Although playgrounds and outdoor fitness areas have the potential to counteract physical inactivity (e.g., Kahn et al., 2002; Colabianchi et al., 2009; Talarowski et al., 2019; Cohen et al., 2020; Zhai et al., 2020), research on stepping-stones landscapes suggests that the predominant standardized dimensions are not in line with the target users’ preferences (Jongeneel et al., 2015; Sporrel et al., 2017; Jeschke et al., 2020, 2022). On the one hand, architects often create standardized playgrounds and outdoor fitness areas, where components (e.g., bars, steps, rings etc.) are equally sized and the distances between them equally spaced. For example, the influential architect Aldo van Eyck generally organized his famous stepping-stones landscapes in a standardized, symmetrical figure-eight pattern, creating only two different gap widths to cross (Withagen and Caljouw, 2017). However, on the other hand, a series of experiments revealed that children, young and older adults create stepping-stones landscapes with variation in gap widths (Sporrel et al., 2017; Jeschke et al., 2020) and judge landscapes with nonstandardized dimensions as more fun and even as more esthetically appealing than the standardized ones (Sporrel et al., 2017; Jeschke et al., 2022, 2023).¹ Hence, to help architects to arrive at designs that meet the desires of the target users, it is important to scrutinize why participants did not seek for standardization, while architects generally do.

One hypothesis is that the different pull toward standardization could be explained by characteristics of the design processes. That is, while the participants in the reported studies designed the landscapes in situ (Jongeneel et al., 2015; Jeschke et al., 2020), landscape architects traditionally design on a map. Already in 1990, Olwig suggested that this might make a difference.

And although nowadays 3D software is widely available, Li et al. (2014) found that most members of the American Society of Landscape Architects still design on 2D maps—only 30% of the 427 responders often used 3D software during the design process. Thus, it could be that architects tend to seek for more standardized designs than the individuals who participated in earlier research (Jongeneel et al., 2015; Sporrel et al., 2017; Jeschke et al., 2020, 2022), because architects often design on a plane surface, while these participants designed the configurations In Situ.

We tested this hypothesis in the present study. To that end, we analyzed stepping-stones landscapes created by participants in two different conditions. One group of participants was to create the configuration on a grass plot (in-situ group) whereas another group was to create the landscape on a computer that displayed a 2D map of the field (map group). We compared the number of different gap widths created from either perspective, to determine if the configurations created by the map group were indeed more standardized.

Figure 3 shows for both groups the number of perceived crossable gaps and the number of different crossable gap widths (i.e., the number of derived clusters). Both groups created variation in gap widths—75% of the participants in the in-situ group and 63% of the participants in the map group created three or more different distances to cross. Shapiro–Wilk test of normality revealed that there was no normal distribution within groups regarding the number of perceived crossable gaps (ps < .001) and the number of different crossable gap widths (ps < .001). Although this might not harm the robustness of an independent t-test (because of the relatively large sample size; see Sawilowsky and Blair, 1992), we nevertheless opted for using a Mann–Whitney-U test. ³ No significant differences were found between the groups in the number of indicated crossable gaps (U = 2123, z = −0.571, p = .568, r = .049) and in the number of different gap widths after hierarchical cluster analysis (U = 2033, z = −0.974, p = .330, r = .084). This suggests that the created degree of standardization was not significantly affected by the perspective on a design.

While architects often design standardized playgrounds and outdoor fitness areas, recent research studying stepping-stones landscapes found that children, young adults and older adults create nonstandardized configurations (Jongeneel et al., 2015; Jeschke et al., 2020). We hypothesized that this difference could be explained by the fact that landscape architects generally design on a 2D map while the participants designed the configurations in situ (see also Olwig, 1990; Withagen and Caljouw, 2017). To test this, we examined the number of different (crossable) gap widths created by participants who designed a stepping-stones configuration in situ and participants who designed the configuration on a map behind a computer. Contrary to our hypothesis, we found no indications that designing in 2D leads to more standardized configurations than designing in situ. Non-architects not only create nonstandardized configurations in real-life, but also created nonstandardized configurations on a 2D map. In the remainder of the discussion, we will explore two other possible hypotheses that could account for the differences between architects and users, and that await testing in future studies.

One possible explanation for the different attraction to standardization could be that architects might be more esthetically motivated than the studied participants. That is, standardization generally leads to visual structure and balance, features found to be esthetically appealing in images (Wilson and Chatterjee, 2005; Hübner and Fillinger, 2016; Van Geert and Wagemans, 2021; Wu et al., 2023; see also Footnote 1; but see Van Geert and Wagemans, 2020). Indeed, it is not unlikely that architects are more concerned about such esthetics in their designs than non-architects (Olwig, 1990; Withagen and Caljouw, 2017). For example, recently our research group was consulted by landscape architects who aimed to create fun stepping-stones landscapes based on our findings so far. We explained to the architects that variation in gap widths was a prominent factor that participants of all ages preferred, and we proposed some drafts. The landscape architects were enthusiastic and adopted the drafts almost completely in the final designs. However interestingly, they still slightly tweaked the stones into a more orderly pattern than we advised (with less gap-width variation), reasoning that the appearance of the configuration would otherwise be “too messy” for the streetscape. Participants in our research, on the other hand, were possibly less concerned about such esthetic-related factors, resulting in more nonstandardized landscapes.

Another hypothesis is that architects are trained to work with standardized measures of architectural elements. Indeed, Imrie (2003) interviewed several architects and architectural course tutors in the United Kingdom and noted that “most degree schemes use a range of textbooks, such as the Metric Handbook (Adler, 1999) and Neufert and Neufert’s (2000) Architects’ Data, that do little to challenge the dominance of geometrical discourses” (Imrie, 2003, p. 54). The books, like many other design manuals (e.g., Panero and Zelnik, 1979; Bielefeld, 2018), present extensive lists of standard architectural dimensions that are based on the average human proportions and ranges of motion. Indeed, it is truly challenging to take into account the wide variety of action capabilities of a target group. Consequently, it is a “fail-safe option” (Imrie, 2003, p. 56) to base a measure within a design on a recommended, standard dimension. That is, whereas the examined non-architects could seek for a variety of action possibilities within their range of action capabilities, architects might be early-on primed to design with certain predefined measures of target groups recommended by design manuals.

Future research is needed to further scrutinize these hypotheses. Regardless, when aiming to design physical-activity-inducing environments, one should be aware of the criticism against standardized measures (e.g., Olwig, 1990; Nebelong, 2004; Withagen and Caljouw, 2017). First, humans vary in their bodily dimensions and action possibilities. Hence, to afford challenging and/or fun playgrounds and outdoor fitness areas to a variety of people, one should create a variety of gap widths (e.g., Withagen and Caljouw, 2017). Secondly, nonstandardized playground designs are better equipped to facilitate versatile movement than standardized playground design. And according to the variability-of-practice hypothesis, motor skills develop better when practiced in variable ways (e.g., Schmidt, 1975; Schmidt and Lee, 2003; Schöllhorn et al., 2010; Chow et al., 2011). Finally, and perhaps most important to attract people to the sites, the created designs in the present study once again underpin that the target users seem to prefer nonstandardized dimensions over standardized ones (see also Jongeneel et al., 2015; Sporrel et al., 2017; Jeschke et al., 2020, 2022, 2023).

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

AJ: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. SC: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. FZ: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. RW: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

The studies involving humans were approved by the local ethics committee (CTc, UMCG). The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.