{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02663230240549828, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003436426116838488, 'mean_word_length': 5.099476439790576, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Risky statement?: a critique of the Position Statement on Active Outdoor Play

ABSTRACT Now more than ever, scholars argue that Canadians live in a risk-adverse society. The preoccupation with children’s safety has restricted where and how Canadian children play, with fewer children playing in playgrounds and streets and instead playing closer to home. Fewer children are thus engaging in active, independent, free, and risky outdoor play. In response to this, the 2015 release of the Position Statement on Active Outdoor Play urges parents to allow their children to play more freely and independently outdoors and experience more risk-taking during play. This paper critiques the PSAOP by offering critical insight into the ways in which it fails to consider children who are of Aboriginal (i.e. First Nations, Inuit, and Métis) status, interact with at-risk environments on a continual basis, and live in rural and remote communities and households. Further, the PSAOP does not address important sex-based considerations. Our critique demonstrates that a nation-wide statement promoting all children’s engagement with active outdoor play may in fact be risky.