Benefit-Risk Assessment Is Being Misused in Playground Design

Across New Zealand and internationally, informal and nature-based play environments are growing rapidly. Councils, schools, landscape architects, and communities are increasingly embracing more adventurous, natural, and less structured play experiences — and in many ways, this is a positive shift.

Children benefit from challenge. They benefit from uncertainty, exploration, movement, problem-solving, and managed risk. Exposure to challenge is an important part of physical, emotional, and social development.

Alongside this movement, Benefit-Risk Assessment (BRA) has become an increasingly common tool used by designers, operators, and governance bodies to evaluate play value and acceptable levels of risk within play environments.

However, a concerning misunderstanding is also emerging within parts of the sector:

Some are beginning to treat Benefit-Risk Assessment as though it overrides the explicit safety requirements of NZS 5828.

It does not. And this distinction is critically important.

What Benefit-Risk Assessment Actually Is

Benefit-Risk Assessment is a valuable and legitimate process. When used correctly, it allows designers and operators to consider the developmental and play benefits of an activity alongside the potential risks involved.

Challenge itself is not inherently bad. In fact, challenge is essential to meaningful play.

A well-considered BRA can help support:

• Appropriate levels of challenge

• Managed uncertainty

• Developmental play opportunities

• Adventure and exploration

• Natural play experiences

• Age-appropriate risk exposure

At Playsafe, we strongly support the importance of balanced play opportunities and recognise that eliminating all risk from play is neither achievable nor desirable.

But Benefit-Risk Assessment has limits.

A BRA is a supporting governance tool — not a compliance exemption.

NZS 5828 Already Includes Risk-Benefit Thinking

One of the biggest misconceptions currently emerging within the industry is the idea that playground standards are somehow “anti-risk” or opposed to adventurous play.

This is simply incorrect.

NZS 5828, like EN 1176 internationally, already incorporates decades of research, injury data, child development principles, and accepted levels of play challenge. The standard does not seek to eliminate risk. Rather, it seeks to reduce the likelihood of serious or life-threatening injury from foreseeable hazards.

The standard permits:

• Height

• Speed

• Motion

• Climbing challenge

• Balance challenge

• Rotational movement

• Dynamic play

• Managed risk-taking

What it does not permit are known serious injury mechanisms that are foreseeable, identifiable, and reasonably preventable.

This is where the line must remain clear.

A Benefit-Risk Assessment Cannot Override Explicit Safety Requirements

There appears to be a growing trend where BRA is being referenced to justify non-compliant elements within informal or bespoke play environments.

This is where governance becomes dangerous.

A Benefit-Risk Assessment should not justify:

• Head and neck entrapment hazards

• Failed impact attenuation surfacing

• Excessive free heights of fall

• Unsafe openings and accessible barrier failures

• Entrapment and entanglement hazards

• Structural instability

• Exposed concrete footings or hidden hard objects

• Inadequate falling space

• Known foreseeable severe injury hazards

These requirements exist because history has already shown us what happens when they are ignored.

Many of the dimensional and performance requirements within NZS 5828 are directly linked to serious injury and fatality prevention.

You cannot “risk-benefit” your way around a head entrapment.

You cannot “risk-benefit” failed surfacing performance.

You cannot “risk-benefit” a foreseeable catastrophic fall injury.

The Growing Confusion Around Informal Play

Informal and nature-based play environments are one of the fastest-growing sectors within playground design.

This includes:

• Tree swings

• Nature play

• Community-built play spaces

• Timber obstacle courses

• Bespoke sculptural play

• Rope elements

• Earthworks and boulder play

• Adventure trails

• Loose-parts play

Many of these environments can provide excellent play value when properly designed, governed, and maintained.

But “natural” does not mean “outside governance.”

This is a critical distinction many organisations are currently struggling with.

If a play environment is intentionally created, modified, installed, promoted, or managed for play, then governance responsibilities still exist.

The moment an organisation knowingly provides a play opportunity to the public, there is an expectation that foreseeable serious hazards have been identified and appropriately managed.

This is particularly important where councils or operators attempt to rely solely on a broad “risk-benefit” narrative while overlooking explicit compliance failures.

The Tree Swing Example

Tree swings are perhaps one of the clearest examples of this growing issue.

They are often promoted as authentic, adventurous, natural play experiences. Social media romanticises them heavily. Communities love them because they appear simple, nostalgic, and low-cost.

But many tree swings present multiple serious governance concerns:

• No compliant impact attenuation

• Exposed tree roots and compacted ground

• Unverified structural integrity of attachment points

• Uncontrolled swing trajectories

• Lack of inspection regimes

• Unmanaged wear

• Excessive fall zones

• No formal ownership or maintenance accountability

Yet they are frequently defended using broad “children need risk” arguments.

Children do need challenge.

But foreseeable severe injury hazards still require governance.

This is the distinction the sector cannot afford to lose.

The Governance Reality After an Injury

Following a serious playground injury, the conversation changes very quickly.

The question is rarely whether the playground was fun, adventurous, natural, or well-intentioned.

The questions become:

• Was the hazard foreseeable?

• Was it identifiable?

• Was it reasonably preventable?

• Was the playground compliant?

• Were inspections undertaken?

• Was maintenance documented?

• Was the operator aware of the hazard?

• Was there evidence of governance and due diligence?

This is where many organisations discover that informal play still carries very formal responsibilities.

A poorly understood or poorly applied Benefit-Risk Assessment will provide very little protection if explicit hazards were knowingly left unmanaged.

The owner/operator still carries the burden of proof.

Benefit-Risk Assessment Should Complement Standards — Not Replace Them

Benefit-Risk Assessment remains an important tool within modern play design and governance.

Used properly, it can help create richer, more meaningful play experiences while supporting appropriate levels of challenge and developmental opportunity.

But it must operate alongside standards compliance — not instead of it.

The best play environments are not those with the least risk.

They are the environments that successfully balance:

• Play value

• Challenge

• Developmental benefit

• Technical compliance

• Inspection

• Maintenance

• Governance

• Long-term operational safety

Informal play and adventurous play can absolutely coexist with good governance.

But only when Benefit-Risk Assessment is used as a supporting framework — not as a justification to ignore explicit safety requirements.

As the industry continues moving toward more natural and less traditional play environments, maintaining this distinction will become increasingly important.

Because informal play still requires formal governance.

—by Adam Stride

Play Safety Specialist

Founder & Director – Playsafe Ltd

RPII Level 3 Outdoor Play Inspector

RPII Level 4 Indoor Play Inspector

Further Reading

For those interested in the growing intersection between informal play, governance, risk-benefit assessment, and standards compliance, Adam Stride’s book Informal Play, Formal Governance explores these issues in greater detail, including real-world examples, governance challenges, and practical approaches for councils, schools, and playground operators.

Available here:Informal Play, Formal Governance – Playsafe Ltd