CONTAINERS OF STORIES
Inviting park visitors and volunteers to share stories, opinions and thoughts on their local green spaces and infrastructure.
This toolkit would benefit all involved, from the process of sharing a story to the people receiving it.
This toolkit can be adapted depending on the desired results and resources available. It could be held in-person or online.
This tool could be used for many reasons such as to share volunteer or park user stories and/or gathering views on what the public love about their parks.
Overview of the Engagement Tool/Innovation:
The containers of stories tool invites stakeholders, e.g. volunteers and park users, to share their opinions and experiences of parks through story-telling. It offers the possibility to showcase these stories and inform park decision-making. Strategically placed containers, e.g. small boxes, are used for stories to be placed into. These containers could have different designs which represent the park they are in or the question associated with them. They can also double up as a tool for feedback, for example from park users, allowing charities and local authorities to get a feel for aspects of parks that play a vital role in visitor experiences.
Ideas for using this approach could include posing questions to park volunteers, citizens and/or visitors asking them the share about what parks mean to them, special moments, past experiences, favourite walks or events, desires for the future, as well as the feelings and emotions which their time in the park evokes.
Role in decision-making:
This tool could help with park decision-making, and is particularly useful for getting a sense of valued areas or aspects of a park. It can also be helpful for connecting park providers with local communities and building trust. Asking questions coupled with showcasing answers for others to see adds a personal touch helping make those who participate feel like their voices are being heard.
Build trust with communities: it gives park stakeholders the chance to share their stories/experiences in the park.
Hard to reach groups: this option could be used to provide underrepresented groups the chance to share their experiences.
Improved understanding: will help park providers better understand what people value in parks and how to enhance these.
Consulting: it offers an indirect way of consultation.
Involving: sharing of stories can involve people from many different groups. Moreover, it is of interest to those who submit answers as well as those who stop to read them (could create displays around the parks to gain more interest).
Online: opportunity to post questions online and receive answers from a wider range of people.
Suitable for:
This would be suitable for projects which aim to build more personal connections with volunteers, park goers or other stakeholders. The tool would suit smaller projects; although, it could also work as part of a package of engagement tools.
Resources needed:
Equipment – Will need to set up boxes (i.e. containers) where people can post their stories, together with pens, paper or postcards. Existing or new notice boards can be used to display stories.
Staff – Staff will be needed to set up the post boxes/containers and maintain them, such as updating questions, collecting stories and reading them.
Time – For the most part the post boxes/containers will be left alone minimising staff time. However, staff will occasionally need to empty them, read the stories and possibly display them.
Cost – This tool is likely a low-cost project.
Formats:
In person – The predominant format of this tool would be in-person.
Online – It is possible to use this engagement tool online, such as on a website or via social media e.g. by posting questions on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, with people posting their stories in the comment sections. This has the possibility of reaching a wide range of people, due to interactions such as retweets or shares spreading the posts.
Advantages:
·
Easy to
set up.
·
Relatively
low cost.
·
If done
in a workshop there would be a quick turn around.
·
Provides
a potential voice for traditionally unheard groups among park users.
·
Helps build
relationships and understanding with different groups.
·
Its adaptable.
·
Does not
require technical support.
·
The box
could be left in the park.
·
Encourages
people to be open with their thoughts, reflections and memories of parks.
· May appeal to younger people.
· Could be possible to digitise this method – for example through a QR code.
Challenges:
· There is a risk of low interaction and a slow turn around in the project.
· The feedback it produces is niche and might not always be detailed enough.
· Reaching groups who are unable to communicate in English might be difficult.
· The container could go missing or could be damaged by the weather.
Sources, good practice and case studies:
Bishops’ House Museum – The museum presented six questions to volunteers, asking about things such as what it means to be a volunteer, their hopes for the future and how do their skills compliment the tasks of the museum. Click here for the source.
Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art – Had artists create postcards then invited participants to colour them in and write messages to people isolating due to the Covid-19 pandemic. This is an example of how this tool can be used on a personal level. Click here for the source.