Assessing the Affective in Active Spaces

  • Alice GoodenoughEmail author
  • Sue Waite


This chapter explores the benefit of local environment and social knowledge in practitioner-led research in woodlands, alongside some of the obstacles to researching from the field (or woods!). It describes how Good from Woods practitioners developed a research focus, chose, developed and used appropriate methods suited to a woodland context, addressed and overcame some of the barriers to achieving this. It critiques of the fit of certain methods and tools with active, outdoor contexts. The challenges and opportunities of measuring wellbeing in an outdoor setting and with some of the communities natural health services are targeted towards are introduced, prior to their more detailed discussion in the case study chapters. The development of practitioner’s research capacity during Good from Woods provides real-life examples of some of the critical issues raised.


  1. Abdallah, S., Main, G., Pople, L., & Rees, G. (2014). Ways to well-being: Exploring the links between children’s activities and their subjective well-being. The Children’s Society. Retrieved from
  2. Acton, J., & Carter, B. (2016). The impact of immersive outdoor activities in local woodlands on young carers emotional literacy and well-being. Comprehensive Child and Adolescent Nursing, 39(2), 94–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bragg, R., Wood, C., Barton, J., & Pretty, J. (2013). Measuring connection to nature in children aged 8–12: A robust methodology for the RSPB. Retrieved from—12—methodology.pdf.
  4. Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  5. Charles, L., & Ward, N. (2007). Generating change through research: Action research and its implications (Centre for Rural Economy Discussion Paper No. 10). Retrieved from
  6. Cook, T. (2009). The purpose of mess in action research: Building rigour though a messy turn. Educational Action Research, 17(2), 277–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gaventa, J., & Cornwall, A. (2008). Power and knowledge (Chapter 11). In H. Bradbury & P. Reason (Eds.), The Sage handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Goodenough, A. (2015). Social cohesion and wellbeing deriving from woodland activities: Good from Woods (A Research Report to the BIG Lottery).Google Scholar
  9. Goodenough, A., & Waite, S. (2012). Book review of real world research: A resource for users of social research methods in applied settings (3rd ed.). Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 38(4), 513–515.Google Scholar
  10. Hunt, A., Stewart, D., Richardson, M., Hinds J., Bragg, R., White, M., & Burt, J. (2017). Monitor of engagement with the natural environment: Developing a method to measure nature connection across the English population (adults and children) (Natural England Commissioned Reports, No. 233). York. Retrieved from
  11. Hunter, M. R., Gillespie, B. W., & Chen, S. Y.-P. (2019). Urban nature experiences reduce stress in the context of daily life based on salivary biomarkers. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 722. Scholar
  12. Kohn, E. (2013). How forests think: Toward an anthropology beyond the human. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McNiff, J. (2012). Travels around identity: Transforming cultures of learned colonisation. Educational Action Research, 20(1), 129–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Melson, G. F. (2013). Children and wild animals. In P. H. Kahn Jr., P. Hasbach, & J. Ruckert (Eds.), The rediscovery of the wild (pp. 93–118). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Myers, N. (2015). Conversations on plant sensing: Notes from the field. Nature Culture, 3, 35–66.Google Scholar
  16. Newbury, D. (2001). Diaries and fieldnotes in the research process. Research Issues in Art, Design and Media, 1, 1–17.Google Scholar
  17. Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychological Assessment, 5(2), 164–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Robson, C. (2011). Real world research (Vol. 3). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. Silva, R. A., Rogers, K., & Buckley, T. J. (2018). Advancing environmental epidemiology to assess the beneficial influence of the natural environment on human health and wellbeing. Environment, Science & Technology, 52, 9545–9555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Somekh, B., & Zeichner, K. (2009). Action research for educational reform: Remodelling action research theories and practices in local contexts. Educational Action Research, 17(1), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Taggart, F., & Stewart-Brown, S. (n.d.). A review of questionnaires designed to measure mental wellbeing. Retrieved from Accessed 30 June 2019.
  22. Waite, S., Bølling, M., & Bentsen, P. (2016). Comparing apples and pears? A conceptual framework for understanding forms of outdoor learning through comparison of English Forest Schools and Danish udeskole. Environmental Education Research, 22(6), 868–892.Google Scholar
  23. Waite, S., Rutter, O., Fowle, A., & Edwards-Jones, A. (2015). Diverse aims, challenges and opportunities for assessing outdoor learning: A critical examination of three cases from practice. Education 3-13: International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 45(1), 51–67.
  24. Waite, S., & Waters, P. (2019). Mobilising research methods: Sensory approaches to outdoor and experiential learning research. In B. Humberstone & H. E. Prince (Eds.), Research methods in outdoor studies. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. White, M., Alcock, I., Grellier, J., Wheeler, B. W., Hartig, T., Warber, S. L., … Fleming, L. E. (2019). Spending at least 120 minutes a week in nature is associated with good health and wellbeing. Scientific Reports, 9, 7730. Retrieved from

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Independent ResearcherStroudUK
  2. 2.Institute of EducationUniversity of PlymouthPlymouthUK

Personalised recommendations