TRAIL 2006 Evaluation

Undertaken by

Jeremy Holloway

Acknowledgements

TRAIL gratefully acknowledges the support of the following

organisations in the implementation of the TRAIL project:

DEVELOPMENTS

T R A I L h a s r e c e i v e d a n i n v e s t m e n t f r o m A r t s & B u s i n e s s

t o f u r t h e r d e v e l o p t h e i r c r e a t i v e p a r t n e r s h i p s

TRAIL would also like to thank Mark Wells and the staff of the

Leisure and Tourism department for their help in the collating and

dissemination of information as contained within this evaluation.

Contents

Acknowledgements

Executive Summary

Terms of Reference

Methology/Procedures

Introduction/background

Findings/analysis

Conclusions

Recommendations

References/Bibliography

Appendices

Executive Summary

The TRAIL project is now in its second year, and as such has instigated a survey of

visitor’s views of the 2 major components of the project, namely;

• The sculpture trail as seen in Teignmouth, Dawlish and Dawlish Warren

• Exhibitions of recycled art in two exhibition spaces at the Ice factory and the

Teignmouth Tomorrow building.

The survey has been analysed in the following evaluation, together with anecdotal

evidence which has been collected from;

• Artist’s interactions with visitors to the exhibits

• Comments from visitors books placed in the 2 exhibition spaces mentioned above

• Relevant notes extracted from reports of both the 2005 and 2006 projects

• Informal discussions with the Project Manager

As well as clarifying the views of both visitors and artists exhibiting, this evaluation also

provides a benchmark for future projects.

The biggest barrier to fulfilling the primary aim and subsequent objectives of the TRAIL

project is adequate funding, and it is this fact that most strongly influences both the actual

activities that have been evaluated within this report, and those activities that have been

considered, but not been able to be bought to fruition. The conclusions within this

evaluation therefore take this fact onto consideration.

Although the TRAIL project has only been in existence for a period of 2 years, it has

established itself as both a popular and sustainable project, and it is with a view to the

project’s future direction and its subsequent sustainability that this evaluation has been

instigated.

Terms of reference

The purpose of this report is to provide a benchmark for future sculpture trails and

exhibitions, and has been instigated and published for the primary use of

• The project team

• The project’s funders

• The artists involved in the project

• The TRAIL committee

• Teignbridge District Council

• Teignbridge Regeneration Committee

As this is now the second TRAIL project, it has been decided to take account of

progress so far, and map out a future trajectory for the project. The survey on which

this report is based is therefore one of the means by which the project managers and

the TRAIL committee can formulate planning for the future.

There is, however, other anecdotal and written evidence available which has been

included within this report in order to offer a more realistic and complete evaluation.

This evidence is listed within the methodology/procedures section of this report.

It has also been decided to include within this evaluation the report from last year.

This will allow the project to;

• Compare and contrast the effects of funding and/or any inadequacies

• Consider any differences in visitor perceptions

• Detect any trends that become apparent

Methology/procedures

There have been several methods for evaluating the views/demographics of the public

visiting and viewing the sculptures/artworks during the summer of 2006, both on the

beaches at Teignmouth, Dawlish and Dawlish Warren, and in the two exhibition spaces at

the Ice factory and the Teignmouth Tomorrow building. The primary method has been by

public survey; the complete results of this survey form appendices II, III and IV of this

report. The “TRAIL questionnaire 2006” as offered to the public/audience forms

Appendix I of this report. As the majority of the sculptures were in Teignmouth, and both

the exhibition spaces were in Teignmouth, it follows that most of the questionnaires were

completed in Teignmouth.

A secondary method of evaluating public opinion has been to extract comments from the

visitors books located at the two exhibition spaces (referred to above). Artists taking part

in the TRAIL project were encouraged to interact with visitors, such that the subject of

the questionnaires could be approached and the public therefore asked to engage in the

survey. Copies of the comments contained within the visitors books are contained in

appendix V

Although not directly affecting or representing the views of the public, there are also

included within this report press cuttings which mention the TRAIL project. These form

appendix VI of this report.

In order to ascertain both commitment to the project and to consider the long term

sustainability of the project, we have included within this report artists’ views of the

project. These artist evaluations form appendix VII of this report.

In order to take account of progress so far, and map out a future trajectory for the project,

it is necessary to evaluate the success or otherwise of the project so far, and in order to do

this it is necessary to compare and contrast the stated aims and objectives contained

within the original TRAIL constitution.

It is therefore necessary to publish the original constitution in order to establish whether;

1. The constitution needs amending or updating

2. The project is still being conducted as originally planned

3. The project is fulfilling it’s original purpose

4. The public perception of the project is in line with the project manager’s

perception

The TRAIL constitution is therefore reprinted here;

CONSTITUTION for T.R.A.I.L. as at 23rdApril 2005 (AGM)

1. NAME of Organisation is T.R.A.I.L. (Recycled Art In Landscape)

2. The AREA of benefit is: Teignbridge District with special reference to

Teignmouth, Dawlish and Dawlish Warren.

3. Groups to benefit: People of all ages but focusing on 7-18 year olds and family groups.

4. AIMS:

4.1 To promote better understanding of the environment through art

education to all age groups.

4.2 To work with other community groups in Teignbridge providing artist

led workshops with special reference to activities during school holidays.

4.3 To involve families in art projects and encourage the passing on of skills.

4.4 To provide art initiatives for artists, students, community groups and

schools possibly leading to training opportunities and new ventures.

4.5 To help promote the region as an area of excellence for the Arts.

4.6 To be a non profit making Organisation

www.trail.org.uk contact lizlockyear@aol.com tel. 01626 873818

The first step in providing good evaluation data - is balancing the information you

would really like against what you need/can practically use and what is feasible.

Information has a cost and, generally, the more accurate the information the higher the

cost. Most research whether amateur or professional involves some trade-off between

accuracy and cost.

The most important part of research is deciding the appropriate methodology for the data

you require – different methodologies produce different types of data. Any survey must

define the problem, ask the right questions and choose the correct method to get a useful

answer. It is imperative to know WHY you want the information and WHAT you’re

going to do with it before deciding HOW to get it.

Primary research is time-consuming and costly. You shouldn’t do it unless:

• You have a clear idea of what issues or questions you are addressing

• You are confident that the method you are using is unbiased and experimentally

sound

• The data gathering tools you are using are both reliable and valid

• The data you collect will be sufficient to draw conclusions and make

recommendations

Surveys are often the most cost-effective form of monitoring available to arts

organisations but it is imperative to decide WHAT you want to know in order to

determine WHO to survey and WHAT to ask. It is possible to include attitudinal

questions expressed as a quantity (e.g. satisfaction levels) but it is vital to check and re-

check questions so that respondents and surveyors understand them to mean the same

thing.

There are key rules when designing a questionnaire:

1. Keep it short

If your survey is long you have poorly defined survey goals. If you don’t know or

care what you will do with the result of a question – remove it!

2. Design your questionnaire to match your survey method

You can easily include branching and linked questions with CAI/CATI surveys

3. Keep it simple

Don’t mix topics, respondents lose interest or are confused.

4. Don’t combine questions

Never ask what respondents think of a + b at the same time as the response will be

confused

5. Avoid jargon, technical details and abbreviations

Why should respondents know what they mean?

6. Don’t present biased questions

How happy are you with this fantastic, top of the range kettle? Do you always

feel safe walking down your dark street at night? Do you think the council is

doing everything possible for the education system in your town?

7. Check grammar, spelling and design

You will look unprofessional, uncaring and untrustworthy if your copy is littered

with errors

8. Always have a middle response option

Don’t Know or Not Applicable gives respondents real control

9. Provide sample questions with completed details

You might think it’s obvious but many people are easily confused by any type of

form

10. Be specific

Woolly questions get woolly answers

11. Always leave space for comments

You have invited people’s opinions and must give them the opportunity to give

them

12. Be neat, tidy and well-spaced

The design should make it easy for respondents to give their opinions

13. Check the order of questions is logical

Frustration and confusion result from non-sequential questions

14. Always start with an explanation of who you are, why you are asking and what

you will do with the data. Remove suspicions and barriers

15. Ask if respondents would be willing to take part in follow-up research

Questions can be of three types:

• Multiple choice (i.e. closed)

• Open-ended

• Hybrid (multiple choice with option to put own answer)

Attitude choices are usually of three types:

• Likert scale – strongly agree/agree/neither agree nor disagree/disagree/strongly

disagree

• Semantic differential – Good 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Bad

• Rank – place list in order of preference/priority

The above notes on the collection, dissemination and presentation of a survey can be used

in any future analysis of visitor’s views, and will be discussed within the

recommendations section of this evaluation.

Introduction/background

Extract from the TRAIL 2005 report:

“TRAIL is……..Teignbridge Recycled Art In landscape, and it implemented a programme

of exhibitions and workshops in Teignmouth, Dawlish and Dawlish Warren from 30th

July to 4th September 2005. This event was a new initiative to put sculpture into public

spaces and involve the community in visual arts to enhance the region for visitors and

residents, highlight the need to recycle and look after the environment, create

opportunities for employment, share resources and further the aims of local

organisations. Our target group was very broad, involving all generations, with an

emphasis on family groups and young people, encouraging the exchange and sharing of

skills.

T.R.A.I.L. artists had been looking for a sculpture site in a recycling centre for a ‘Scrap

Art Challenge’. The opportunity did not present itself and finally the idea was dropped.

Doff Pollard, Arts Development Officer for Teignbridge Council stepped in and

suggested that land belonging to TDC could be a possible venue. Early in 2005 Lorraine

Montgomery, Parks Department, confirmed that T.R.A.I.L. could use T.D.C. flowerbeds

as sculpture sites. This decision was a catalyst for the programme of events organised by

T.R.A.I.L.

The sculpture trail provoked a great deal of discussion within the local community and

amongst visitors. The general impression was that people enjoyed looking at the

sculpture, found it opened up opportunities to discuss the artwork and recycling with

fellow viewers and artists and added a surprise element to their walks”.

The total number of sculptures available to view on the beaches of Teignmouth, Dawlish

and Dawlish Warren in 2006 was 25, and they were positioned accordingly;

• Teignmouth: 19

• Dawlish: 4

• Dawlish Warren: 2

Because of problems concerning the apparent safety elements of some of the sculptures at

Dawlish Warren, and the subsequent involvement of the Teignbridge Health and Safety

Department, this area received only 2 sculptures, the tin can man, and the knitting

sculpture from 2005. One of those not allowed to be erected by the environmental agency

was a major piece of site specific sculpture. Unfortunately another piece of sculpture

destined for Dawlish didn’t arrive.

Whilst Teignbridge is regarded as a prime tourist area, the socio-economic grouping that

visitors to the region would tend to be attributed to would be CD/3-4. This will be

reflected in the question concerning visits to other art galleries. The fact that the sculpture

is in a place where it would not normally be expected to be, and seen by members of the

public that would not expect to see it, or indeed want to see it, should be taken into

account.

By way of note, we have included, in the back of this report, a few images from a similar

project in Sydney, Australia, called “Sculpture by the Sea”. It is interesting to compare

and contrast the effects of private funding and sponsorship on the exhibits in Australia as

apposed to here in the UK. (Appendix VIII)

Findings/analysis

The TRAIL Survey

The total number of questionnaires completed and useable was 528. A full breakdown of

answers is given in appendices II, III and IV, though an analysis of those answers is as

follows;

• As mentioned earlier in this report, the majority of the questionnaires were

completed in Teignmouth, almost 95%, and of those; just fewer than 10% were

completed in the two gallery spaces. (It must be presumed however, that, for the

purposes of this survey, all respondents viewed the sculptures on the flowerbeds).

• There were almost as many locals (defined for the purposes of this report as

coming from the area of the sculpture trail, Dawlish, Teignmouth, Shaldon and

Bishopsteignton) as visitors from outside the county, with 17% coming from the

rest of Devon.

• The age ranges used for this survey were not sufficiently widespread enough to be

able to draw any specific conclusions, except that 80% of visitors were over 25,

and over 1 in 6 were retired. This, albeit small representation of the visitor age

range, in itself means that opinions concerning “modern” and contemporary art is

likely to be skewed by age and attitude. Mistakes by some data collectors meant

that people answered one survey as a family unit, thereby excluding children as a

specific group.

• It is very pleasing to note that a third of visitors had seen the sculpture trail last

year, and had returned, and although 66% of those were locals, 35% came from

outside the county.

• When people were asked why they were here today, 33% were local, which

differs considerably from the figure above. 40% said they were on holiday. It was

very pleasing however to see that over 8% had come specifically to see the

sculpture trail. Of these, 53% were from outside the local Teignbridge area, with

10% coming from outside the county (including 2 from London).

• The next 2 questions were linked in that the answer to one would probably induce

a similar answer to the other. The figures though are very encouraging for the

project; with 91% saying the sculptures enhanced the area, and a similar figure

saying they wanted the sculpture trail to be an annual event. The comments

derived from the “a” section of question 8 are contained in the aforementioned

appendices II, III and IV.

• With such a large percentage of visitors in favour of the sculpture trail, one would

presume that those same visitors would like to talk to those artists involved in

creating the sculptures, but this isn’t the case, as two thirds of respondents said

they would like to see or talk to an artist which meant that one third did not.

• The question relating to joining in with a community sculpture was again not very

well phrased, and a lot of respondents were confused as to whether that meant

locally or within the Teignbridge sculpture area. A large proportion of

questionnaires had comments relating to the locality of the community sculpture.

For those that answered the question, there was almost an equal number saying

yes and no.

• The question relating to whether the respondent had taken part in an arts activity

was very much in line with the national trend, whereby 75% of adults take part in

an arts event at least once a year. The survey found that 23% never go to an art

exhibition or take part in an arts activity, with the same number going often.

• Again the question concerning the possibility of the respondent working with an

artist to produce a sculpture for 2007 was deemed to be ambiguous. It presumed

the respondent was coming to Teignbridge again next year, or would be visiting if

they were a local, and also that the respondent realised that the question referred

to the sculptures within Teignbridge. Although 87% said no, 13% said yes.

• Nearly 3 out of 4 people left either a comment or a contact number. Again these

are available in appendices II, III and IV.

Findings in relation to constitution

Taking into account the misgivings concerning the age categories within the survey, it

can be seen that the original intent to provide the greatest benefit to: “People of all ages

but focusing on 7-18 year olds and family groups”, is being constrained due to the lack of

necessary funding, with only 10% of visitors being under the age of 19. There was no

funding as such this year for specific projects working with young people and families in

workshops, but TRAIL did manage to mentor 3 organisations, and as a result 3

community pieces were exhibited;

• School exclusion group (Aim Higher),

• Stallcombe Centre for adults with learning difficulties

• ACE Centre for adults with physical disabilities.

The original plan, which was to “promote better understanding of the environment

through art education to all age groups”, is on the face of it, according to the survey, not

being implemented as well as would be wished. This may well be as a result of funding

constrictions, but if the intent is still to promote a better understanding of the

environment through art education, the available funding will need to be utilized

accordingly.

If the intent is in fact to provide sculptures in the flowerbeds within Teignbridge as a

primary motive of the project, then the constitution will need to be amended.

However, if one then takes into account the visitors books, which were available in the

exhibitions at the Ice Factory and the Teignmouth Tomorrow exhibitions, and where the

artists themselves were able to converse, and therefore explain the principles and

rationales behind the exhibits, the responses are considerably different. The visitor books

do seem to reflect that the message was put across reasonably well, which emphasizes the

fact that the sculptures exhibited on their own, with very little explanation, are accepted

as aesthetic sculptures, and not the results of a project such as TRAIL, which has very

definite principles relating to their construction as a result of environmental concerns.

The responses from the public at the two exhibition spaces are contained in appendix V.

The above point can also be attributed to the plan to “involve families in art projects and

encourage the passing on of skills”, whereby there does not seem to be any

acknowledgement within the survey that any involvement with families actually took

place. This was again, however, reflected differently in the comments collected at the two

exhibitions, whereby references were made to children participating. Anecdotal evidence

also suggested that children/families really enjoyed the exhibition, especially on a visual

level.

It must be noted however that the funding allocation in 2006 was such that community

involvement was considerably curtailed. Events which were very much on an ethical and

advocating level, which took place last year, could not take place this year. These events

included;

• Storytelling and making recycled postcards on the beach

• Interactive music and art workshops

• Mosaic workshops

• Clay boat-building

• Extreme knitting

Whether or not the project has enabled the area to fulfill it’s role “to help promote the

region as an area of excellence for the Arts” is not clear from the survey, though the fact

that 91% of visitors thought the sculptures helped to enhance the area must be seen as

partly fulfilling the role.

Analysis of Visitors Comments;

Of all the comments (of which there were approximately 450) contained within the

visitors books, there appear to be only 2 which were adverse, which approximates to a

percentage of 99.5% of people enjoying the exhibition, which when averaged with the

comments from the sculptures’ feedback equated to approximately 95% satisfaction with

the TRAIL project.

Of the 450 comments, 44, or almost 10% mentioned the recycling aspect of the exhibits,

which means that over 90% didn’t! It may well be that most people just didn’t bother, but

a large percentage of visitors commented on the very high aesthetic standard of the

exhibits. Again it would have been more satisfactory if the exhibits were seen to be

related more to the using up of recycled materials, rather than the mere using of them for

exhibits’ sake.

One comment said “I liked the recycled bits”. I think they missed the point.

Another asked why low energy light bulbs weren’t used in the exhibition. Good question!

The two exhibitions were available to view for a period of 23 days, whereas the sculpture

trail was available to view for a period of 37 days, both in the height of the summer

season.

Using multiplying factors as defined by Dawlish Carnival Committee it can be presumed

that 100,000 viewers potentially viewed the sculptures and 3,500 visitors viewed the two

exhibitions. The gallery figure meant that the visitor numbers for the exhibitions

increased 10 fold from the previous (and first) year.

Analysis of Artists’ Feedback Forms;

There were 16 artists feedback forms completed.

In answer to the question “where did you show”,

13 answered: Sculptures

8 answered: Exhibition.

Locals = 13

Devon =2

London =1

All artists were in the 25 – 64 age group

11 artists did not take part last year.

3 artists did take part last year.

Ratings for the application call on average were 4 (good)

The average time (in hours) spent on the project was 68 hours, with;

The longest time being 250 hours

The shortest time being 2 hours

The average time spent on other activities was 56 hours with,

The longest time being 200 hours

The shortest time being 5 hours

The average money spent on the project was £138.75

The largest amount was £500

The smallest amount was £10

The average for the effectiveness of communication was 4.5 out of 5, as was rating for

space allocation and Press and Publicity, though there was one response of 1 for the

latter.

The overall opinion of the event as a whole averages 4 on all but financially, which

barely reached 2 out of 5, although what this figure is based on is unknown.

The actual responses, complete with artists comments, are available in Appendix VII.

Vandalism..

During the 2005 TRAIL project, we had only damage to two items at Dawlish.

This could well be due to the fact that we had artists working in KMCA youth group,

Teignmouth, and Youth-topia in Dawlish for 12 weeks prior to the exhibition. We also

had artists working on the beaches nearly everyday. Most of this damage could easily be

put right...

During the 2006 TRAIL project however, we had the following damage;

• Murtle the willow mermaid, (Becky Shaw), was dropped on the beach three times

and rescued by landscape gardeners and beach staff.

• The Spirit of Skate, (Jane Burt), was continually dismantled as kids wanted the

skateboards. After some interaction between artists and young people they started

supplying replacements (talking to artists really helps)

• Chimes kept disappearing from EO sound sculpture.

• Heads disappeared from Mike Nuth's Plankmen.

• Mermaid remade disappeared on Carnival Day in Dawlish.

• Am Afifi's Sea Henge was used as a climbing frame or hit by a car or boat trailer.

• Blown Away, Deckchair by Petra Turner, was damaged by someone trying to

remove it.

Generally speaking, the closer to the pier the sculpture was, which is where the young

people congregate, unfortunately complete with alcohol and drugs, the more damage

there was to the sculptures.

Conclusions

Although the primary source of information for this evaluation has been a survey which

contains the views of 528 visitors to the TRAIL sculpture trail and 2 exhibitions, there is

also anecdotal evidence contained within this evaluation from other sources which has

been collected to give not just an evaluation of the 2006 project, but also an overview to

take the project forward in future years.

It must be presumed however, that, for the purposes of this survey, all respondents

viewed the sculptures on the flowerbeds, irrespective of where they completed their

questionnaires.

Although almost 95% of the questionnaires were completed in Teignmouth, and of those

just fewer than 10% were completed in the two gallery spaces, it must be remembered

that most (19 out of 25) of the sculptures were in Teignmouth.

No specific conclusions can be gleaned from the age ranges of those viewing the

sculptures, except when analysing the TRAIL constitution, (please see below)

The age ranges used for this survey were not (as previously stated) sufficiently

widespread enough to be able to draw any specific conclusions, except that 80% of

visitors were over 25, and over 1 in 6 were retired.

Mistakes by some data collectors meant that people answered one survey as a family unit,

thereby excluding children as a specific group.

It is very pleasing to note that a third of visitors had seen the sculpture trail last year, and

had returned, and although 66% of those were locals, 35% came from outside the county.

It was very pleasing however to see that over 8% of visitors had come specifically to see

the sculpture trail. Of these, 53% were from outside the local Teignbridge area, with 10%

coming from outside the county (including 2 from London). 91% of visitors said the

sculptures enhanced the area, and a similar figure said they wanted the sculpture trail to

be an annual event.

The largest ambiguity within the evaluation is the project’s relevance to the original

constitution. Taking into account the misgivings concerning the age categories within the

survey, it can be seen that the original intent to provide the greatest benefit to: “People of

all ages but focusing on 7-18 year olds and family groups”, is clearly not being

implemented. It may well be that the project’s plans are being constrained due to the lack

of necessary funding; there was no funding as such this year for specific projects working

with young people and families in workshops, but TRAIL did manage to mentor 3

organisations, and as a result 3 community pieces were exhibited;

• School exclusion group (Aim Higher),

• Stallcombe Centre for adults with learning difficulties

• ACE Centre for adults with physical disabilities.

Also contained within the constitution is an intent to promote better understanding of the

environment through art education to all age groups. This again, according to the survey,

is not being implemented as well as would be wished. This may well again be as a result

of funding constrictions, but if the intent is still to promote a better understanding of the

environment through art education, the available funding will need to be utilized

accordingly. The views of visitors concerning the aesthetics of the exhibitions clearly

indicate that on this level the artworks are engaging and pleasing to the eye, but if the

intent is purely to provide sculptures in the flowerbeds within Teignbridge as a primary

motive of the project, then the constitution will need to be amended. The link between the

exhibits and the ethical/recycling theme must be maintained, or preferably strengthened,

if the project is to fulfil it’s basic aims.

However, if one then takes into account the visitors books, which were available in the

exhibitions at the Ice Factory and the Teignmouth Tomorrow exhibitions, and where the

artists themselves were able to converse, and therefore explain, the principles and

rationales behind the exhibits, the responses were considerably different. The visitor

books do seem to reflect that the message was put across reasonably well, which

emphasizes the fact that the sculptures exhibited on their own, with very little

explanation, are accepted as aesthetic sculptures, and not the results of environmental

concerns.

The above point can also be attributed to the plan to “involve families in art projects and

encourage the passing on of skills”, whereby there does not seem to be any

acknowledgement within the survey that any involvement with families actually took

place.

It has been noted earlier however that the funding allocation in 2006 was such that

community involvement was considerably curtailed. Events which were very much on an

ethical and advocating level, which took place last year, could not take place this year.

These events included;

• Storytelling and making recycled postcards on the beach

• Interactive music and art workshops

• Mosaic workshops

• Clay boat-building

• Extreme knitting

Whether or not the project has enabled the area to fulfill it’s role “to help promote the

region as an area of excellence for the Arts” is not clear from the survey, though the fact

that 91% of visitors thought the sculptures helped to enhance the area must be seen as

partly fulfilling the role.

When the comments in the visitors books contained within the two exhibition spaces are

analysed, it can clearly be seen that the exhibits are not only extremely popular, but of a

very high standard. To achieve a figure of 99.5% of people who enjoyed the exhibition is

praise indeed.

The idea of linking the Teignbridge sculpture trail to a similar one in Sydney, Australia is

both interesting and thought provoking, especially when the methods and amounts of

funding are analysed. Images of a sculpture trail which is not only of an extremely high

standard, but is also based on a very commercial financial footing, will hopefully

instigate both debate and dialogue between the two sculpture sites.

Recommendations

Recommendations, as mentioned below, can be both attributed to comments contained

within the survey, and also anecdotal evidence collected by artists and visitors throughout

the duration of the TRAIL project.

1. In order to include an independent approach to funding, and satisfy the need to

investigate all possible avenues for obtaining funds, it is highly recommended that

efforts are made to try and employ an independent fundraiser. This position could

be included in any future funding proposal.

2. Following on from both the 2005 and 2006 (appendix X) projects, the possibility

of employing an independent project coordinator has arisen, and this is a situation

which will need discussing before the start of the next TRAIL project.

3. It has been noted from various sources that the lack of Council interaction and

engagement from a public perception is a situation that is providing a wasted

opportunity. Whether interaction is provided by leaflets, a road show, or personal

contact, the fact that the TRAIL project is not only present within Teignbridge

during the height of the holiday season, but is also a highly visible project, both

physically and aesthetically, means that the Council has an excellent opportunity

to both publicise their own involvement in recycling, and the advocation of

recycling in general.

4. As TRAIL has such a high profile during the summer months, and, according to

its own survey, a very strong appeal amongst visitors, Teignbridge Council could

be seen to be publicising the event more, especially as the subject of the TRAIL

project is currently in vogue, and probably will be for the foreseeable future.

5 Although there were restrictions placed on the work that the 2006 TRAIL project

was able to implement due to lack of funding, there is clearly a difference in the

amount of vandalism dependent upon whether the local youths were actively

engaged in the construction and showing of the sculptures.

6 It was pointed out that a way should be found in which artists could be re-

imbursed for breakages, as at present there is no policy in place for damage

occurring to sculptures. One way to accommodate this would be to arrange a

contingency fund as a percentage of the total funding received.

7 It was also pointed out that closer communication with the police to encourage

them to pay a few visits to the sculpture areas late at night, might help the

situation.

Appendices

1. Survey questionnaire

2. Survey result by numbers

3. Survey result by percentages

4. Survey results by illustration

5. Comments from visitors books from exhibitions

6. Press cuttings

7. Artists’ survey results

8. Images from “Sculpture by the Sea”, Sydney,

9. TRAIL report 2005

10. TRAIL report 2006