Low-Cost Corrugated Paper-Bamboo Sports Facilities for Rural Primary Schools: Design, Safety Testing, and Field Validation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.4108/eetpht.11.14270Keywords:
corrugated paper, bamboo composite, rural schools, sports facilities, frugal innovation, safety testingAbstract
Rural primary schools in mountainous areas often lack safe, versatile, and maintainable sports equipment because commercial systems are expensive to transport and install. This paper develops a low-cost corrugated paper-bamboo facility system in which corrugated board is used for replaceable, non-primary load panels and locally available bamboo forms the reusable frame. The design method combines a 95-response user survey, a constraint-based product specification, module-level prototype screening, and a four-week feasibility crossover with 24 pupils. Five modules were prototyped for throwing, target practice, coordination, and group games. For the most critical balance-rail assembly, the nominal design load was 1.20 kN, the measured maximum service load was 1.84 kN, and the failure load was 4.07 kN, giving a calculated ratio of 2.21; the values refer to different load definitions and are reported separately. The selected reference purchase price for a five-function commercial package was 5,470 RMB; the prototype material cost was 1,186 RMB and the full delivered prototype estimate was 1,744 RMB. During the pilot, the kit condition was associated with higher observed active-play time (27.9 versus 18.6 min per lesson) and task completion (81.6% versus 62.4%). Internal screening was designed with reference to selected criteria in ISO 8124-1 and EN 1176-1; it was not third-party certification. Use is limited to supervised, protected, low-load activities with daily inspection and replacement rules.
Downloads
References
[1] Hossain M. Frugal innovation: a review and research agenda.J Clean Prod. 2018;182:926–936.doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.091.
[2] Bocken M, Short S, Rana P, Evans S. A literature and practicereview to develop sustainable business model archetypes. JClean Prod. 2014;65:42–56.doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039.
[3] Ashby MF. Materials and sustainable development. Oxford:Butterworth-Heinemann; 2022.
[4] Panyarjun O, Burgess G. Prediction of bending strength oflong corrugated boxes. Packag Technol Sci. 2001;14(2):49–53.doi:10.1002/pts.533.
[5] Jamsari MA, Kueh C, Gray-Stuart EM, Dahm K, Bronlund JE. Experimental and numerical performance of corrugatedfibreboard at different orientations under four-point bendingtest. Packag Technol Sci. 2019;32(11):555–565.doi:10.1002/pts.2471.
[6] International Organization for Standardization. ISO 8124-1:2022. Safety of toys—Part 1: safety aspects related tomechanical and physical properties. Geneva: ISO; 2022.
[7] British Standards Institution. BS EN 1176-1:2017+A1:2023.Playground equipment and surfacing—Part 1: general safetyrequirements and test methods. London: BSI; 2023.
[8] Broekhuizen K, Scholten AM, de Vries SI. The value of(pre)school playgrounds for children’s physical activity level:a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014;11(1):59. doi:10.1186/1479-5868-11-59.
[9] Escalante Y, García-Hermoso A, Backx K, Saavedra JM.Playground designs to increase physical activity levels duringschool recess: a systematic review. Health Educ Behav.2014;41(2):138–144. doi:10.1177/1090198113490725.
[10] United Nations Educational, Scientific and CulturalOrganization. Quality physical education: guidelines forpolicy-makers. Paris: UNESCO; 2015.
[11] Pahl G, Beitz W, Feldhusen J, Grote KH. Engineering design:a systematic approach. Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-84628-319-2.
[12] Sanders EB, Stappers PJ. Co-creation and the new landscapesof design. CoDesign. 2008;4(1):5–18.doi:10.1080/15710880701875068.
[13] Chen J, Ahadi NA, Ying W. Research on ecological co- creation design theory and methodology for future-orientedsustainable health engineering. Green Des Eng. 2024;1(1):20–32.
[14] Norman DA. The design of everyday things. Cambridge: MITPress; 2013.
[15] Manzini E. Design, when everybody designs: an introductionto design for social innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2015.
[16] Margolin V. Design for development: towards a history. DesStud. 2007;28(2):111–115.
[17] Brooke J. SUS: a “quick and dirty” usability scale. In: JordanPW, Thomas B, Weerdmeester BA, McClelland AL, editors.Usability evaluation in industry. London: Taylor &Francis; 1996:189–194.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Shuqin Chen, Gaochi Zhou

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, which permits copying, redistributing, remixing, transformation, and building upon the material in any medium so long as the original work is properly cited.
