Natural playgrounds

Definition

Natural playgrounds are outdoor play spaces that integrate native vegetation and natural materials to support unstructured play while creating small, functional habitats for urban biodiversity.

What this strategy does

Provides nature-based play opportunities for children while contributing to local habitat creation and ecological connectivity. Avoids highly standardised, synthetic play equipment with no ecological function.

Context

In Aotearoa New Zealand cities with limited Indigenous vegetation cover, embedding biodiversity within everyday social infrastructure such as playgrounds helps normalise human–nature interaction and incrementally improve urban ecological function.

---

Technical considerations

Design considerations

Vegetation structure

• Use layered native planting (trees, shrubs, groundcover) to provide shelter, foraging, and nesting opportunities for urban wildlife. ¹

Habitat features

• Retain or introduce logs, rocks, dead wood, and informal water elements if appropriate, to create microhabitats for birds and invertebrates.¹, ²

Species-specific elements

• Consider incorporating features such as nesting boxes, perches, and basking surfaces where appropriate, aligned with local species requirements.³

Implementation considerations

Landscape integration

• Locate and design playgrounds to connect with nearby green spaces or ecological corridors where possible, reducing isolation effects for biodiversity.⁴

User interface

• Use design cues and signage to encourage respectful interaction with vegetation and wildlife without over-formalising play.⁵

---

Issues & barriers

Habitat fragmentation

• Small, isolated playgrounds are unlikely to support viable populations of sensitive native species without wider landscape connectivity.⁶

Maintenance capacity

• Naturalised play spaces require ongoing ecological maintenance and monitoring, which may exceed standard parks budgets.⁷

Policy coordination

• Responsibility for playground delivery, biodiversity outcomes, and pest control is often fragmented across agencies.⁸

---

Synergies & opportunities

• Human wellbeing
• Psychological restoration – Play environments with higher perceived biodiversity and naturalness are associated with improved mood and reduced stress.⁹, ¹⁰
• Physical activity – Natural playgrounds encourage diverse, self-directed physical play linked to improved childhood health outcomes.¹
• Environmental education – Daily exposure to nature-rich play spaces supports children’s awareness and positive attitudes toward local biodiversity.¹, ²

---

Financial case

Health cost avoidance

• Access to biodiverse green spaces is associated with improved physical and mental health, reducing long-term public health costs.¹, ³

Cost-effectiveness: Multi-functional investment

• Integrating biodiversity into required recreational infrastructure delivers ecological and social benefits without additional land acquisition.¹, ³

---

Monitoring & evaluation metrics

Core metric

• Native species presence and activity (birds, invertebrates, plants) can be assessed through periodic ecological surveys.⁶

Advanced metric

• User engagement with natural features and changes in ecological literacy can be measured through observational studies or surveys.¹, ²

---

Additional resources or tools

• Ministry of Education: Playgrounds on School Sites. Guidance on playground design, safety, and integration of natural features.
• Christchurch City Council – Play Inspiration in Natural Environments. Examples of nature-based playgrounds in neighbourhood parks.

References

1. Ye, Q., Wang, X., Liang, L., Qiu, J., & Tsim, S. (2025). A review on landscape factors for biodiversity performance enhancement in urban parks. Diversity, 17(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/d17040262
2. Hedblom, M., Mårtensson, F., Sang, Å., Wiström, B., & Litsmark, A. (2024). Play biotopes put into practice—Creating synergies between children and nature. People and Nature. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10708
3. Wallace, K., & Clarkson, B. (2019). Urban forest restoration ecology: A review from Hamilton, New Zealand. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 49, 347–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/03036758.2019.1637352
4. Nguyễn, T., Meurk, C., Benavidez, R., Jackson, B., & Pahlow, M. (2021). The effect of blue-green infrastructure on habitat connectivity and biodiversity. Sustainability, 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU13126732
5. White, R., Eberstein, K., & Scott, D. (2018). Birds in the playground. PLoS ONE, 13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193993
6. Soanes, K., et al. (2023). Conserving urban biodiversity: Current practice, barriers, and enablers. Conservation Letters, 16. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12946
7. Prioreschi, E., et al. (2024). Interrelationships and trade-offs between urban natural space use and biodiversity. Sustainability, 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104051
8. Prodanović, V., Bach, P., & Stojković, M. (2024). Urban nature-based solutions planning for biodiversity outcomes. Urban Ecosystems. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-024-01558-6
9. Cameron, R., et al. (2020). Do urban green spaces with greater avian biodiversity promote positive emotions? Urban Ecosystems, 23, 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-020-00929-z
10. Wood, E., et al. (2018). Biodiversity predicts psychological restorative benefits. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02320
11. Hand, K., Freeman, C., Seddon, P., Recio, M., Stein, A., & van Heezik, Y. (2018). Restricted home ranges reduce children’s opportunities to connect to nature. Landscape and Urban Planning, 172, 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.12.004
12. White, R., Eberstein, K., & Scott, D. (2018). Birds in the playground: Evaluating environmental education outcomes. PLoS ONE, 13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193993
13. Catalano, C., et al. (2021). Smart sustainable cities of the new millennium. Circular Economy and Sustainability, 1, 1053–1086. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-021-00100-6