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 5 – Evaluation of the Outdoor Event 27 November 2007 


CAIRNGORMS LOCAL OUTDOOR ACCESS FORUM 


Title: Evaluation of Outdoor Access Annual Event 

Prepared by: Fran Pothecary – Outdoor Access Officer 


Purpose 

The purpose of the paper is to feedback the comments received from the public on the success 
of the Annual Event and reflect on how the event might be structured in future. 


Advice sought 

The Forum is invited to consider the comments made and advise on the structure and contents 
of future events. 


Background 

39 members of the public attended the event on the 30 September 2007 and there were 
approximately 25 Forum members and staff who also attended. Feedback was received from 23 
people. What follows is a summary of all the positive and negative comments received, and 
suggestions for change. 

Positive Feedback 

a) It was very well organised (there was no criticism of the location, venue, layout, catering 
and structure of the day) 

b) The speaker was brilliant 

c) The walk and talk sessions were interesting and informative 

d) It was a good opportunity to ask questions of relevant people 

e) It was a good way of networking and engaging interest groups 

f) There was a good mixture of presentation, discussion, activity and fun 

g) There was enough flexibility in the event to allow people to come and go 

h) It was good to see Forum members sitting amongst the participants 

i) It was a good opportunity for the Forum and Park Authority to get feedback from the 
public 

j) Overall it was educational, informative, well conducted and fun! 


Negative Feedback 

a) The timings in the morning were ‘out’ (the morning question time over-ran considerably) 

b) There could have been better use made of the roving microphones 

c) The keynote speaker was not relevant to the topic of the event (one comment) 

d) Forum members on the panel were ‘exposed’ to difficult questions 


Suggestions for change 

a) The day should be shorter 

b) It is desirable to avoid Sundays and in particular Sunday morning which clashes with 
church 

c) There should have been more time for Q&A’s 

d) There could have been transport laid on to and from event e.g. from Aberdeen 

e) There could be activities laid on (particularly family orientated ones) 

f) The event should be in Deeside/Braemar next year 

g) A ‘harder’ sell in terms of advertising might have attracted a new audience 

h) There could be follow up sessions after practical sessions 

i) Forum members should be introduced at the meeting but not individually 

j) Specific mention was made of more time to explore access legislation in respect of core 
paths and to discuss the funicular (each suggestion from one person) 


Staff Reflections on the Event 

CNPA staff have further reflected on the event and come to the following conclusions. 

a) There was no doubt that the event was more successful than last years in terms of 
numbers, organisation and subject matter and this was reflected in the feedback 
received. The speaker, although his subject matter did not touch on the National Park, 
attracted some people who would not otherwise have come. He was very interesting and 
engendered an excellent atmosphere and positive frame of mind which reached forward 
into the meeting. 

b) It was felt that there was a ‘lost opportunity’ for the audience to hear more from the 
Convenor as a ‘mouth piece’ for the Forum. We should consider having an outside 
facilitator or use a CNPA Board member to chair the event. 

c) The question time was useful but it was obvious there were more questions and need for 
discussion than time allowed for. 

d) It would be useful if we could have given more practical and real examples of where the 
Forum has helped resolve issues – to further reinforce people’s understanding of the role 
of the Forum in relation to the Park Authority. 

e) The theme of the event as “outdoor access” is very general and was originally chosen to 
allow a broad range of interested parties to turn up. However we believe that a more 
tightly ‘themed’ event may attract more specifically focused interest groups, and 
potentially more people. 

f) There was clearly an appreciation of the opportunity to get out and about. We feel that 
we should make more provision for young people next time at the points of the day when 
the adults are engaged in debate and discussion. Whilst more focused “outdoor activity” 
or “come and try it” sessions would no doubt prove popular, we need to balance this 
against the greater logistical requirements and the resources to organize this. For 
example it is likely if we were to go down this lines that we would need to contract in an 
Adventure Activity Licensed provider, which would have significant cost implications. 

g) In total, the event cost about £2500 of which £600 was catering; £670 for the speaker 
plus expenses and £1200 for the advertising. Around 600 people received invitations 
personally by email or letter, and advertisements were placed in the local papers 
throughout the Park for period of two weeks. This represents high spend per capita. 


Fran Pothecary 
Outdoor Access Officer 

franpothecary@cairngorms.co.uk