Meeting in the Middle: Avoiding the Bridge of Assumptions

Imagine taking a boat trip down a wide river. Up in the distance you can see a bridge being built simultaneously from both sides, about to meet in the middle. The guide on the boat tells you that the right-hand side is being built by an outdoor learning provider, confident that the programme they are developing - perhaps a forest school initiative, a residential experience, or a targeted wellbeing offer - will bring clear benefits to people across the water.

On the left bank, schools, youth organisations, local authorities, or health partners are building too. They are developing strategies, commissioning plans, or partnership frameworks that aim to connect their learners, families, or communities with outdoor learning opportunities, because they believe in the benefits of nature, activity, and connection.

As you get closer, however, it becomes apparent that the two sides of the bridge will not be fully aligned when they meet…

A couple of years later you learn that the initial programme ran for a short while - perhaps a pilot project, a funded intervention, or a commissioned service. Some groups participated, but engagement was inconsistent. At the same time, the wider strategic partnership struggled to sustain momentum: priorities shifted, referrals declined, and the anticipated system-wide impact failed to materialise.

Meanwhile, a new strategy is emerging - another partnership, another delivery model, another “bridge” - being constructed further downstream…

…

The story of the Bridge of Assumptions is a common one, not just in individual programmes, but across the outdoor learning sector at multiple levels. Providers, partners, and intended participants are all connected through a landscape of activity, while strategic collaborations also take shape, each aiming to connect people with opportunities that are assumed to meet their needs and interests.

All are typically grounded in a strong and widely accepted evidence base. The benefits of outdoor learning - improved wellbeing, increased confidence, strengthened relationships, and enhanced engagement - are well understood. So it feels reasonable to assume that if the opportunity is created, the intended beneficiaries will engage.

But this is where the bridge begins to drift out of alignment. In both programme design and strategic collaboration, there is often a shared assumption that the needs, motivations, and realities of intended beneficiaries are already understood. Partnerships may be built between organisations with deep expertise and good intentions, yet still rely on second-hand interpretations of the people they aim to support. In this way, even large-scale collaborations can become agreements about people rather than partnerships with them.

So why do these bridges go wrong?

The Bridge of Assumptions highlights the gap between opportunity and access. Whether it is a single outdoor programme or a cross-sector strategy, the presence of a well-designed offer does not guarantee engagement.

In outdoor learning, it is easy to assume that the offer speaks for itself: time in nature, physical activity, social connection. But ‘just turning up’ depends on a much wider set of conditions being in place. These include:

• Confidence and prior experience – Do individuals feel comfortable in outdoor environments?

• Cultural relevance – Does the offer align with participants’ identities and experiences?

• Practical access – Are cost, transport, clothing, or time barriers addressed?

• Trust and relationships – Is there a trusted pathway into the experience?

• Understanding and expectations – Do people know what the experience involves and feel it is “for them”?

At a strategic level, these factors are often acknowledged but not always deeply explored with those directly affected. A local authority may prioritise outdoor learning within a wellbeing strategy; a health partner may establish a referral pathway; a provider may scale up delivery in anticipation of demand. Yet if the lived realities of intended beneficiaries have not shaped these decisions, the system can struggle to connect.

In collaborative environments, assumptions can compound. One partner assumes another has engaged with the community. Another assumes that demand will naturally follow provision. A third assumes that removing financial barriers alone will be sufficient. Each continues to build, but not necessarily in alignment with how people actually access and experience outdoor learning.

It is not enough to base programmes - or strategies - on perception alone. True alignment requires insight that comes directly from those the work is intended to benefit.

Participants are not just recipients of services or outcomes; they are experts in the barriers, motivations, and conditions that shape their engagement. Their voices can challenge fundamental assumptions about:

• What outdoor learning should look and feel like

• How partnerships and referral pathways operate in practice

• What meaningful outcomes are from their perspective

• What support needs to be in place before engagement is even possible

The Bridge of Assumptions, whether at programme or strategic level, is both costly and ineffective, but it is not inevitable.

By embedding co-design not only in delivery but in strategic collaboration itself, the sector can begin to align both sides of the bridge. This means involving intended beneficiaries early and continuously: in shaping priorities, informing commissioning decisions, testing delivery models, and reflecting on impact. It also means building partnerships that value lived experience alongside professional expertise.

In this version of the story, bridges are not built in isolation. Instead, they are constructed through shared understanding, with people meeting in the middle from the outset.

And when that happens, the result is not just a bridge that connects services to participants, but one that supports meaningful, sustained journeys - into outdoor learning, into wellbeing, and into long-term change.