Children's play space and safety management: rethinking the role of play equipment standards

The provision of stimulating and engaging play space for children and young people is increasingly recognized as an important societal goal, not the least because it provides the young with opportunities to develop and gain experience in experimenting with risk. Research in several disciplines now suggests that achievement of this goal has however been impeded in recent decades, and reasons commonly cited have included fear of injury and avoidance of litigation. International standards on play equipment have also been promulgated and justified in terms of securing young people’s “safety,” most usually narrowly defined as injury reduction. There appears to be a widespread presumption that measures aimed at injury prevention are necessarily beneficial overall for young people’s welfare. In this article, we subject European standards for play equipment and surfacing to scrutiny. In particular, we examine underlying motives, consistency of purpose, use of evidence, philosophical leanings, scope, practicalities of application, systems of management, and legal ramifications. From this, we identify a number of fundamental issues that suggest that as a consequence of compartmentalized thinking and misunderstandings, these standards have invaded areas of decision making beyond their legitimate territory. The consequence of this is that play provision is skewed away from what are properly play provision objectives. In such circumstances, local decision makers are often disempowered, and their ability to provide optimal play spaces thereby circumscribed

Avoiding a dystopian future for children's play

Describes the conflict between children's freedom to play and the quest for safety and makes recommendations for the future

Ecological Science Infrastructure for Sustainability Transformations in Rangelands

Sustainability transformations—deliberate and radical shifts in values, governance, and management regimes to achieve sustainability—are needed in rangelands as in other components of the Earth system. We review four concepts comprising an ecological science infrastructure to support such transformations. The foundation is standard measurement of rangeland conditions in the field, especially vegetation and soil properties that underpin the environmental aspects of sustainability. Big data resources, especially gridded spatial datasets produced by models and remote sensing, can be combined with field data and computational approaches to upscale information about rangeland conditions and produce additional indicators of ecosystem functions and services. State and transition models (STMs) linked to land types provide a means to interpret indicators and link interpretations to sustainable land management practices to manage change. Technologies for climate adaptation in rangelands also need to be linked to STM databases. Web and mobile technologies can put multifaceted science knowledge into the hands of pastoralists worldwide to support transformational changes in how rangelands are managed

Case Study: Applying Ecological Site Concepts to Adaptive Conservation Management on an Iconic Californian Landscape

On the Ground • Managers of large landscapes with limited financial resources can use ecological sites and state-and-transition models to identify landscape divisions with the highest chances of responding favorably to management activities. • This conceptual framework can help determine the optimal configuration of pastures and water developments so that conservation-focused grazing and response monitoring align with focal landscape divisions. • As communication tools, these models can help conservation land managers and graziers to better understand how the variation in landscapes affects the distribution of conservation targets and the specific locations where management can be tailored to enhance biodiversity.The Rangelands archives are made available by the Society for Range Management and the University of Arizona Libraries. Contact [email protected] for further information.Migrated from OJS platform March 202

Applying ecological site concepts and state-and-transition models to a grazed riparian rangeland

Ecological sites and state‐and‐transition models are useful tools for generating and testing hypotheses about drivers of vegetation composition in rangeland systems. These models have been widely implemented in upland rangelands, but comparatively, little attention has been given to developing ecological site concepts for rangeland riparian areas, and additional environmental criteria may be necessary to classify riparian ecological sites. Between 2013 and 2016, fifteen study reaches on five creeks were studied at Tejon Ranch in southern California. Data were collected to describe the relationship between riparian vegetation composition, environmental variables, and livestock management; and to explore the utility of ecological sites and state‐and‐transition models for describing riparian vegetation communities and for creating hypotheses about drivers of vegetation change. Hierarchical cluster analysis was used to classify the environmental and vegetation data (15 stream reaches × 4 years) into two ecological sites and eight community phases that comprised three vegetation states. Classification and regression tree (CART) analysis was used to determine the influence of abiotic site variables, annual precipitation, and cattle activity on vegetation clusters. Channel slope explained the greatest amount of variation in vegetation clusters; however, soil texture, geology, watershed size, and elevation were also selected as important predictors of vegetation composition. The classification tree built with this limited set of abiotic predictor variables explained 90% of the observed vegetation clusters. Cattle grazing and annual precipitation were not linked to qualitative differences in vegetation. Abiotic variables explained almost all of the observed riparian vegetation dynamics—and the divisions in the CART analysis corresponded roughly to the ecological sites—suggesting that ecological sites are well‐suited for understanding and predicting change in this highly variable system. These findings support continued development of riparian ecological site concepts and state‐and‐transition models to aid decision making for conservation and management of rangeland riparian areas

Data from: Applying ecological site concepts and state-and-transition models to a grazed riparian rangeland

Ecological sites and state-and-transition models are useful tools for generating and testing hypotheses about drivers of vegetation composition in rangeland systems. These models have been widely implemented in upland rangelands, but comparatively little attention has been given to developing ecological site concepts for rangeland riparian areas, and additional environmental criteria may be necessary to classify riparian ecological sites. Between 2013 and 2016, fifteen study reaches on five creeks were studied at Tejon Ranch in southern California. Data were collected to describe the relationship between riparian vegetation composition, environmental variables, and livestock management; and to explore the utility of ecological sites and state-and-transition models for describing riparian vegetation communities and for creating hypotheses about drivers of vegetation change. Hierarchical cluster analysis was used to classify the environmental and vegetation data (15 stream reaches 4 years) into two ecological sites and eight community phases that comprised three vegetation states. Classification and regression tree (CART) analysis was used to determine the influence of abiotic site variables, annual precipitation, and cattle activity on vegetation clusters. Channel slope explained the greatest amount of variation in vegetation clusters; however, soil texture, geology, watershed size, and elevation were also selected as important predictors of vegetation composition. The classification tree built with this limited set of abiotic predictor variables explained 90% of the observed vegetation clusters. Cattle grazing and annual precipitation were not linked to qualitative differences in vegetation. Abiotic variables explained almost all of the observed riparian vegetation dynamics—and the divisions in the CART analysis corresponded roughly to the ecological sites—suggesting that ecological sites are well-suited for understanding and predicting change in this highly variable system. These findings support continued development of riparian ecological site concepts and state-and-transition models to aid decision making for conservation and management of rangeland riparian areas