Most playground decisions come down to cost, layout, and how fast a build can go up. Surfacing usually gets picked last, and mostly for logistics — what's easy to maintain, what's easy to install, what fits the budget.
New research out of The University of Texas at Austin's Center for Research to Community Impact says that's the wrong order of operations. Surfacing isn't a backdrop for the playground equipment. It's one of the biggest factors in whether kids actually play.
What the research measured
UT's team set out to answer a question that's been talked about for years without a real definition behind it: what makes a playground actually work? They call it "playability" — the physical and social characteristics of a playground that make it more or less conducive to active, social, engaging, inclusive play for everyone who uses it.
To measure it, researchers built a system called SOPLAYGROUND — the System for Observing Playability in Playgrounds. It tracks visitation, activity level, social interaction, age and demographic mix, plus context like weather, accessibility, and cleanliness. Across 60 field observations at six Austin playgrounds, and 89 caregiver surveys, they compared the three most common surfacing materials: engineered wood fiber (EWF), poured-in-place rubber (PIP), and synthetic turf — specifically, Playground Grass™ by ForeverLawn®.
What they found
Three things came out of the data:
The numbers behind that third point are hard to argue with. Playground Grass surfaces averaged about 12 users at a time, more than either alternative. In lower-income neighborhoods, that gap widened: 15 users on average for Playground Grass versus 3 for other surfaces.
Active play told the same story. Across all observations, roughly 52% of kids on Playground Grass were actively engaged, compared to 34% on PIP and 16% on EWF in higher-income areas — and just 23% combined for non-Playground Grass surfaces in lower-income neighborhoods.
Social play followed the pattern too. Playground Grass averaged 2.7 groups of kids engaged in active, social play per observation. EWF and PIP combined for less than 2. In lower-income neighborhoods, Playground Grass saw more than five times as many social play groups as the other two surfaces combined.
What caregivers said
The 89 caregiver surveys backed up what the field observations showed. Parents rated Playground Grass higher across three areas in particular: socialization, safety, and equitable design. They pointed specifically to comfort, cleanliness, fewer issues with loose debris, and more features that work for kids of different ability levels — all of which lined up with why their kids asked to come back.
Why this matters for anyone planning a playground
If you're an architect, a parks and rec director, or a school district weighing surfacing options, this research gives you something most surfacing decisions haven't had before: a way to measure the actual outcome — whether kids use the space, play actively, play together, and want to return — rather than just comparing maintenance schedules and price per square foot.
Surfacing was never just a compliance checkbox. It's one of the clearest levers a design team has for closing play-quality gaps between neighborhoods, and for building a playground that earns repeat visits instead of just sitting there.
Want the full data — the charts, the methodology, the complete breakdown by income level?
Download the complete white paper: How Playground Surfacing Impacts Play: The Importance of Playability, informed by independent research from The University of Texas at Austin's Center for Research to Community Impact.
Source: Salvo, D., Jowers, E., Morrison, B., Garza, C., & Le, S. (2026, February 27). A Comprehensive, Mixed-Methods Examination of the Impact of Playground Surfaces on Playability and Child and Community Wellbeing. Center for Research to Community Impact. https://crci.education.utexas.edu/project/study-impact-of-playground-surfaces/
Contact us at admin@tx.foreverlawn.com or visit foreverlawntexas.com to get started.