WARNING - By their nature, text files cannot include scanned images and tables. The process of converting documents to text only, can cause formatting changes and misinterpretation of the contents can sometimes result. Wherever possible you should refer to the pdf version of this document. CAIRNGORMS LOCAL OUTDOOR ACCESS FORUM Paper 3 - Opportunity for Participatory Video Project 20 May 2008 CAIRNGORMS LOCAL OUTDOOR ACCESS FORUM Title: Opportunity for access-based Participatory Video (PV) project Prepared by: Katrina Brown, Keith Marshall, Rachel Dilley, Researchers, Macaulay Land Use Research Institute Purpose: To elaborate on the note presented at the February meeting regarding collaboration with the Macaulay Institute on an access-based participatory video (PV) project. More specifically to: • to explain to the Forum what PV is and the benefits it can provide • to set out what Macaulay can offer (in terms of time, skills, budget etc) • to outline what participation in the project would likely involve for the Forum Advice Sought: 1. The Forum is invited to: a) Make a decision on whether the Forum (or any of the members) are interested in collaborating on the project b) If interested, identify a steering group of those who would wish to be involved and a lead person from amongst the Forum members c) Identify and discuss possible topics or issues that could be explored through the project. Background 2. The team of Macaulay Institute researchers who have been attending Cairngorms Forum meetings since 2006 have secured a small amount of money for a Knowledge Exchange project to use participatory video (PV) as a tool to help communicate outdoor access issues and knowledge amongst key stakeholders. Macaulay would like to invite Forum members to collaborate with them on the project. The Cairngorms Forum would be a good group to work with for a number of reasons, including: a) The Forum is already constituted as a publicly accessible body; b) The Forum seeks to be as representative as possible of the main outdoor access- related perspectives; c) The existing connection between the Forum and Macaulay to build upon. 3. It is important to make clear at this point that the collaboration would be between the Forum members who wanted to be involved in the project and Macaulay researchers. The outdoor access staff will play a very minimal role so Forum members need to be prepared to work independently of the Authority. This needs to be borne in mind before Forum members make a decision on either their involvement or the topic chosen. What is Participatory Video and what are the benefits of it? 4. PV involves a group making a film about issues that are important to them in order to communicate those issues to particular audiences in a highly accessible format. The audience(s) can vary from agencies and policy makers to members of the public and particular ‘communities of interest’ A key feature of PV is that the group itself drive the agenda; they decide the content, key messages and audiences of the film and, therefore, choose who and what is represented, and how. 5. An example excerpt of a PV film made by other researchers at Macaulay will be shown at the meeting to give a flavour of how it works. 6. Generally, PV can be an effective way to communicate and foster learning and mutual understanding both amongst a group, and between that group and others. A key strength of PV is that both process and product are valuable. The film itself can be used to communicate knowledge, enhance understanding of particular perspectives, stimulate debate, work through problems and suggest solutions. They also can be more effective than a traditional “report”. 7. The benefits and audiences for PV depend on the specific angle, topic and objectives chosen for the project. Possible benefits to the Forum include: • A chance for the Forum to promote the role it plays • A chance to highlight the kinds of access issues that arise and have to be dealt with within the Park e.g. to explain access issues to those working outside the area of access who tend not to understand it properly or to pass on lessons learnt to others working with access issues more directly • A chance to convey the range of access-related interests and perspectives that exist, as well as current and future challenges to be addressed The scope & timing of the project 8. To meet our funding conditions: a) The project must aid the communication of outdoor access issues amongst key stakeholders (broadly defined) b) The project must be completed by September 2009 9. This leaves good scope for the Forum to tailor how the project is taken forward e.g. in terms of: aims and objectives; issue to be explored, messages or perspectives to be conveyed; and audiences to reach. The precise approach taken would depend on what Forum members would like to get out of it and the time they have available to put into it. See Appendix I for examples of possible topics and issues. 10. It is crucial that the topic and approach chosen are feasible given the limited time of both Forum members and researchers. The researchers can provide more specific guidance on this as various topics are raised and discussed. What can Macaulay provide? 11. The Macaulay can provide: • Researcher time, skills and knowledge with respect to: o Organisation, administration and planning o Facilitation o Video recording and editing • Equipment • Budget of approx £2500 for planning, filming and editing sessions (roughly equivalent of 4-8 main group sessions) • Enthusiasm! 12. Clearly, the more the group sessions could take place on the same day as existing Forum meetings, the more resources would be left over for filming other aspects (e.g. filming members, access-takers, land managers and/or access-officers out ‘on the ground’ discussing and demonstrating issues in context) or for launching, publicising and circulating the film. What will the Forum members need to provide? 13. The idea for the video, and commitment to making it happen e.g. organising the involvement of third parties if necessary 14. Their time – this will be over and above their contribution to the Cairngorms Outdoor Access Forum meetings. It is anticipated that 4- 8 main group sessions will be needed over the next year 15. See Appendix II for possible approaches to recording material and Appendix III for an example timeline. Forum members can choose how they want to be involved, and to what extent. For example, some might want to take a very active role in actually filming or editing, whereas others may be happy to just have their point made. Appendices Appendix I: Examples of possible issues to explore through project • Participating in a Local Access Forum - what has been learnt? • Balancing public and private interests • Managing commercial interests in public spaces • Education o Role of education o Methods of educating • Access infrastructure: managing vs. sanitising the access experience • Managing ‘newer’ forms of recreation (adventure sports etc) • What do different people mean by ‘responsibility’? • Social inclusion in access Appendix II: Possible approaches for recording audio/audio-visual material • Group discussions • One-on-one discussions (indoors or outdoors) • Footage of outdoor access related activities o Access taking o Land management o Access management • Mobile footage • Footage of particular people/things/activities • Footage shot from particular perspectives Appendix III: Example timeline: Project session / Objectives May 2008 meeting Identify and discuss possible topics and issues to explore Choose (or narrow down options for) film topic August 2008 meeting Afternoon Workshop 1: Finalise topic choice Introduction to ways of capturing different perspectives & messages on film Brainstorming and planning the shots & sequences needed to represent the messages / perspectives / issues (the who, what, where and how) Annual event (September 2008) Afternoon Workshop 2: Filming November meeting Afternoon Workshop 3: Filming Discussion on editing possibilities & procedures – how the material should be edited and presented in the final video. First stab at edits done by researchers (based on outcomes of Workshop 3) May 2009 meeting Afternoon Workshop 4: Reviewing & discussing first draft edits (e.g. what to keep, trim and discard) July 2009 DVD draft of first full film circulated to participants for comment By end September 2009 Film revised by researchers (in the light of comments received, along guidelines set by Forum) November 2009 Film released (could be online, DVD or both) Katrina Brown, Keith Marshall, Rachel Dilley 6 May 2008 k.brown@macaulay.ac.uk k.marshall@macaulay.ac.uk r.dilley@macaulay.ac.uk