for 2016–2018, Masterplan of Przedmieście Oławskie, Masterplan of the Oława waterfront). analysis of visual materials such as photos taken by adult researcher during the meetings and guided tours.		designed and conducted by adult researcher

Source: own elaboration.

Table 2. Characteristics of children’s participation in research.

Characteristics of children’s participation in research
Age of children:	pre-school-aged children from three to six (average age: 5) early-primary-school-aged children from six to ten (average age: 7)
Criteria for the purposeful selection of the research group:	children’s unstructured (free) play in selected backyards children’s play without parents’ supervision
Number of children observed during the exploratory walks	73 children
Number of children participated in meetings in backyards:	23 children aged from three to ten years old including: thirteen girls, ten boys.
Notes:	Children aged three, four or ten years old were a minority (there were four of them in total).

Source: own elaboration.

The role of the adult in the research wasn`t limited to designing and organising the research ‘with’ children. The researcher also conducted exploratory walks as an element of ethnographic strategy. It included observations and free talks with the social groups studied in their natural living environment. Thus, it allowed observing children and accompanying them during their outdoor play. During the exploratory walks, the adult researcher took field notes and photos of backyards.

Environmental context

Four backyards of the Przedmieście Oławskie with designated disadvantaged status were selected as research area. From sociological angle that district is known as ‘Bermuda Triangle’ to many residents of Wrocław. It is described as infamous, dangerous and forgotten estate where ‘anything may happen.’ Despite both the revitalisation process and new buildings with residents in progress, Przedmieście Oławskie is still often identified with crime, low sense of security of its citizens (Błaszczyk, Kłopot, & Kozdraś, 2010) and a large number of people using social services (Lokalny Program Rewitalizacji, 2016, p. 28). One of its main streets is Traugutta Street described as an exemplification of a sociologically degraded metropolitan district (Włostowska, 2013). It should also be stated that it is very possible to come across undesirable activities when walking the district during the night. Thus, the sociological and spatial landscape of the studied part of Przedmieście Oławskie may be described as dark, unpleasant and depressing (Figure 1). That scenery was filled with cars parked alongside the wall. Within the context of author`s experience it might be characterised as messy, dirty and unarranged. There were garbage scattered all around, such as: plastic and glass bottles, useless pieces of household equipment, elements of clothing, cigarette leftovers, food waste, caps and uncleaned dogs’ droppings. The amount of green was small; the surface was uncured, covered mostly with compacted soil and scattered pebbles. There were lacking outdoor features such as garden chairs and tables or play infrastructure such as playgrounds, swings or slides (Figure 2).

Figure 1. The author's research took place in the backyards of Przedmieście Oławskie in Wroclaw, Poland. One of the backyards is presented in the photo. Source: author`s photo.

Figure 2. The entrance to one of the tenement houses from the backyard side in Przedmieście Oławskie in Wroclaw, Poland. Source: author`s photo.

Data collection & analysis

The research was carried out during the summer holiday period from June to September 2019. In total there were more than twenty hours of walks during which more than 70 children were followed and observed. Both, the nature of the research perspective and data collection process have specific consequences for the analysis of the data. In the case of ethnographic research, large amounts of data are gathered. This is also true in the case of projects of a relatively small scope. Data analysis in ethnographic research is not a separate stage but is part of the data gathering, supplementing, and interpreting processes at various project stages (Schutt, 2015). The methods of data analysis must be adequate to the formulated research questions. Extensive material was gathered during the original research. It consisted of field notes and photographs from the exploratory walks, notes from participatory observations, transcriptions, photographs and notes from meetings with children and tours guided by children. The analysis of the research materials led to the identification of significant categories that made it possible to describe children’s experiences regarding play spaces and places. The analysis was ongoing process, which means that the preliminary categories identified on the basis of the literature were subsequently repeatedly modified. Ultimately, the meaningful categories described below in the characterisation of children’s experiences of their play spaces were chosen.

Findings—Przedmieście Oławskie backyards seen from children’s perspective

Nature of play

The study showed the nature of outdoor free play performed by children in the specific environment with no parent`s supervision or play infrastructure such as fixed playgrounds, swings or slides. Thus, it is worth pointing out the specific play activities children displayed in their backyards. They may be divided into dynamic activities with high levels of exercise and energy, and activities with less movement and energy as seen as in Table 3, Play categories developed in the studied backyards.

Table 3. Play categories developed in the studied backyards.

Play with high levels of exercise and energy	Play with less movement and energy
running (fast), racing, chasing, kicking the balls and other objects such as pebbles, sometimes kicking the walls, throwing pebbles and other objects, climbing around two-meter high walls and roofs of garages, jumping from staircases, balancing on walls, playing symbolic play for example in wars or dancing, playing games such as hide-and-seek.	walking, going for a stroll, talking, discussing, giggling, sitting on short walls and talking, ‘wandering’ aimlessly, venturing, planning what to do, drawing on the sand with foot or stick.

Source: own elaboration.

The high energy activities were usually accompanied by loud laughter, screams and cheers. Activities that manifested less movement and energy were thus quieter.

Many children`s activities observed in the backyards of Przedmieście Oławskie may serve as examples of risky play. According to Sandseter (2009) risky play are ‘thrilling and exciting forms of play that involve a risk of physical injury’ (p. 4). There are many taxonomies of this type of play. Taking into account six categories developed by Sandseter (2009, p. 6) it is worth pointing out that four of them may be applied to describe play in Przedmieście Oławskie. These four categories are related to:

• great heights, such as climbing, balancing on high objects, jumping from still or flexible surfaces,

• high speed activities such as racing and running, jumping from staircases,

• using dangerous objects such as throwing pebbles and stones into each other or playing with sharp elements found in backyards,

• disappearing or getting lost; exploring the surrounding alone; disappearing from the supervision of adults.

The last of the presented categories of risky play developed by Sandseter (2009) was a dominant form of play in examined backyards. Children stayed outdoor unsupervised most of their time.

According to the Play Wales organisation (2017) there are sixteen play types based on taxonomy developed by Hughes for the purpose of play leaders and adults who facilitate play. Some of them may be applied into studied backyards of Przedmieście Oławskie, for example:

• deep play (risky or adventurous play): when children encounter risky experience and conquer fear,

• locomotor play: when children move for its own sake; jumping, playing chase, climbing trees,

• rough and tumble play: when children have fun and do a lot of touching, gauging relative strength, tickling.

Rough and tumble play is usually related to play fighting. Sandseter`s (2009, p. 9) describes it as: wrestling, fencing with sticks, etc. Although no play fights were observed in the studied backyards, there were numerous pushing or strong hitting elements that testify to this type of play.

It should be noted that the type of activities performed by older children differed in relation to their gender. Girls more often performed calmer activities such as walking and giggling, while boys engaged in more intense physical activities, for example: playing with a ball and running. It is also worth noticing that some girls were just as much in favour of particular games (generally chosen by boys) as boys. Both boys and girls climbed walls or roofs of low buildings. However, boys displayed this kind of activities longer and more often than girls. Interestingly, the opposite situation did not take place. It was rare to observe boys taking up activities such as: walking, holding hands, whispering to each other with giggling.

Places liked and tamed

The presented analyses largely focused on places of which the children spoke critically or favourably—in other words spaces associated with various emotions. Children often sympathised with spaces and places they used for playing. In relation to this context, research showed what types of places children liked the most (See Table 4, Spaces and places children liked the most).

Table 4. Spaces and places children liked the most.

Brief characteristics of the play outdoor places	Notes from the filed diary
Places in which one can climb, such as: a junk car, trees, garages, walls	Alan, 7 years old: I’m like a monkey, I like climbing the most. They call me a monkey not without a reason. Wiktoria, 7 years old: We go to the roofs, those here. It’s good to have fun climbing but not everyone can do this, because Olek cannot. He is too small.
Places used as a good hideout while playing hide-and-seek, for example: staircases, recesses, sheds	Zuzia, 5,5 years old: The best place for a hideout is in my staircases, there are two of them, you can go in and hide. Piotrek, 5 years old: I hide most often behind the garage. You can run fast out there and they can’t see how you run.
Places where one can sit, such as short walls (there was no benches chairs or other garden furniture provided in the backyards)	Igor, 7 years old: I like it here [showing a short wall], you can sit and play or talk. There are not so many seats over here. Natasza, 9 years old: This is my favourite place [pointing to a short wall]. We spent a lot of time here just talking, laughing and scratching things on the ground with your foot.
Places tamed by children and exceptionally close to them, for example a staircase leading to flats or a favourite place to hang out	Julia, 8 years old: I have got my own staircase and I like dancing there, I spend a lot of time there and practice acrobatics. I go to the roof also, it’s so low. Wiktoria, 7 years old: I love my staircase. This is my best place to hide when we play hide-and-seek. I can move around then they are looking for me. I can be never catch.
Places related to the events happened in past, for example: backyards’ picnic and fests	Alan, 7 years old: I like it the most we had fun last summer. It was such a fest (…) there were balloons, we did different things. Alan, 7 years old: I like it a lot when these people came by with all the balloons and face paints. There was a lottery. Many things were going on and this place looked colourful.

Source: own elaboration.

It is not surprising that children preferred specific play spaces depending on their emotions—they frequently valued spaces through feelings they experienced: sadness, fear, excitement, joy etc. The source of these emotions might have been: a particular place, a type of play, an activity repetitively undertaken in specific place or an event that took place in particular space. What is more, emotions might have been trigged by elements temporary located in backyards and perceived as important by children. For instance, four-year-old Julia, with great commitment and enthusiasm talked about her favourite place while pointing to a cat. In this case, the source of positive emotions was the girl’s attachment to particular animal.

According to Tuan (1977) children use their spaces and places in significantly more unceremonious way than adults. For children places are extremely flexible and create endless possibilities for play. Children—through their actions—transformed unknown and unrecognised space into well-known places filled them with their own experiences, senses, meanings, ideas and fantasies. They explore and ‘tame’ what was first new and unknown. This is how an ordinary outside staircase became ‘the staircase’ for Wiktoria (7 years old)—a place full of personal meanings given while playing hide-and-seek.

Spaces disliked and ambivalent attitude to backyards

Children often value spaces and places depending on emotions that are triggered when playing or exploring backyards. These are not always positive emotions. During the research there were numerous situations when children experienced anxiety, fear, sadness etc. For example, six and a half years old Julek did not like playing on the playground located in his neighbourhood because of the acts of violence he often experienced there: ‘I do not go there, they beat me. I got beaten many times and do not walk there anymore.’ Adults and teenagers occupying the backyard forbade Julek to play. They pushed him, hit him and directed offensive names toward him. In this way, initially attractive space of the playground became an unwanted and repulsive place for the boy.

The results of the research also showed that older children attached great importance to the aesthetic dimension of the spaces and places they used. All the children over the age of five emphasised the disarray and disorder prevailing in the backyards, indicating filth, rubbish and odours coming out of rubbish bin especially in summer. This is confirmed by the words of Natalia (7 years old): ‘It stinks here. There are lots of flies. I sometimes clean the rubbish, but nobody else does any cleaning.’ Older children also disliked the unpaved backyards. Their play was disturbed by scattered stones, dirt, and large puddles. For example, Zuzia (5.5 years old) said the following: ‘I don’t like it when it rains, because there are puddles then, and I don’t like the garbage cans, because there are flies and rubbish there.’ Kuba (9 years old), in turn, noted the uneven surface: ‘There are lots of places that are uneven, and we trip over when we run.’ The children complained that there were no playgrounds, swings, or sports fields. What was surprising some children frequently showed ambivalent attitudes to the backyards. They voiced critical opinions about the equipment and the appearance of backyards. However, they liked playing there with their friends. This is exemplified by the words of Kuba (9 years old): ‘I don’t like this backyard. I mean I like it, but it’s ugly. But still, it’s good I can meet there with my friends and run, for example.’ It also turned out that disliked spaces could contain liked or valuable places and objects or evoke positive memories. An example is provided by the words of Ola (7 years old): ‘I didn’t like to come here because it smells bad here. Well, it stinks from the rubbish bins. But here is where you can climb to the roof the easiest. It’s the easiest and the fastest for me, so after all I come here and kind of like it.’

It is important to notice that children’s valuation of spaces in backyards into those liked and disliked differed significantly in relation rather to their age, than gender. It turned out that older boys and older girls (over the age of five) expressed more critical opinions than three-year-olds and four-year-olds. Younger children generally evaluated their play spaces and places positively. These children gave greater attention to items and toys brought from their homes, such as: plastic chairs, buckets, dolls, toy cars. They usually played with those object under supervision of their older siblings. Younger children accompanied by their parents more often than their older friends visited other backyards equipped with sandpits or swings.

Appropriation of space

The results of the research showed that children were aware of the social processes of space appropriation by other users. This is another phenomenon important to discuss. Feldman and Stall (2004) understand appropriation of space as ‘individuals’ and groups’ creation, choice, possession, modification, enhancement of, care for, and/or simply intentional use of a space to make it one`s own’ (p. 184). During the research children often referred to places occupied by adults. Those places were foreign to children, unfamiliar and unfriendly to them. An example is so-called ‘car park.’ Ola, Piotrek, Szymon, and Maja knew very well where the ‘car park’ was located and how to get there. But, in what they said, they made it clear that ‘that’s not where you go.’ The car park space was appropriated by a specific group of adults. They manifested a number of practises and activities specific for their group and confirming their identification, such as sitting in the space and drinking alcohol, controlling the space by being verbally offensive and looking dangerous.

On the other hand, roofs of garages might be recognised as good example of spaces appropriated by children. These spaces were perceived as unattractive and unwonted by adults and therefore children could use them ‘freely.’ It is difficult to state that children claimed any other particular spaces. They rather used the backyards in a spontaneous way, making an advantage of the spaces accessible for them at the moment. Implementing nomenclature developed by de Certeau (1984) they used tactics—tricks and jokes made in the field of more powerful one. Tactics are opportunistic and defensive; they are ways of coping and constantly playing out activities available at the moment.

Awareness of the social context of backyards

Important dimension revealed during the research was the social context of the use of backyards. Apart from tangible aspects of backyard equipment, children also noted social and cultural aspects affecting their day-to-day functioning. What may be surprising is the fact that children above five years of age had a pejorative attitude to homeless adults and adults so-called ‘bin divers’ who searched refuse bins. The words of Maja (6 years old) provided an example: ‘I don’t like winos, rotten apples, rubbish, sots. I don’t like it when someone sits in my staircase.’ The informal and insulting word ‘wino’ was a part of the children’s ordinary vocabulary. It may be said that such behaviour reflects the lack of respect for homeless people shown by a part of Polish society in general. It may also reflect the conviction that homeless people play a negative social role. In explaining the mechanisms of children’s pejorative attitudes to such people, reference to the unique educational communities formed in backyards may be helpful. As pointed out by Zwiernik (2009), such backyards are relatively isolated environments where children of different ages and different sexes share experiences, dexterity, and resourcefulness, develop communicative and social skills, learn to cooperate, and get to know models of specific social roles. A sense of solidarity is built and reinforced among the users of backyards in the course of their daily activities and socialisation. Therefore, with reference to Corsaro’s (2015) interpretive reproduction theory, it should be said that children by creating and negotiating their own cultures reproduce undesired social patterns existing in their everyday living environments and shown by adults who use it. Attention in this context should also be drawn to social problems accumulated in Przedmieście Oławskie, such as the low activity of the local communities, poor sense of responsibility for the living place, poor identification with it, numerous acts of vandalism or demoralising behaviour manifested in the public space (Lokalny Program Rewitalizacji, 2016).

What is more, when the children talked about their backyards, they frequently compared them to other spaces of this type. For instance, Oliwia (7 years old) said: ‘I like playing in Ola’s backyard because it’s nicer. They have a carpet beating rack there, and the yard is bigger.’ Kuba (9 years old), in turn, said: ‘I don’t like playing here, because there’s nowhere to play here. There’s no sports field, no goals.’ Zosia (8 years old) also made reference to a broader context: ‘There’s no playground, such a normal one, like all kids have. We don’t have anything here.’ The children said that their peers in other backyards had it ‘better,’ ‘nicer,’ or ‘normal.’ Thus, the children feel that their backyards are not normal but deviate from socially defined standard of what is normal. Their backyards are worse and ugly because they do not have playgrounds, they are grey and dirty, and ‘there’s nothing there.’ It could mean they were aware of the disadvantage of their environment and its social neglect.

Discussion—(anti-)play outdoor environment?

The ambiguity regarding play conditions created in the backyards of Przedmieście Oławskie suggested in the title of the article refers to the international debate on play (Brown & Patte, 2013; Frost, 2010). The context of academic and social discourse exposed the deprivation of unstructured play in nature in children’s daily routine (Louv, 2010). Properly arranged play environment should be easy to explore by children in the company of their peers and without attendance of parents. It should provide wide range of play activities as well as create opportunities to experience risk and challenge. It should make use of natural elements and allow for change and evolution (Shackell et al., 2008, p. 13). Thus, it may be stated that Przedmieście Oławskie meets some of those requirements and creates favourable conditions for free and risky play. Children had opportunity to play and experience their natural surrounding without adult’s supervision. Play area was composed with open space and provided with risky elements: climbing structures, bumpy surface with pebbles. Children could make use of some natural materials such as sand, mud, pebbles. However, taking into account unpleasant physical landscape and poor socio-cultural background of Przedmieście Oławskie, it turns out that in fact play conditions provided in this area might have been rather seen as undesirable and unfavourable—children might have perceived the unpleasant and ugly landscape as a ‘normal,’ the only one possible. First of all, physical landscape of Przedmieście Oławskie with its open space and bumpy ground missed green plants and trees that provide natural materials and create crucial conditions for observation of nature and seasons’ changing. In this way, studied backyards ensured poor conditions for free and unsupervised play in nature.

Secondly, children’s freedom and unsupervised play were only apparent. They rather should be read as signs of neglect or failure to respect parental responsibilities rather. Children through playing and using backyards participated in the practices of social reconstruction of those spaces—they learned ‘survival skills’ ready to use ‘only’ in that specific environment. In this light, insights into the multifaceted socio-cultural reality hidden behind the children’s perspective rediscovered the question on outdoor play opportunities in studied backyards. Utopian visions of a safe, joyful and carefree childhood has been questioned. It is also worth quoting the words of Mendel (2006), who noticed that: ‘the places mark changes and respond to every human activity in life, create it completely as it creates it in a result of its constant interference and more or less spectacular transformations. We can say that places refer to us with reciprocity’ (p. 45). In this context, the question about the consequences of the reciprocal interactions between children and their backyards opens up a new way of thinking about the educational environment of Przedmieście Oławskie and thus causes an anxiety. The utopian type of childhood happens next to Przedmieście Oławskie, but not there.

Conclusions

The research revealed diversity and the depth of the child’s perception and understanding of play space on the example of backyards of Przedmieście Oławskie in Wrocław, Poland. The wide range of children’s experiences of backyards spaces in relation to their feelings, types of play and activities as well as physical features of the landscape was presented. What is more, it turned out that children value their play spaces regarding not only their emotions or undertaken activities but also social knowledge. It is important to notice that children through playing and using backyards spaces participated in the practices of space appropriation and of social production and construction of those spaces. Their awareness of the socio-cultural aspects of the usage of backyards was visible throughout the research. Therefore, it may be stated that children have competences to deeply value their living and playing conditions from different angles. The role of children as experts on matters close and important to them was showed within the study.

What is more, the importance of critical insights into socio-cultural environment of children’s lives has been underlined again with this paper. In other words, it seems to be crucial to consider specific features of children’s living environments while planning successful pedagogical, social or political actions and strategies. As Horton and Kraftl (2017) argued it is extremely significant to adopt more careful, sustained and combinative approaches in order to deeply apprehend the multidimensional reality of children’s outdoor play in diverse urban contexts. It should also be noted that the research was highly subjective due to the selected research strategy and the individual interpretation of the observed phenomena.2010

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).