r

A resear

the

PEOPLE

how does the physical environment impact on

families’ perceptions of an arts event?A research paper commissioned by Wild Rumpus

January 2013

ForewordRowan Hoban & Sarah Bird, Wild Rumpus directors

Our initial inspiration for setting up Just So Festival, and the thing that underpins everything we do is our deeply held belief that when families engage in the arts in inspiring natural landscapes something quite amazing can happen. After visiting both festivals and arts events in formal spaces with our own familes, we were often left feeling flat, either sidelined as a family audience, or restrained by buildings we were in. We hoped that by creating an immersive creative arts weekend just for families in a spectacular natural landscape, families could share an experience that would leave them with a sense of wonder, of possibility, and that they would take away memories that would change the way that they felt about the arts as a families.

As we move into the fourth year of the festival, having brought additional events into our repertoire, we were keen to delve a little deeper into the anecdotal evidence from our festival audience that experiencing a diverse range of art forms in a beautiful natural landscape changes the experience, creates a unique creative atmosphere, and can impact on the way a family engages in the arts. We hope that this report will inspire discussions about the whole family as an audience and the enormous impact that a natural environment can have on their engagement in the arts.

ContributorsResearch Aims and Objectives - p.01

Methodology - p.02Literature Review - p.03Spellbound Forest - p.12

Context and research interestsField observationsPost-event survey

Just So Festival - p.18Context and research interests

Field observationsPost-event survey

Focus Group Findings - p.23Discussion - p.29

Bibliography - p.31Research Team - p.35

Project ManagementJim Ralley - The Big Art PeopleAbigail Gilmore - Institute for Cultural PracticesField ResearchLottie ClarkePaul MayfieldJenny OakenfullJemma O’BrienTracy SimpsonLiterature ReviewGinger CarlsonDocumentationDrew ForsythJake Ralley

contents

4

The importance of unpredictability and flexibility to play has been linkedboth in Play for a Change as well as in other literature to environments thatprovide opportunities for diverse play forms and a degree of risk (2008, p. 23;Lester and Maudsley 2006; Wells and Leckies 2006). While many differentkinds of environments provide these factors, much research has emphasised theparticular suitability of natural spaces as “optimal settings for children to engageand actualise their drive to play” (Wells and Leckies, Play, naturally: A reviewof children’s natural play, 2007, p. xiii; Fjørtoft & Sageie, 2000; Thompsonand Travlou, 2009; Thompson, 2011; Moss, 2012). James Gibson’s concept of“affordance” has been utilized in much recent literature on landscape experience(Wells and Leckies, 2001, p. 7; Aspinal, 2011; Gibson, 1979). Affordancesare properties of environments, of all types, that indicate the possibilities oftheir utility. Essentially, the concept of affordances emphasizes how types ofenvironments might encourage or support certain activities, for instance,small twigs might afford a variety of experiences, such as grasping, throwing,drawing, digging, and so on (Thompson and Travlou, 2009, p. 14-15). Interms of play, Wells and Leckies have argued that it is precisely the diversityand complexity of natural environments, which offer a wide range of possibleinteractions that makes nature so suitable to play interactions (2001). Researchby Fjørtoft & Sageie has also convincingly demonstrated the affordances ofnatural environments to play activities. Their study, which focused on how akindergarten group described and interacted with a forest indicated a strongrelationship between the structure of the landscape and different play functions.For instance, woodlands and cliffs were used for climbing, whereas smoothtopographies with open space and shrubbery were used for more traditionalgames like hide and seek (2001, p. 92). Further research by Fjørtoft has indicatedthat natural outdoor environments have numerous benefits: for example, childrenbecome more creative in their play and demonstrate better motor skills thanchildren who play in a traditional playground (Fjørtoft, 2001; Maynard, 2007, p.326).

The beneficial relationship between outdoor environments and play has beenutilized across the UK at what are called Forest Schools or Nature Schools.Originating in Scandinavia, Forest Schools involve regular interaction withnatural landscapes over an extended period of time (O’Brien, 2009). The ForestSchool Network has defined Forest Schools as an “inspirational process that offerschildren, young people and adults regular opportunities to achieve and developconfidence and self esteem through hands on learning experiences in a woodland

5

environment” (Forest Education Initiative, 2007). As of 2009, O’Brien recordedover one hundred Forest Schools in England and twenty in each of Scotland andWales, a number which is steadily increasing (p. 45).The expanding literature on the benefits of interaction with outdoorenvironments and the increasing number of Forest Schools points to a changingunderstanding amongst governmental and non-governmental bodies of thepotential of natural spaces. This potential is not limited to young person’sdevelopment, however, as is evidenced by a number of studies which examine therelationship between access to natural spaces and the activity, physical and mentalhealth, and quality of life of a variety of ages, ethnicities, and social groups (deVries, Verheij, Groenewegen, & Spreeuwenberg, 2003; Kim & Kaplan, 2004;Mitchell & Popham, 2007, 2008; Thompson, 2011). Thompson’s 2011 paper,for instance, drew from a wide variety of sources in order to investigate patternsof woodland use by various groups across a wide range of UK contexts and foundthat access to green and natural spaces correlated with higher levels of physicalactivity, health, and quality of life (p. 254). Other findings have indicatedthat participation in wilderness results in positive benefits such as enhancedself esteem and is of beneficial use for therapy, education, and leadershipdevelopment programmes (Friese, Pittman & Hendee, 1995).

The beneficial impacts of participation in outdoor spaces has been the subject ofmuch recent research. Equally, the kinds of physical techniques that are carriedout in natural environments have also been of much interest to researchers.For instance, how natural landscapes afford certain physical activities has beenexamined by studies that focus on “green exercise” (Pretty, Peacock, Sellens,Griffin, 2006; Barton, Griffin, Pretty, 2011). Green exercise refers to formal andinformal activities that are carried out in natural settings. According to a numberof studies, green exercise contributes to positive short and long-term physicaland mental health and wellbeing at a much higher rate than similar exercisescompleted indoors (Pretty, Peacock, Sellens, Griffin, 2006; Barton, Griffin, Pretty,2011; Thompson Coon, Boddy, Stein, Whear, Barton, Depledge, 2011). Furtherevidence suggests that maintenance of physical activity is most likely to occurin unstructured “natural” environments rather than formal structured facilities(Hillsdon, Thorogood, Anstiss & Morris, 1995). Pretty, Griffin, Peacock, Hine,Sellens & South (2005) identifies three levels of engagement with nature thatinclude: viewing nature, as through a window or work of art; being in or nearbynature, which includes nature study, walking or cycling in a park, or outdoorarts activities; and active participation with nature, such as gardening, camping,

6

trekking or farming. Pretty et al. demonstrate that each of these levels have thepotential to significantly enhance individual and social health and wellbeing(Pretty et al., 2005; Physical activity and health alliance, 2007).

In spite of the benefits of interaction with outdoor spaces, much literature hasfound notions of perceived risk to be a powerful hindrance to the use of naturalenvironments (Gill, 2006). In a review of the literature on barriers to youngpeoples’ use of the outdoors, Travlou (2006) identifies an almost unanimousconsensus that points to notions of risk, such as safety and injury, bullying,getting lost, etc., as the primary hindrances towards use. These notions arepowerful contributors to what Gill (2006) has called a growing “culture of fear”and which he argues strongly influences “the shrinking horizons of childhood”.It is important to note that these conceptions of the outdoors are not uniformacross cultures, as for instance, in the case of Scandinavian countries in whichthere is a long tradition of emphasizing the value of interaction with outdoorenvironments (Gill, 2007).

Artistic Programming and Natural Environments

The publication of Francois Matarasso’s Use or Ornament: The Social Impactof Participation in the Arts Programmes, was the first large-scale attempt in theUK to bring together evidence of the social impacts of participation in the arts.The study considered some 90 projects, including interviews and questionnairesby over 500 people, and identified 50 social impacts of participation in the arts(1997). Use or Ornament provided a definition of the potential social benefits ofthe arts sector and a methodological approach for the assessment of their impactand was influential toward the publication of academic and policy literaturethat further considered the importance of the arts and culture to the wellbeing,personal growth, and social development of the individual within society(Hallsworth, Levitt & Krapels, 2008).

A recent study by Ramsden et al. revealed that participation in arts activitieshave a number of beneficial effects, including, enhanced health and wellbeing;increased self esteem and self confidence; improved communication and socialskills; and the development of leadership skills (2011, p. 10). The beneficialimpacts of the arts on health and wellbeing are perhaps the most common andmost publicized effects of participation in arts activities. According to a 2007report by Arts Council England (ACE) entitled The Arts, Health and Wellbeing,“there is increasing recognition that people’s health and wellbeing is influencedby a range of interconnecting factors” and that “the arts have an important part

7

to play in improving the health and wellbeing of people in many ways” (p. 4).The report further argued that the arts should be integrated into health policyand funding. In a review of medical literature, Staricoff (2004) cited almost fourhundred peer review papers that demonstrated the benefits of arts participationon a wide variety of health outcomes.

As Ramsden et al. identify in their study on the impacts of grassroots artsactivities on communities, “arguably the most contested and most difficultimpact to measure is that of aesthetics” (2011, p. 30) Indeed, as Eleanor Belfioreand Oliver Bennett (2007) conclude in their study on the impact of encounterswith the arts, “it is not possible to develop a rigorous protocol for the assessmentof the impacts of the aesthetic experience that can be boiled down to a handful ofbullet-points and a user-friendly ‘evaluation toolkit’” (p. 262-263). Despite theepistemological complexities inherent to notions of the aesthetic, much researchhas examined the relationship between aesthetic encounter and experiences ofnatural landscapes. A 2009 report prepared for the Forestry Commission, forinstance, identified a wide range of philosophical and theoretical approachesto landscape aesthetics and perception (Thompson and Travlou). As definedby Gobster and colleagues, landscape aesthetic experience includes “a feelingof pleasure attributable to directly perceivable characteristics of spatiallyand/or temporally arrayed landscape patterns” (Gobster et al, 2007, p. 964;Thompson and Travlou, 2009, p. 5). Gobster further acknowledged however,that “differences remain on which characteristics of landscape are considereddirectly perceivable and on how extensive, immediate, and direct a role cognitiveprocesses and acquired value systems play in landscape aesthetic experiences”(Gobster et al, 2007 p. 964; Thompson and Travlou, 2009, p. 5). As identifiedby Thompson and Travlou, perhaps the most divisive debate in landscapeaesthetics concerns the “objective - subjective divide”, in which the extent towhich aesthetic response is objectively or subjectively based is questioned (2009,p. 5). Gibson’s concept of affordance has been further developed by HarryHeft in order to bridge the divide between these two conceptions of aestheticexperience (2010). According to Heft, affordances are neither mental constructsthat a perceiver imposes on environments nor are they interpretations located inthe “eye of the beholder”. Rather, affordances are “properties of the environmentthat are both objectively real and psychologically significant” (Thompson andTravlou, 2009, p. 6). Heft’s conception of landscape experience is thus locatedin immediate experience of landscape, in which aesthetic and other responses tonature are “dynamically perceived... in the context of action” (Heft, 2007, p. 22).

8

As identified by Thompson and Travlou, most empirical research on aestheticengagement with nature is focused on visual dimensions and affectual responses,the latter of which are usually expressed in terms of like or dislike (2009, p.11). Although some recent work has experimented with computer-generatedvisualizations, behavior patterns, and public engagement approaches, includingfocus groups and interviews, more research is needed in order to properlyconsider the aesthetic dimensions of natural spaces (Thompson and Travlou,2009, p. 13; Jensen, 2006; Ode et. al, 2009; Moore and Cosco, 2010).

Aesthetic engagement with outdoor spaces might be further encouraged throughthe implementation of artistic programming in natural environments, as inthe case of public artworks, sculpture parks, and sculpture forests. The ForestryCommission, for instance, has collaborated with artists since the late 1970s, whenit began to initiate artist residencies in Grizedale forest (Forestry CommissionScotland). A 2007-2008 report by Dave Pritchard provides the first nationaloverview of the Forestry Commission’s artistic programming and gives a detailedaccount of the arts activities that occurred up until 2007 (Artistic License).Although the report acknowledges that initial study of the benefits and outcomesof the Forestry Commission’s artistic programming has been underdeveloped,Pritchard collates a wide variety of external and internal research in order toascertain some potential outcomes, which he divides into: social and culturalvalues of woods, social inclusion and community engagement, communicationand education, health and well-being, perceptions of risk, attracting visitors,economic impacts, forest design and aesthetics, and artistic achievements. Underthese headings Pritchard identifies a number of positive outcomes that linkprevious research on both engagement with art and with green spaces, especiallyin regards to benefits to health, personal and community development, socialinclusion, and well-being (2007). As Pritchard puts it:

It seems clear that the Forestry Commission’s arts activities add in unique waysto people’s awareness, understanding and valuing of trees, forests and woodland.They can be effective in addressing intangible values such as “sense of place”,cultural history and identity; and they help with reassessing the relationshipbetween nature and society, and in rebuilding some of the lost connections(2007, p. 5).

Families’ engagement with the outdoors and with arts programming

Research examining characteristics of family leisure have consistently

9

demonstrated a positive relationship between participation in family leisureand family strength (Holmon 1989; Orthner & Mancini, 1991). It has alsobeen suggested that leisure has become the most important variable in thedevelopment of healthy relationships between a married couple as well as betweenparents and their children (Couchman, 1988). Green spaces and parks provideeasily accessible and cost efficient opportunities for the building of cohesivefamily relationships. Just as research has shown that engagement with naturehas positive individual effects, so too does it positively benefit family groups(GreenSpace, 2011). In 1997, Potter & Duenkel explored the meaning andstructure of families’ residential camping experiences through qualitative research.Their findings suggest that such outdoor recreation programming is capable ofenhancing the wellness and cohesiveness of the family unit. In 2002, Freemanand Zabriskie brought together two studies that explored the relationshipbetween structured outdoor programming and family cohesion. Through anexamination of the studies’ findings, Freeman and Zabriskie demonstrate a strongpositive correlation between structured outdoor family recreation programmingand family strength, a finding that further builds on research that has consistentlydemonstrated that participation in family recreation and leisure activities canstrengthen families (Hawkes, 1991; Zabriskie, 2000).

While much research has indicated that engagement with the arts has a varietyof benefits, as Shaw notes in a literature review on the arts and neighbourhoodrenewal, “there is a lack of research into the impacts of the arts on family life”(1999). A recent study by RAND Corporation offers some insight into thisshortcoming. Entitled Gifts of the Muse – Reframing the Debate About theBenefits of the Arts, the report brings together a wide variety of literature inorder to ascertain, evaluate, and improve current understanding of the effectsand benefits of participation in the arts (McCarthy, Ondaatje, Zakaras &Brooks). McCarthy et al. provide a comprehensive analysis of the literature inorder to consider both instrumental and intrinsic benefits of the arts and offerrecommendations for their continued development (2005). The report’s valuationof intrinsic and personal benefits along with instrumental benefits offers a broadunderstanding of the impacts of arts participation (2005). In moving awayfrom an understanding of the benefits of artistic programming through purelymeasurable outcomes and towards one that acknowledges the complexity anddiversity of art experiences, the study underscores the importance of sustainedinvolvement in the arts and its relationship to both instrumental and intrinsicbenefits (2005). Importantly, MCarthy et al. identify that although there hasbeen a wide body of research that makes the case for the arts’ instrumental

10

outcomes, the lack of research that considers intrinsic benefits such as pleasure,creation of social bonds, and cognitive growth, points to a “missing element” inthe understanding of arts effects. As McCarthy et al. put it, “people are drawn tothe arts not for their instrumental effects, but because the arts can provide themwith meaning and with a distinctive type of pleasure and emotional stimulation”(McCarthy et al., 2005, p. xv). This point is particularly revealing when the lackof research on the impacts of the arts at a family level is considered. Althoughstudies have repeatedly shown that one of the primary reasons for attendingarts events is related to family interests, the relationship between arts activitiesand family experiences remains under researched (Walker, 2002) This researchpaper aims to contribute to that small body of research, given its importance forcountless arts organizations working with the arts, children, young people, andfamilies.

Key points to take forward into analysis of the field research

The findings from the literature review highlight the relationships assumedby families participating in arts programming in outdoor settings and naturallandscapes, and point to a range of evidence of the benefits and effects thisparticipation may have.

These include the impact of the aesthetic and physical structures of naturallandscapes on the different play functions which these environments support,leading to greater creativity in children’s play, and better motor skills. Greaterin fact than in play which takes place in other environments. Access to naturalspaces is related to increased quality of life for a wide variety of ages and socialgroups, including enhanced self-esteem and therapeutic, educational, andleadership development uses. ‘Green exercise’ – physical recreation outdoors – isfound to have greater wellbeing impacts than indoor activity.

Whilst there is clear evidence of correlation between play/recreation andwellbeing/quality of life, the benefits of focusing only on measuring instrumentaloutcomes are questionable. Instead, the research suggests there should be morefocus on creating environments for playful and recreational activities, throughpolicy initiatives and programming which take advantage of the affordances ofoutdoor, natural landscapes.

Research suggests there are three levels of engagement in natural landscapes –viewing, being in, and active participation – and associated benefits with all

11

three types. The cognitive process and aesthetic experiences associated with theaffordances of environments are linked to the active participation of individuals.They interpret their environments through interaction and engagement, looking,touching, and other sensory experiences.

There is also a wealth of evidence about the social and cultural impacts of artsengagement, particularly in relation to health and wellbeing factors. Indeed,causal relationship between the arts and their benefits (and potential negativeimpacts) to society has been a central theme of cultural policy since the writingsof Plato. There is less focused evidence about the experiences of families andtheir relationship to the arts, although there is a growing understanding andconfirmation of the importance of family-based practices and familial role modelsin the on-going participation and tastes of children as they grow up.

Barriers to increasing families’ outdoor arts participation are predominantlyconcerned with perceptions of risk – safety, injury, fear of getting lost. Theseperceptions are cultural (in the wider sense) in that some societies – in thisresearch most notably Scandinavian countries – have more established practicesand infrastructures which encourage engagement in the outdoors, and widelydifferent perceptions and concerns about risk.

Arts programming in ‘managed’ natural landscapes – like Forestry Commissionsites - is actively encouraged by the research which demonstrates a wide rangeof impacts and values. This includes extrinsic benefits to individuals and tothe localities of these sites (for example through visitor economies), as well ashighlighting the unique properties and affordances of natural landscapes thatmake these impacts possible.

We now turn to the empirical research undertaken for this project to explorethese findings further.

“I believe in fairies.”“First time I have seen my Dad smiling!!!”

“I liked spending the day with my mummy.”“I saw the tree and it had an eye.”

“I loved doing crafts”“Playing in the muddy puddles.”

“Hill sliding on my bottom”“Meeting prince Fredrick.”

“I’m free.”

Spellbound Forest

13

A new day-long event for 2012, Spellbound Forest took place in DelamereForest, Cheshire on the 19-20th May. Families entered on a timed ticket,and were directed to three separate paths through the forest. Each path tookparticipants through a different traditional English fairy tale. The stories weretold in a participatory manner, through theatre, music, spoken word, writing,and dance, employing actors, dancers, creative writers, willow-weavers and othercreative practitioners alongside conventional event staff to produce an immersiveenvironment which encourage families to collaborate in the story-telling.There was a two-circuit route for the timed journeys through the stories, alongthe paths of the Delamere Forest, which ended in the in a picnic area with food,drink, and dancing. It was anticipated that most families would spend 3-4 hoursin the forest.

Entry was £12.50 per adults and £7.50 for children aged 3-16. Children under 3were free.

Spellbound Forest was designed as an immersive, magical, participatory, wholefamily experience. Participants were invited to step out of their ordinary livesinto a fairytale world with characters from the page who came to life, who wereclothed by children or spied running through the forest. There were multiplestructured and semi-structured participation opportunities which were offered bythe Spellbound Forest, which included:

• Reading text extracts dotted around the forest, which drew participants alongthe path of the stories;• Interacting with the actors – answering questions, and acting out parts onrequest;• Adding ‘tatters’ to Tattercoats dres;• Co-producing an English fairytale by writing elements and drawingcharacters, in a project supported by Manchester Metropolitan University;• Dancing with the Princesses and playing hide-and-seek at the Fairy Ball;• Making hobbyhorses and wands from found branches and twigs and othermaterials;• Making and adding to the origami crane birds in the Earl Mar’s Daughterstory• Listening to the sounds and music in the Forest, including a speciallycommissioned piece, ‘The Book of Imaginary Beings’ which was written bycomposer James Stephenson

context

14

Ahead of the experience, parents could ‘prepare’ their children for the event,through listening to and reading the the four English fairy tales that formed partof the event. These can be found at http://soundcloud.com/wildrumpus-1They could also follow-up the event by contributing to a crowd-funded andcrowd-sourced brand new English fairy-tale which brought together thecontributions from children during the two event days.

Specific Research Interests

The design of Spellbound Forest was such that it presented a number ofinteresting elements which posed new questions for the empirical field research.• Duration of participation: Participants were engaged for a short amount oftime relative to the Just So Festival, but a longer amount of time relative toother arts activities which families might usually attend (workshops, stories,films, etc)• The outdoor environment, natural landscape and opportunities to engagewith the forest: The event took place in a public, outdoor space, wherefamilies may ordinarily undergo more ‘mundane’ types of participation andrecreation – walking, nature trails, and so on. – There were predefined pathsalong which participants were directed but which they did not have to take• The uniqueness and difference of the kind of experience (relative to morefamiliar participation experiences): The stories that formed the core of theexperience were relatively unknown compared to traditional fairytales, andalthough the craft activities may have ones familiar to children at home, thecontext of outdoor forest setting where the materials are ‘found’ and whichrelate to elements of the stories, may have a role in producing the immersiveexperience and bring particular benefits to participation.

Field Observations, Informal Interviews, and the Memory TreeN.B. Verbal consent was attained for all interviews at the event, and no names areused.Three field researchers attended the Spellbound Forest event. They observed theactions and interactions of participants, asked questions in as unobtrusive amanner as possible, and captured everything in written form on the day. Theyalso ran a Memory Tree exercise that aimed to capture immediate impressionsand feelings about the festival from adults and children. The event was alsophotographed and filmed for further post-hoc observation. The comprehensiveset of field notes have been condensed into a series of themes and quotations thataim to give the impression of Spellbound Forest from a research perspective.

Active ParticipationDuring the event, the forest was alive with the movement of families followingthe trails of stories, the design of which led to ‘pulses’ of groups moving throughthe different staged activities. Some of these were timed – by the narration ofactors or by the time it took to undertake a task or make something beforemoving on. Other areas were free-flowing as children and adults were engaged inactivities almost ‘outside of time’. The opportunities for structured participationproved hugely popular, with clusters of families grouped around these areasand taking time out from their paths in the stories. Some parents revealed theirsurprise at the amount of time they stayed in forest, particularly around the FairyBall in the centre.

There was a gender divide in some of the modes of participation, for example,boys were observed to be more likely to run off and play in the woods, andless likely to stay engaged in the stories (which were generally performed forthe children by the actors in promenade theatre style). This divide was mostclearly displayed at the Grand Ball area, where the dance floor was full of girlsdancing with the princess, and the boys were climbing up the banks and hidingin the woods. In general, for the structured activities there seemed no differencebetween the enthusiasm of boys and girls for taking part.

Despite the encouragement to engage with the natural environment offered bythe location, and the use of natural materials, most families appeared to engage inthe Forest as part of the event rather than in and of itself. They were fully investedin taking part and staying predominantly within the boundaries created by thestories. This was noticeable in observation of people’s use of mobile phones,where there seemed a reluctance in allowing phones calls and other uses of digital

at the event

15

technologies to intercede in the forest environment or interrupt engagement.There was widespread observed use of cameras, and of smartphones forphotography. The dressing up, props, and characters provided many photoopportunities, and the chance for memory making.

Aesthetic ExperienceParticipants described the event with words like “lovely, simple, magical”. Theyrecognized and supported the aims of the event, and could explicitly relate themto their own objectives for parenting and for their children’s experiences. Oneparent discussed memory making with a researcher, explaining the importancethat fairy stories had played in her life, and how she was keen for her children to“capture these things at this age”.

The immersive experience was therefore supported and co-created by parents.They were complicit in the suspension of disbelief, helping to create the ‘magical’environment for their children by encouraging attention on the objects theywere making, keeping their roles in the performance going, and helping childrento participate fully in the artifice of the stories. Often they covered for lack ofresponse to actors, embellishing links to the stories.Grandfather to Grandchild: “Look! There is something in the swamp! I’m sure Isaw something move out there. Have you got your tasers?”

The event management and grouping/coding of the activities encouraged thiscollusion, and the cracks that inevitably appeared in the make-believe (missingprops, high-viz jackets, phones ringing) were generally either papered over orignored.

Many children were clearly immersed in the experience. One researcher observeda boy between activities retelling the story he had heard up to that point. Thestories were real and exciting to him. Similarly the exchanges between parentsand children, often led by the children, were concerned with preserving thecontinuity of the story and/or the interpretation of what to do in the forest –“I’m just going to put some magic dust on my horse to make him real”; “Ah. Thehorse is tired, put him up on the pushchair so he can sleep”. Children were alsoreally instrumental in explaining elements of the story back to their parents - “hehas lost his daughter and that is why he is sad” (re old Lord in Tattercoats).Engaging with the Environment

Several parents commented on the safe atmosphere, and also that they felt like

16

they were amongst like-minded people. In conversations with the researchers,parents remarked on their own reference points – articles in the Guardian, theirmembership of the National Trust, their own childhood experiences of EnidBlyton, which signaled shared symbolism as well as socio-economic and politicaldemographics.

The activities in the event enveloped and worked with the natural landscape.There was little engagement with wildlife as the properties and activities ofthe event took over. However, there was some spontaneous adaptive use of theaffordances of the environment: sword and den making specifically outside of thestructured activities.

Most families were prepared for the natural environment, and many embraced itby setting up picnics en route to or around the Fairy Ball, eschewing the on-sitecatering outlets.

One father expressed concern at the impact that this event would have on thenatural environment as he noted the bark shavings down in the Grand Ball area.His three boys “loved the outdoor environment” and were hungry for more activeengagement with nature. They mentioned that dens dotted around the centralarea would have been nice.

Management of the EnvironmentManaged risk was obvious around the Grand Ball with its high banks around thestage. As mentioned above, boys were scrambling up the slopes and playing,whilst some of the characters were playing hide and seek in the trees withchildren, which although enjoyable was a clear source of concern for someparents who wanted to keep children in sight. On the second day these banks hadbeen roped off and site management were denying children access to them. Therisk element had been taken out of the experience.

Not all participants were as happy with being given the responsibility for self-directionand self-management offered by the event’s emphasis on co-creation. The style of theevent led to some comments about the lack of signage, or clear direction.There was also some frustration with the freedom allowing disjointed groups to arrive at performance areas in stages. However this is balanced by theoverwhelming response of engagement, and in many cases awe shared by families– as borne out by the comments from the post-event survey discussed below.

17

“The pitter patter of rain on our lovely tent :)”“I’ll remember banging out the beat with the samba band.”

“Cooperative atmosphere and everyone was relaxed.”“I learnt to play an Abba song on my brand new ukulele with the

man from St. John’s Ambulance.”“Had the most amazing time dancing with my 73 year old mum,

who discovered her inner belly dancer thanks to the Gypsies!”“I love to dance, even if children did steal my croc all night.”

Just So Festival

This was the third annual Just So Festival. The two previous festivals have beenvery successful, with the 2011 festival winning the Green Parent Best FamilyFestival award. In 2012 the festival moved from the 65 acre forested Barnswoodsite in Staffordshire to Rode Hall Park in Cheshire.

The festival took place from Friday 17th to Sunday 19th August. Families couldbuy weekend tickets or day tickets, and they could decide to camp, stay in a yurtprovided by the festival, bring a campervan, or not to stay at all.

Over the three days there were 124 scheduled activities in 11 designated areas,covering much of the Rode Hall park and garden land.

The event tagline is evocative, and indicative of the emphasis on an immersivetransformative experience that Spellbound Forest aimed to create:“Take your family on a journey of the imagination…a magical weekend ofcreative adventures.”

Specific Research InterestsThe festival has four principle aims that helped to frame our field research, surveyanalysis, and subsequent write up. These are:- To embed the arts in a natural landscape, a wild, woodland space. Givingchildren the freedom to engage freely with no pressure.- To challenge expectations of the arts, by allowing spontaneous and impulsiveengagement. Children should be allowed to respond immediately without therestrictions present in galleries and concert halls.- To offer an intense experience for families. Enabling full immersion in anartistic landscape, in an environment designed to surprise and inspire at everyturn.- To encourage a legacy of active participation in the audience. To involve themin making events, performances, and artworks spectacular.There are some challenges for participating families embedded in this valueproposition, and which raised research questions for the field researchers.How will families respond to the encouragement offered by the affordances of theenvironment to be spontaneous and impulsive?What is the capacipty of parents and families to sustain participation over a 3-dayevent?This would be some families’ first experience of a festival, and otherswould be quite accustomed to the format. - How did the experience of daytrippersdiffer from that of weekenders?What are the implications for experience of time and routine? Unlike SpellboundForest there was no cohesive set of narratives drawing the activities together. -How were notions of risk and uncertainty apprehended by parents (andchildren)? 19

context

Field Observations, Informal Interviews, results from the Postbox,and Have Your Say

N.B. Verbal consent was attained for all interviews at the event, and no names areused.

Active Participation

As with the Spellbound Forest, and with the Just So Festivals in previousincarnations, the structured and semi-structured opportunities to participate inarts, creative and recreational activities proved hugely popular – and the vast arrayof tents, workshops, areas, and interactive environmental materials (dressing upclothes, play areas, circus skills equipment, stone-balancing, and many more)were constantly animated by those taking part. Some of the activities which werefamiliar to previous attenders were alighted on with delight and recognition –for example, the popular ‘Fairy Queen’ – whereas others engaged new audienceswith new activities – for example, pirate training and saw violin playing. Thispopularity sometimes meant queuing and running out of workshop materials,however, the wide range of timed performances and activities in the differentlocations meant the variety and proximity of opportunities to do, listen, andwatch others was sufficient to exhaust the hardiest of active participant.Alongside the many curated activities, workshops and timed activities, ‘activeparticipation’ also took the form of co-presence with other families, in festivalgoingcharacter, complete with face-paint and suitable clothing. Participationdidn’t necessarily need to take the form of the festival workshops prescribed – alot of time and interest was devoted to bubble-blowing (and popping) and toskimming stones in the lake.

A performer commented that he experienced a “genuine feeling of coproduction”,that there were few restraints placed on him by the management/creative team. There were also observed instances of ‘performed parenting’ – the act of getting involved in activities but with an element of self-awareness.These were external signs of commitment to taking part in family/childrenactivities, for example the ‘performing dads’ who dressed up, wore face-paint, andget stuck in physical activities. For some (for example, those who took part in themoustache competition) this commitment was quite extensive highly visible andbegan outside of the bounds of the festival event

20

At the event

Aesthetic ExperienceParticipants and performers agreed that the atmosphere is unique. Onecommented that it is “more like a village fete” in feel than a festival. The lackof powered sound systems and pressures that other festivals have creates thisatmosphere.

Some participants were clearly delighted at the fact that they just “happenedupon things” whilst wandering around, and the incidental affordances of thedifferent zones and layout within the festival allowed for surprises and hiddentreasures (most notably in Wild Things and the High Seas, which was the hardestplace to locate). There was also observation of the mild anxiety of parents whoweren’t able to navigate the festival site and some frustration that they wouldn’t beable to get their children to the places they wanted to visit or to timed activities.To properly experience the festival, one father said that you should “try to fitwith kids’ time, not adults’ time”. The design of the activities and space doesallow for serendipity, but he wasn’t sure this worked for adults, who try to stick toa schedule, take part in timed activities, and fully ‘participate’ in the programme.

Engaging with the EnvironmentFestival-goers articulated the participants’ experience of landscape andenvironment - the festival was described as a place that “wasn’t the city”. Theperception of the environment was that it wasn’t a “planned” space, and in that itpromoted freedom of action and freedom of thought.As a natural environment, some areas presented ‘natural dangers’, being home to piles of logs, patches of nettles, and areas of thistles. Participants and volunteersperceived the lake as the area of highest risk

Management of the EnvironmentAs with the 2011 festival, some people were frustrated at the basic campingfacilities, and the lack of water for basic hand washing and washing up. Contraryto this, many people also commented very positively about the camping facilities,saying that they were much nicer than anything previously experienced.

21

One father commented that there is a pervasive feeling of fear about childrenroaming free in today’s society (echoing the ‘culture of fear’ described in theliterature review above). The festival space as a managed space, with event staffon hand to support and help with any problems, mitigates for these fears to somedegree. However many parents are understandably loathe to let their childrenout of sight (a reason often giving for not attending ‘regular’ festivals). Themanagement of the site for Just So provides opportunities for parents to take partor to sit close by and watch as children take part freely in play in a more managedand open environment, however, and the ‘crowds’ are made up of families withsimilar interests and concerns.

Some liked the ways in which the site had been managed to allow them tonavigate nature with small children in pushchairs – e.g. through the tarmac paths.The ‘risks’ proffered by engaging in new experiences – camping, outdoor festivals,particular types of participation, were also evident amongst some comments fromfamilies in relation to their expectations. One family, who were regular campers,were disappointed with what their experience of the site, based primarily on whatthey felt it should facilitate. They were critical of the camping facilities, and thatthey had been prohibited from riding their bikes, and commented that therewasn’t enough for their older children.

In general, responses from the families were articulate, knowledgeable and alsojudgmental, particularly in relation to the elements of the festival experience theyfelt they should expect. This was most notable in relation to Just So regulars,who used their previous experience at Barnswood as a benchmark for Just So2012. They were consistently appreciative of the Just So ‘offer’ and knew whatthey felt they could expect in terms of activities, places to visit and find andfacilities, and used these experiences as frame for judging this year’s festival,placing a focus on the differences between sites and environments. It becameclear from the consistency of answers that Just So regulars want to (re)createsimilar or the same experiences – they wanted to know that a Beach was availableor that there would be a midnight feast.

Postbox ResultsThe non-intrusive participatory activity that the research team implemented atJust So Festival was a giant postbox. Children and adults were given a gold coinand invited to vote for their favourite area of the festival. They were also given thechance to “have their say”, by standing on a box and shouting across the festivalwith a megaphone.

22

As part of this research into families’ experiences of arts activities we interviewedfour women who had attended Just So Festival 2012 with their families. Theywere recruited to two focus groups through the Wild Rumpus email list andthrough existing contacts made at the festival itself. Full consent was granted byall participants for us to transcribe, use, and paraphrase their responses to thediscussion. We have made the findings anonymous, drawing out key themes thatemerged in each of the groups.

They were conducted as semi-structured conversations, with some promptquestions used to focus the participants. But they were not rigidly facilitated.The conversations flowed in relation to the women’s specific experiences, familydynamics, and interests.

Below we gather together the emergent themes, using some commentary tosupport quotes. Our headline question is: “How does the physical environmentimpact on families’ experiences of an arts event?” As with the field work, it isuseful to unpack this question, looking at:

• The physical environment, specifically looking at the natural environment• The idea of the family and how that is a definition constantly in flux• Experience, and how different people experience different activities indifferent ways based on their previous knowledge and expectations• Arts events. Asking if there is a substantive difference between an ‘arts’ eventin a natural environment and any other kind of event, or indeed any otherkind of environment

In breaking the question down like this we aimed to approach the researchquestion in this context with as little bias as possible.

FamiliesThe families in the focus groups were clearly divided along age lines. The firstgroup had children aged between 9 and 13 yrs, and the second group between2 months and 5 yrs. Their experience of the arts and family activities in generalis defined by the age of their children. They all spoke about how the types ofactivity they can do as a family changes over time.“There was definitely a window when we could all do whole family things together.Maybe it’ll happen again when they’re all teenagers.”

23

focus group findings

For families with younger children there was the expectation that they would beable to do more with their children once they were older. And for families witholder children the main concern was that they would grow up too quickly. Oneparticipant spoke about how her son was starting to take a really active choice inhis own arts participation, but that this meant he sometimes declined an offer todo something with the family.

They spoke about a constantly shifting idea of whole family participation, withactivities rarely catering to the oldest and youngest members of a family: oftenbeing slightly too advanced or basic to keep everyone fully engaged.

Environments and ActivitiesIn addition to Just So Festival (and for some, Spellbound Forest) we asked whatother kinds of activities the participants did as a family. They were generallyhighly engaged, visiting art galleries, museums, theatres, and more commercialevents. Several locations were mentioned several times throughout the focusgroups: Yorkshire Sculpture Park (YSP), National Trust (NT) properties, ImperialWar Museum North (IWMN), and The Lowry.

They found out about events and exhibitions in these locations through a widevariety of sources: email, word of mouth, Facebook, Twitter, flyers, with no realpreference for any one. Opportunistic attendance was clearly common, meaningthat they would look for events that coincided with a trip to a specific city or visitto see a relative.

Each environment has affordances that make it conducive or not to families’enjoyment. Broadly the YSP was seen as the most enjoyable space from this pointof view for some of the families.

“I think freedom is a massive thing for (the kids). Something like the YSP hit us because it wasn’t age specific. It’s awesome. Not weather dependent. It’s hands on.”The freedom, and the serendipitous discovery of huge, man-made objects in anatural landscape was commented on by all of the participants. They liked thattheir children could run and make noise without them having to ‘parent’ them.For the parents with the younger children, National Trust properties offeredsimilar experiences to both the YSP and Just So Festival.

24

25

“It’s probably the most comparable experience to Just So. It combines outdoor roaming around, parents like it, in a beautiful place, and it’s accessible. If you want to go for a walk and you’re not a walker, or you have a pram, they’re great. You know there are going to be toilets and you know that you can get a cup of tea. We go to specific kids events at NT properties too. You can involvegrandparents, and you can go again and again.”

NT properties, like the YSP, are beautiful managed environments. They are safespaces with clearly defined boundaries, where parents can let their children runfree without fear of losing them. It was though, the outdoor element to bothNT properties and the YSP that the participants thought appropriate for familyactivities, not the indoor elements. In such indoor spaces they spoke about howthey felt they do more parenting. About how being in a gallery or museum spacebrings with it inherent rules and restrictions, and expectations on calmness, order, and quiet.

“It’s the adults who feel awkward that their children might be upsetting some other people. You’re tense which you pass on to them.”

The Imperial War Museum North (IWMN) was mentioned in this respect, as aspace with lots of interesting and engaging objects, but nothing for children totouch or play with outside of the ‘handling table’.

“Surely they could have a few things? They should have some kind of experience there that allows them to be children.”

There is a clear expectation here from the parents that public galleries andmuseums should cater more to families, and specifically more to children. Thatthey should provide objects for children to touch, and spaces for them to runaround and be loud in.

“At the end of the day an art gallery really is a runway, and they just want to leg it down there.”

It is not, however, just the fact that the experience of IWMN is indoors, thatthe parents were critical of. They all talked positively about experiences atThe Lowry Theatre, and how their children of all ages were captivated by themagic of immersive performances in a really traditional theatre space. Thisraises some interesting questions about the design of spaces and experiences forbroad and narrow audiences, and how that might impact on programming andcurating. The Lowry is a sit-down experience, but one where the content of eachperformance is highly tailored towards an audience and an age-range. Galleries

26

and museums choose to cater to a broad audience, and their exhibitions generally focus on their core, adult visitor. This is why ‘family friendly’ arts activities are generally programmed alongside the core exhibitions. The YSP and NT properties in contrast are open spaces where families, children, and adults of all ages define their own activities. As a kind of hybrid of all these, Just So Festival aims to engage with whole family groups of all ages through structured and semistructured activities, in an open, natural, and managed environment.

In terms of how the physical environment impacts on these experiences, it is clear that the activities themselves both shape and are shaped by the environment. The environment is not a wholly determining factor on the kind of activity that might take place, though it is a restricting factor in terms of the freedoms that programmers might have. Families have expectations of what organizations and spaces are going to provide for them, which are determined through communications, through previous experience, and through word of mouth.

Letting Children Be ChildrenAll of the focus group participants camped for the full weekend at Just SoFestival. They had all also camped before, and in more basic conditions than were at the festival. Whilst not an arts activity, camping (and similarly, trips to the beach) made possible the kind of open, whole family experience that the YSP and NT properties afforded.

“Camping is good because there’s that freedom again. Children do revert to being children if you take away the things that stop them being children.”

Freedom is the key idea here, and one that was repeated many times during both of the focus groups. The children and families look for a space in which to play. They want something out of the ordinary. They talk about camping as a kind of voluntary disconnection from the everyday world where children aren’t allowed to be children. An exploration of this idea of what children ‘should’ be acting like is outside the scope of this research, but it’s interesting to reflect on what these ‘things’ are that stop children from being children, and how a parent’s idea of what children should be and do might be different from a child’s own conception of this.

In addition to freedom, the participants talked about the sense of responsibilitythat being in an open, natural environment gave to their children. In a on-linearand relatively unrestricted setting they have agency to choose their own activities

27

and create their own fun. In the case of camping, children can choose to playan integral role in the family’s experience, within the safety of a semi-structuredframework.

“There’s a responsibility, we’re cooking over a stove, we’re all in it together.”

At the Just So Festival parents can choose to hand over a similar level ofresponsibility to their children, to structure and define their own experience ofthe event. There is no one correct way to ‘be’ or act at the festival, as there is such a variety of activities and workshops to attend, and experiences to be had.As mentioned briefly above, parenting emerged as a recurrent theme in both ofthe focus groups. They were very self-aware about the amount of parenting thatthey do, and feel they have to do at different kinds of events and in differentsettings. Indoors where there are more tacit social pressures they do much moreactive parenting, as opposed to outdoor environments where they’re muchhappier to do less. They were frustrated by the role that a parent often takes inmanaging a child’s experiences of the arts.

“Who’d want to be an adult? We had festival anxiety [at Just So] about not being able to do everything.”

They were relatively self-critical regarding this, citing the difficult balancebetween looking after their children and giving them space to explore in naturalenvironments. Clearly the age of the children makes a huge difference, withparents of older children being much more inclined to let them go off alone. Forparents of younger children they demanded much more of the environment, ofthe organization around an event or public space.

“I think those practical things make everything a bit easier, they mean that you can just throw yourself into it and enjoy it. You need to have the infrastructure there to be quite seamless, for everyone to get quite relaxed.”

These parents want to be given the opportunity to relax, and to not feel likeparents.

Co-Creation A final theme that emerged, mainly from discussions around the Just So Festival in particular, was that of co-creation, and the increased level of engagement that children have with activities where they are encouraged to participate. This links strongly with the ideas of freedom and responsibility that are key elements of engagement in arts activities. Many of the structured and unstructured activities at the festival are designed so that the children alter the environment around them.

28

This might be by doing some messy free-drawing on a giant easel in acommunal space; creating something out of recycled materials and hanging it ina tree; sculpting a face out of clay and embedding it into a tree trunk; or building a lantern for use in the nighttime lantern parade. Handing over responsibility to the children to augment the physical environment around them, and giving them the freedom to do so in whatever way they chose, is hugely empowering.

The challenge with co-creation is to effectively structure an experience so thatchildren can bring their creativity to bear, and that whatever emerges is broadlysuccessful as a piece of collective ‘art’.

29

This research has explored the relationships between families’ experiences of the natural outdoor environment and their experiences of creative encounters and participatory arts in different settings, through desk research and qualitative methods, including ethnography and interviews. It was commissioned to further the understanding of the positive relationships between arts programming in outdoor environments and events, in order to produce the best outcomes for all participants. It has found these relationships to be complex and contingent on the prior experiences and expectations of families involved, as well as their capacity to invest and collude in events through their active and collaborative participation.

Aesthetic and other responses to nature are “dynamically perceived in the context of action”. To get the most out of families’ encounters with natural landscapes, the affordances of the natural environment – the things that they allow to happen through their own innate properties – can be enhanced by the encouragement to physically interact and engage with these properties, fostered through creative activities and play. Responses to nature are both cognitive and affective - it is important to know that rain pours, nettles sting and bees buzz from both recognition and experience, so events in outdoor environments offer the opportunities to discover and learn, to collaborate and co-create as well as corroborate existing knowledge and experience.

Different benefits are related to different types of engagement in natural landscapes – namely, ‘viewing’, ‘being in’ and ‘active participation’. Arts programming in natural landscapes can provide ways of facilitating these different types of engagement, to maximize the benefits of the environment and the structured opportunities for taking risks, experimenting, feeling free, getting your hands dirty, losing your sense of time, becoming or watching others become fairy tale characters and co-producing shared memories and spaces.

The outcomes of these experiences are also dependent on parents’ and children’s’ perceptions of the settings for creative engagement – including both the implicit rules of the kinds of behaviour permissible in different environments, and the physical and creative possibilities which environments provide through their tactile, material qualities and conditions. So the role of the outdoor arts event is to be facilitative rather than regulatory – to manage the risk and enhance the freedoms of the great outdoors, by inciting hands-on creativity, imaginative experiences and time and space for reflection. It also provides families with the opportunities to perform their different family roles outside of the ordinary routines and spaces, have conversations and shape formative memories which can be returned to through repeating arts engagement.

discussion

30

Through the Spellbound Forest and the Just So Festival, Wild Rumpus produce and manage outdoor environments in which families actively take part in creative activities together. They provide:

• A focus on providing suitable environments for free play, which encompasses the important functions of unpredictability and flexibility• The management of natural environments to highlight and promote their particular affordances for certain activities, e.g. the use of small twigs in a variety of experiences, such as grasping, throwing, drawing, digging• The promotion of access to green and natural spaces which correlates with higher levels of physical activity, health, and quality of life, and other positive benefits such as enhanced self esteem• The management and understanding of perceptions of risk and the mechanisms to address and propose changing the ‘culture of fear’. For example, providing safe spaces for ‘risky’ and extraordinary’ behavior, new experiences in arts participation, and changes in experience of time and routine• Providing environments which emphasise the positive relationship between participation in arts and cultural programming, family strength, and wellbeing. These relationships are enforced concurrently through shared memory making. There are significant opportunities for active collaborative participation which highlight the importance of shared memory at both events – like the chance to draw and display your family portraits at Just So, and the memory tree and photo opportunities at the Spellbound Forest.

These events display the aspects and properties – their own affordances – which, according to our research, influence the likelihood of positive benefits and experiences for children and their families

31

Barton, J., Griffin, M., and Pretty, J. Exercise, Nature and Socially InteractiveBased Initiatives Improve Mood and Self-esteem in the Clinical Population.Perspectives in Public Health, 2011

Beames, S and Ross, H. (2010) “Journeys outside the classroom”, Journal ofAdventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 10: 2 pp95 — 109.

Belfiore, E. and Bennett, O. (2007): Determinants of Impact: Towards a BetterUnderstanding of Encounters with the Arts, Cultural Trends, 16:3, 225-275.

Bowers, C. A. (2008) “Why a critical pedagogy of place is an oxymoron”,Environmental Education Research, 14: 3, 325 — 335.

Brown, E. and Ratzkin, R. (2011) Making Sense of Audience Engagement,WolfBrown

Coon, J. Thompson, K. Boddy, K. Stein, R. Whear, J. Barton, M. H. Depledge.Does Participating in Physical Activity in Outdoor Natural Environments Have a Greater Effect on Physical and Mental Wellbeing than Physical Activity Indoors? A Systematic Review. Environmental Science & Technology, 2011

Couchman. (1988). As cited in Canadian Parks/Recreation Association, (1997).The benefits catalogue. Gloucester, ON. Canada: Canadian Parks/RecreationAssociation

Coultt, G & Jokela, T eds. (2008) Art, Community and Environment:Educational Perspectives Intellect books

De Vries, S., Verheij, R.A., Groenewegen, P.P., & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2003).Natural environments—healthy environments? An exploratory analysis ofthe relationship between greenspace and health. Environment and Planning A,35, 1717–1731.

DCMS, Taking Part 2012/13, http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/research_and_statistics/4828.aspx

Foxx, J (2002) Eyes on Stalks, Methuen Drama

Gibson, J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA:

Bibliography

32

Houghton-Mifflin

Gobster, P. H., Nassauer, J.I., Daniel, T.C. and Fry, G. (2007) The sharedlandscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecology22(7): 959-972.

GreenSpace. Blue Sky, Green Space: Understanding the contribution parks andgreen spaces can make to improving people’s lives. GreenSpace, 2011.

Gruenewald, David A. “The Best of Both Worlds: A Critical Pedagogy of Place,”Educational Researcher, 32: 3 (2003)

Hallsworth, M., Levitt, R., & Krapels, J.. Vital Communities: Review andanalysis of the research. RAND Corporation. 2008.

Hawkes, S. R. (1991). Recreation in the family. In S. J. Bahr (Ed.). FamilyResearch: A Sixty Year Review,1930–1990 (pp. 387–433). New York, N.Y:Lexington Books.

Hawks, S. R. (1991). Recreation in the family. In S.J. Bahr (Ed.), Familyresearch: A sixty year review, 1930-1990. New York: Lexington Books

Heft, H. (2003) Affordances, dynamic experience, and the challenge ofreification. Ecological Psychology 15(2): 149-180.

Heft, H. (2007) Affordances in the Landscape. In Aspinall, P., Bell, S., and WardThompson, C (eds) Open Space: People Space 2: Innovative Approaches toResearch Excellence in Landscape and Health, Edinburgh: OPENspace Research Centre.

Hillsdon, Thorogood, Anstiss & Morris, (1995) Randomised Controlled Trailsof Physical Activity promotion in Free Living PopulationsL a review Journal ofEpidemiology and Community Health Vol. 49; 448-453.

Holman, T. B., & Epperson, A. (1989). Family and leisure: A review of theliterature with research recommendations. Journal of Leisure Research, 16, 277-294

Kim, J., & Kaplan, R. (2004). Physical and psychological factors in sense ofcommunity: New urbanist Kentlands and nearby orchard village. Environment Behavior, 36, 313–334.

Maynard, Trisha (2007) ‘Forest Schools in Great Britain: an initial exploration’,Contemporary Issues in Childhood, vol. 8, no. 4, 2007.

33

McCarthy, K., Ondaatje, E., Zakaras, L., & Brooks, A.. Gifts of the Muse:Reframing the Debate About the Benefits of the Arts. Research In the ArtsCorporation. 2005.

McGonigal, Jane. (2011) Reality is Broken New York: Penguin PressMitchell, R., & Popham, F. (2007). Greenspace, urbanity and health:Relationships inEngland. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 61, 681–683.

Mitchell, R., & Popham, F. (2008). Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: An observational population study. The Lancet, 372 (9650), 1655–1660.

Moss, S. (2012) Natural Childhood National Trust

New Economics Foundation (2011) Five Ways to Wellbeing, London: NEF

O’Brien, Liz. (2009): Learning outdoors: the Forest School approach, Education3-13: International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education,37:1, 45-60

Ofsted (2008) Learning Outside the Classroom, London: Crown Press

Orthner, D. K., & Mancini, J. A. (1991). Benefits of leisure for family bonding.In B. L. Driver, P.J. Brown, & G. L. Peterson (Eds.). Benefits of leisure (pp. 215-301). State College, PA: Venture

Oskala, A et al (2009) Encourage children today to build audiences fortomorrow: Evidencefrom the Taking Part survey on how childhood involvement in the arts affects arts engagement in adulthood, London: Arts Council England

Physical Activity and Heath Alliance. Woodlands and Greenspace and thePromotion of Health and Physical Activity. 2007.

Potter, T. G. (1993). A journey through wilderness weekend experiences.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta, Canada.

Potter, T. G. & Duenkel, N. (1997). Exploring the meaning of family residentialcamping experiences. Unpublished manuscript, Lakehead University, Ontario,Canada.

Pretty J., Griffin M., Peacock J., Hine, R., Sellens M., & South N. A Countrysidefor Health and Well-Being: The Physical and Mental Health Benefits of GreenExercise. Report for the Countryside Recreation Network, 2005.

34

Pretty, J., Peacock J., Sellens M. and Griffin M. The mental and physical healthoutcomes of green exercise. International Jornal of Environmental HealthResearch. Vol. 15, Iss. 5, 2005.

Rockwell, D with Mau, B (2006) Spectacle, Phaidon Press

Rose, C (2002) The family factor: a guide to family friendly arts activities,Cambridge: East England Arts 2002

Shaw, P.. Arts and neighbourhood renewal. Department for Culture, Media andSport. 1999.

Staricoff RL. (2004). Arts in Health: a Review of the Medical Literature. London: Arts Council England.

The Play Strategy. Policy Summary. 2008http://www.playengland.org.uk/media/120444/play-strategy-summary-long.pdf

Thompson, W. Children and the natural environment: experiences, influencesand interventions – Summary. Natural England, 2001.

Tims, C (2010) Born Creative, London: DEMOS

Walker, C. Arts & Culture: Community Connections: Contributions from newsurvey research. The Urban Institute, 2002.

Wearring, B. (1993). The family that plays together stays together: Or does it?World Leisure and Recreation, 35(3), 25–29.

Wells, N (2000) ‘At home with nature: effects of “greenness” on children’scognitive functioning’, Environment and Behaviour, 32(6): 775 – 795.

Wells, N and Lekies, K (2005) ‘Nature and the life course: pathways fromchildhood nature experiences to adult environmentalism’, Children, Youth and Environments, 16(1): 1-24.

Wood, E. (2008): Everyday play activities as therapeutic and pedagogical encounters, European Journal of Psychotherapy & Counselling, 10:2, 111-120.

West, P. C., & Merriam, L. C., Jr. (1970). Outdoor recreation and familycohesion: A research approach. Journal of Leisure Research, 2, 251–259

Zabriskie, R. B. (2000). An examination of family and leisure behavior amongfamilies with middle school aged children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.

35

Taken at the fantastical photobooth in Nowhernow

Jim RalleyDirector, The Big Art Peoplejim@thebigartpeople.co.uk+447928 119686Skype: jimralley@jimrali

Research TeamA detailed evaluation report and appendices are available from hello@justsofestival.org.uk