Abstract
This article explores relational belonging as a function of place attachment within a literal learning ecology, a university arboretum and the community it sustains. While formal learning spaces such as classrooms and laboratories have been widely examined, there is a gap in scholarly attention to informal learning spaces. This research, through an ethnographic case study, highlights how ecological campus environments foster meaningful educational experiences and forms of belonging that go beyond the academic and cognitive. The study presents two key findings by drawing on diverse data sources, including maps, interviews, and ethnographic observations, and focusing on the Shakespeare in the Arb (SITA) community. First, place attachment and belonging within the SITA community emerge as situated practices involving imaginative engagement and alignment with the Arboretum's ecological features. Second, attention to materiality, affect, and ecological relations reveals nuanced forms of belonging and learning often overlooked in conventional educational settings. This work contributes to the definition and empirical examples of relational belonging through the lens of place-based learning and its pedagogical impact on communities.
Introduction
A central challenge in the study of learning and belonging is how to more fully account for the role of place in shaping social and educational processes. While situated learning has demonstrated how participation in social practices supports learning and belonging, it often privileges human activity and community membership as the primary sites of meaning-making. At the same time, frameworks such as Scannell and Gifford's (2010) model of place attachment emphasize the relational bonds between people and environments but are less frequently integrated into theories of learning or belonging. This creates a gap in understanding how belonging emerges not only through social participation but also through engagement with the material, ecological, and affective dimensions of place.
This study addresses a twofold problem. First, there is a need for a more expansive, or radical, conception of belonging and learning as processes of encounter, movement, and transformation that extend beyond bounded communities of practice. Second, there is a need for a theoretical bridge that connects situated learning with ecological perspectives on place, recognizing that learning unfolds within place-based ecologies that do not begin or end with human activity alone (Bang & Medin, 2010). By bringing these perspectives into dialogue, this work seeks to better understand how place attachment, social interaction, and environmental affordances (Greeno, 1994) collectively support the emergence of belonging and learning in complex, lived environments.
Understanding the connection between belonging across pedagogies and spaces requires examining how learners not only occupy but also inhabit places of learning (Riddle & Souter, 2012; Temple, 2008, 2009). Therefore, the university campus provides a unique setting to explore the interplay between place, learning, and belonging. The concept of place attachment, often defined as the affective bond between individuals or groups and a particular setting, is subtly encoded in institutional language. Consider the term alma mater, meaning “nourishing mother,” which positions the university as a source of intellectual and personal sustenance. In turn, alumni are figured as “foster children, or nurse-mates,” those who have been raised within a shared environment of care and cultivation. This framing suggests that education is not merely transactional but relational: a process of being nurtured within a community that leaves lasting imprints of attachment and identity.
These metaphors extend beyond higher education into the broader ecology of schooling. For example, terms such as kindergarten (literally “children's garden”) evoke spaces where growth is guided, tended, and sustained. Here, development is imagined as both biological and social, requiring attentive care, appropriate conditions, and time. Taken together, the metaphors of garden and family foreground themes of growth, cultivation, care, and interdependence that are shared across ecological and educational discourses. They offer a conceptual bridge for studying place attachment (connection to) and belonging (identification with) in university contexts, and highlight how learning environments are not inert backdrops but living systems that support the flourishing of life within them.
Created to serve the communities in which they are situated, public universities have diverse physical resources, including student housing, historic buildings, museums, and agricultural or ecological holdings. While many aspects of the university have online or hybrid dimensions, physical places remain important sites of interactions even if their form or function has shifted (Swist & Kuswara, 2016). At the same time, public university communities are becoming more diverse. With more diversity comes a greater range of expectations and needs that require a broader repertoire of learning spaces, experiences, and different kinds of communities. Such needs also put pressure on the current physical and social structures designed to replicate the values of a time of elite higher education (Ellis & Goodyear, 2016). Yet for many people and communities, the university has historically been a source of displacement, struggle, and othering forces (Strayhorn, 2018). Graham and Moir (2022) argue that dominant notions of belonging in higher education promote conformity and assimilation and critique the prevailing view of belonging as something students must achieve by aligning with the university's values. These are often tied to retention and economic goals and thus pressure students to conform to dominant narratives of university participation. They argue for a more expansive notion of belonging in Higher Education while also attending to the fluid, embodied, and situated nature of learning. From an academic/faculty perspective, Savin-Baden (2008) contends that the growing absence of meaningful learning spaces contributes to the dissolution and fragmentation of academic identities. She argues that such spaces must be valued and potentially redefined in order to sustain the intellectual vitality of higher education.
Therefore, better theories are needed in an increasingly complex university organization to understand how we make meaning from and collaboratively create a sense of belonging and community across university spaces. Such theories should invite educators to consider imagination's role in expanding the idea of the university and its institutional form (Barnett, 2013). When we consider universities as socially constructed public places, we disrupt the perception that the structures and patterns of behaviors there are natural and static (Toolis, 2017). In turn, belonging can be conceptualized as a “situated practice” and “a constellation of relations, intimately entangled with identities, becoming and learning” (Gravett & Ajjawi, 2022, p. 1393). For example, Graham and Moir argue that belonging is a product of a learning ecology co-created through relationships and shared experiences, particularly in educational contexts that prioritize inclusivity and diversity.
Relational approaches to belonging at universities (Graham & Moir, 2022; Gravett et al., 2024; Guyotte et al., 2023) demand a relational approach to learning (Barnett, 2011; Bennett, 2013) which prioritizes interconnectedness and care as a shift from individualistic approaches to learning and teaching. Scholars such as Barad (2003) argue that knowledge does not reside in individuals or objects independently but emerges through interactions between learners, materials, environments, and discourses. This perspective aligns with situated and embodied learning theories, where knowledge is shaped by the entanglement of social, material, and affective forces.
The subject of this study is a community of performers collectively called Shakespeare in the Arb (SITA). The community comprises amateur performers, including university students and community members, who annually stage a Shakespeare play in a university arboretum, affectionately known as the “Arb”. This case highlights how place attachment contributes to learning and belonging outside (in the literal and metaphorical sense) of traditional university settings, such as classrooms and courses. Using an environmental/ecological learning space as an analytical case also offers opportunities to surface new forms of relationality in terms of materiality, belonging, and learning that are not often considered in discussions of Higher Education and belonging.
Purpose
Belonging and place attachment are closely related but theoretically distinct. Belonging is best understood as a relational and processual phenomenon, emerging through participation in shared social and cultural practices such as learning, work, or community life. It is entangled with questions of identity, safety, and recognition, involving a sense of being “in right relation” with others and of occupying a meaningful niche within a collective (Arnett, 2023). In contrast, place attachment refers to the affective bond between a person and a place, often described as fondness for or emotional connection to an environment. While place attachment can develop regardless of one's social position or sense of inclusion, belonging typically requires reciprocal recognition and participation. At the same time, these concepts overlap: place attachment is more than simple fondness and can support belonging, but belonging extends beyond the attachment itself into the social, cultural, and relational conditions that make it meaningful.
Therefore, this work seeks to understand and define relational belonging as a function of place attachment in a literal learning ecology, the university arboretum, and the community it supports. While traditional university learning spaces such as labs and classrooms have received considerable attention, common areas, outdoor settings, and ecological spaces on campus also play vital roles in meaningful connections. These less-studied spaces offer unique learning experiences that enrich students’ sense of community, encourage diverse interactions, and deepen their place attachment. By valuing these spaces as integral to learning, institutions can expand holistic notions of learning and a stronger sense of belonging. Ellsworth (2005) suggests that public spaces, events, architecture, and performances are rarely viewed as explicitly pedagogical. However, this study will demonstrate how the Arboretum as a learning space exerts a pedagogical force that has the potential to disrupt and reshape people's relationships with the space and the university more broadly.
The properties and affordances of learning spaces influence the nature and quality of the learning interactions within (and sometimes despite) their boundaries (Gibson, 1977; Greeno, 1994). The shift to remote and hybrid learning following the COVID-19 pandemic has made it especially important to rethink where and how belonging happens (Gravett & Ajjawi, 2022). Belonging is not a fixed or uniform concept; it is shaped by spaces, interactions, and material elements that influence how both students and staff engage in higher education. The changing temporal and spatial boundaries of digital learning challenge traditional notions of belonging, prompting new questions such as how non-human or more-than-human (i.e., digital, material, and environmental) elements shape the experience of belonging. Gravett and Ajjawi call for research on belonging to move beyond student experiences to include faculty and staff. They also call for paying closer attention to the objects, environments, and micro-moments that shape engagement (2022). I argue that by shifting our focus to affect, embodiment, and materiality, we can better understand how belonging is experienced and can develop a more nuanced understanding of how belonging is fostered—or disrupted—in higher education.
The goals of this study are twofold. First, it investigates a unique university learning space and community that, while often overlooked in educational research, is rich in place-based engagement and communal practices. Second, by integrating or entangling place attachment theory (Scannell & Gifford, 2010) and communities of practice (Wenger, 2010), the study explores how emotional, symbolic, and ecological dimensions of place function as anchors for relationality and belonging within the university context. I argue that integrating these frameworks allows for a deeper understanding of how place-based connections—rooted in collaboration, practices, and continuity—support relational belonging in higher education. Finally, the Arboretum and the SITA community exemplify how university spaces can broaden their pedagogical address and epistemic norms and invite disruption of settled questions in higher education: who/what belongs, how knowledge is created and shared, and where learning happens.
A University Arboretum as Learning Ecology and SITA Context
SITA presents a unique theater experience by staging plays in the natural setting of the Arboretum. Unlike conventional theaters, SITA lacks a fixed stage, requiring the audience to move across a mile of varied landscapes. This setting transforms natural spaces into a panoramic stage. Familiar landmarks are reimagined as scenes like fairy haunts or palace gates, adding novelty for returning audiences (Figure 1). Performers utilize the Arboretum's vastness, emerging from behind trees and vanishing into the woods, crafting an immersive experience that, as the founding director notes, makes “the Arb the star of the show.” Participants respond to seasonal changes and collaboratively design the play's route and scenes, aligning them with the text and the environment. Rehearsals are held from late April through June, with performances held four days a week. Over its 25-year history, SITA has evolved from a summer course without a stage into a university and community tradition, with former students now co-directing performances. The origins of this study stem from my experience as a college student. As an alumna and former member of the SITA, I chose to return to this place-based community as a researcher to understand belonging and engagement based on the criteria of diverse membership, pedagogic richness, and continuity.
SITA exemplifies a unique community that continually draws participants back to the Arboretum in evolving roles. Current members are primarily students with diverse career paths, but alumni remain engaged by performing, attending shows, or following SITA on social media. Many who first attended as children now participate as young adults. For over twenty years, “playing in the Arb"—both in the dramatic and ludic sense—has provided joy and a strong sense of belonging for hundreds of performers and audience members alike, making SITA a cherished site of collective placemaking.
Theoretically, the Arboretum can be conceived as a thick place (Casey, 2001; Duff, 2010). Thick places are characterized by their capacity to sustain and nurture relationships, support creative practices, and offer meaningful engagement and transformational opportunities. Identifying thick places “requires one to remain alert to the nexus and how affects and practices converge in the experience of enrichment and belonging” (Duff, 2010, p. 882). SITA presents a rich case for research by exploring overlapping notions of place, belonging, and learning for several reasons: 1) it brings together performance, community, and environment in a way that blurs traditional boundaries between formal and informal learning, 2) it disrupts notions of novice and expert learners, and 3) it offers opportunities for people to engage with novelty/discovery along with opportunities for the familiar and continuous.
Conceptual Framework and Research Questions
Learning and personal growth thrive when individuals feel anchored to something larger, whether a place, group, or community (Graham & Moir, 2022). Places actively shape this process, influencing how attachments form within institutions like universities, which play crucial roles in identity formation (Carvalho & Freeman, 2023). Therefore, place-belonging is dynamic, evolving through people's movement within spaces and extending into imagination by connecting the past, present, and future (Altman & Low, 1992; Massey, 2005). Belonging is deeply connected to learning, but its meaning in university contexts is more complex than it may initially seem. For example, Guyotte et al. (2023), using a nomadic analytical approach, conceptualize higher education as a dynamic site of belonging-as-relations. Students are simultaneously shaped by and actively shape their encounters with spatialized social practices and power relations involving human, nonhuman, and ideological actors. Their findings suggest that experiences of un-belonging may constitute “an affirming act of resistance,” as belonging “diverged and converged … affirmed and contradicted” (p. 13). Similarly, in their framework of relational belonging and learning engagement, Boys and Hazlett (2014) emphasize the role of material space in enhancing learning effectiveness and belonging. They highlight how spatial design intersects with affective (emotional and attitudinal) and performative (enacted, experiential) dimensions, which are closely tied to learners’ sense of engagement and belonging in educational environments.
I draw on two approaches to understand the interplay among place, belonging, and learning; one rooted in situated learning (Wenger, 2010) and the other in place attachment and identity (Scannell & Gifford, 2010). Integrating these approaches clarifies how university spaces can foster relational belonging by recognizing that learners are profoundly shaped by their interactions with others and their connection to the spaces they inhabit (Graham & Moir, 2022). Here, I use the word inhabit intentionally to connote living in a specific place and the meaning that is formed from people's habits—their routine and everyday practices and experiences to underscore how belonging is not a state of being but rather a “situated practice” (Gravett & Ajjawi, 2022).
Belonging Within Communities
Wenger's modes of belonging within communities serve as one of the conceptual anchors for this study (2010). According to Wenger, belonging to social learning systems is multi-dimensional across three modes: engagement, imagination, and alignment (Figure 2). Engagement involves collaborative activities, discussions, and artifact creation, shaping our identity and our understanding of the impact of our actions. Imagination entails constructing mental images of ourselves, our communities, and the world, which are essential for orienting ourselves and interpreting our social participation (Anderson, 1983). Alignment ensures that local activities are harmonized with broader processes, emphasizing mutual coordination to achieve higher goals rather than submission to external authority. These modes influence our perception of self and our role within various communities. This framework helps elucidate how the SITA members learn and develop their shared practices as a community.
SITA Performance with Audience. Note: The famous balcony scene from Romeo and Juliet comes to life with the help of one of the Arb's mature tree specimens. Meanwhile, the audiences sit on the ground or in lawn chairs. They take in the performance while enjoying a June evening.
Modes of Belonging in Communities and Organizations Framework (Wenger, 2010). Note: Modes of belonging, as situated practices within communities are divided into three modes: engagement, imagination, and alignment.
While Wenger's framework is widely used in educational research, it leaves little room to discuss the role of materials, movement, or spaces in learning communities. Its focus is primarily on human-centered social activity, which tends to treat place merely as a container for learning. A different framework is needed to shift towards a “learning-with-place” approach that embraces the material aspects of learning and belonging (Dudek & Toomey Zimmerman, 2023; Hamm et al., 2023).
Belonging Through a Place-Based Lens
Scannell and Gifford's (2010) framework on place attachment is employed in this study to examine how the Arboretum supports multiple forms of belonging within SITA. While place attachment and belonging are not synonymous, belonging is understood as one of the key functions that place attachment can serve. Place attachment refers to the bond between an individual or group and a place that varies in terms of spatial scale, specificity, and the social or physical characteristics of the setting. This attachment is expressed through affective, cognitive, and behavioral psychological processes. The framework identifies several core functions of place attachment, including providing a sense of survival and security, supporting personal and collective goals, and offering temporal or personal continuity—each of which has meaningful implications for learning.
Place attachment is described through the dimensions of person, process, and place to interrogate the interplay between individuals, the processes of attachment formation, and the unique attributes of places (Figure 3). The person dimension examines who is attached to a place and why, considering personal and cultural experiences, memories, and identities at both the individual and group levels. Processes explore the psychological aspects of place attachment, including emotional, cognitive, and behavioral components, highlighting how feelings, thoughts, and activities related to the place contribute to attachment. Finally, place focuses on the characteristics of the place itself, such as its physical environment, social and cultural meanings, and its role in providing security, identity, and continuity.
Place Attachment Framework (Scannell & Gifford, 2010). Note: Place attachment is defined by three dimensions: people, processes, and place.
Overlapping Place Attachment And Belonging Modes Frameworks. Note: Combining the two frameworks illustrates how place supports a more theoretically rich definition of situated learning and relational belonging.
Scannell and Gifford's framework informs belonging through place attachment and complements Wenger's focus on social and participatory aspects of learning communities by adding affective, symbolic, and physical dimensions of place. While the two frameworks do not align directly, their combination creates a richer theoretical context for understanding the entanglement among learning, place, and belonging. I argue that adding place as a theoretical dimension to Wenger's modes enriches a relational perspective of belonging. In doing so, engagement, imagination, and alignment are understood as occurring not only with people but also with ecologies—with the material and living world. And where, for example, climate, geography, and flora actively shape cultural processes, including imagination, esthetics, and alignment. The following graphic Figure 4 provides an orientation to the theoretical framework of this article, illustrating how relational belonging is constituted through interactions with place and materiality as much as through sociocultural relations.
These two frameworks inform the following research questions.
Research Questions
How do participants’ relationships to the Arboretum shape their identities and sense of belonging within the SITA community and the larger university?
In what ways do the ecological and material affordances of the Arboretum support or constrain learning and participation?
How do the SITA community's practices/processes emerge, and in what ways can these be understood through engagement, imagination, and alignment with the Arb?
Methods
An emplaced ethnographic approach (Hunter, 2009) serves as the primary method of examining how place-based communities construct meaning, develop routines, and experience belonging within the Arboretum. Interviews, observations, and map annotations form the basis of this study's data. Mapping is a research method and form of ethnographic inquiry offering insights into multisensory ethnography by highlighting the interplay between place, identity, and social relationships (Caquard & Cartwright, 2014; Powell, 2016). Mapping represents spatial structures and narratives, enriching the understanding of shared experiences within the study context. This study treats participants’ movements in the Arboretum as embodied and spatial practices integral to data collection and analysis (Debord, 1958; Ingold, 2011; Verran, 1998).
SITA Members and Participants
The study's data collection lasted six weeks between May and June during rehearsals and production of the Tempest (2017) season. Forty-two individuals participated as cast and crew. Although cast size can vary each year based on the play, the demographic and age breakdown of the Tempest season was representative of past productions. Of the forty-two members, twenty-five (more than half) were university students or recent alums (having graduated in the past two years). Thirteen were described as mature participants over the age of twenty-five. Four were under 18 years or younger and had not yet started college. Six were university employees (not including the artistic director). Fourteen members were new to SITA during the Tempest production, meaning they had never been part of a production.
For clarity, I use the term member to refer to the general cast and alumni of SITA productions that were part of a larger ethnographic data collection. The term participant is used to distinguish the twenty-one individuals whose interviews and map data were collected for this specific analysis. Table 1 provides the breakdown of participant demographics.
Participant Demographics.
Data Collection and Methods
Interviews were conducted with twenty-one cast members, including directors and the costume mistress. Each interview lasted between thirty and forty-five minutes, including annotating an Arboretum visitor map as part of the activity. Walking interviews were conducted with participants leading the way when the weather permitted. Participants were encouraged to take pictures of their favorite Arboretum spaces that were emotionally charged or interesting to them. The interviews were semi-structured and were participant-driven in terms of depth and range of conversation. I observed SITA's rehearsals and performances over the course of six weeks. Field notes and analytical memos were used to record observations. Table 2 describes the forms of data collected.
Types of Data Collected.
Data and Analysis
Participants were asked to describe where they would go in the Arboretum, what activities they would engage in, and how they conceptualized the Arboretum in relation to the surrounding areas of the university campus and city. Data from individual interviews and annotated visitor maps were used to answer these questions. The maps acted as a conversational tool that corroborated the participants’ memories and the physical geography. Walking interviews were conducted in which participants showed their favorite or most frequented trails and features. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded for emergent themes. The map annotations were tallied and analyzed through thematic coding, in conjunction with the interviews, and then compared across all participants. Data analysis involved two rounds of coding across maps and interviews as an integrated dataset. The first round identified shared narratives and patterns across participants, using both data sources to triangulate experiences. The second round combined deductive coding, guided by key theoretical dimensions such as imagination, social/cognitive processes, and then inductive coding to capture emergent themes. This iterative approach allowed for both theory-driven and data-driven insights. Broad themes emerged and were developed across the interviews and observations. Select case studies were then formed based on the community's diversity of participants and experiences. Case studies enabled a deeper understanding of the relationship between the participants and the Arboretum and their membership in the SITA community.
Positionality as Researcher and SITA Alum
As a past member, my positionality in this research is shaped by my prolonged engagement with the SITA community. Having participated in three productions over five years and attended numerous others, I have developed an in-depth understanding of the community, its practices, and its members and directors, many of whom I have known for over two decades. This insider perspective afforded me privileged access to SITA's history, knowledge, and processes. I could engage participants in conversations informed by shared experiences, quote lines from plays, and reference specific characters from productions I had been involved with as a performer and audience member. At the same time, I sought counter-narratives and experiences of the participants that were not like my own.
Findings
This study's analytical findings are divided into two parts. The first part focuses on participants’ engagement and attachment to the physical space of the Arboretum by analyzing annotated maps and interviews across all participants. The second analysis follows three focal cases of SITA members strategically selected for their range of experiences as SITA members.
Interviews and Annotated Map Analysis
Participants were asked about their favorite places in the Arboretum and were instructed to mark these spaces on a map. Areas holding particular meaning, strong memories, or associations were also marked. From the transcribed interviews and maps, the number of participants who explicitly discussed or marked these areas was recorded. Table 3 outlines the popular, officially named spaces within the Arboretum and the number of participants who referenced or marked them. Figure 5 depicts the instances on the Arboretum's visitor map.
Favorite Arboretum Spaces Accounted for in Annotated Maps.
Based on the mapping annotations and interviews, participants highlighted the Heathdale, East Valley, and River as popular areas, often using words like beautiful, magical, serene, peaceful, and open to describe the Arboretum's landscape. Descriptions of the Heathdale included multisensory language capturing light, sounds, and smells, while the river area was appreciated for the sound and movement of the water. Participants frequently used affective language to describe the physical spaces they enjoyed and the reasons for their visits. Participants sometimes had different names for places than those on the map, reflecting their tendency to personalize the Arboretum. Walking interviews provided deeper insights into participants’ relationships with the Arboretum, allowing for a more intimate and embodied understanding of their experiences. Participants took pictures representing their relationship with the Arboretum. Figure 6 synthesizes data from six participants during walking interviews.
Favorite Arb Spaces Mapped from Interviews. Note: The map corresponds with table 3.
Walking Interview and Participant Photo Analysis. Note: Examples of walking interview routes and participants' photos.
When asked what participants do in the Arboretum outside of performing in SITA, they described activities like socializing with friends, playing Frisbee, reading, and walking. They related that the Arboretum is a popular spot to take visitors, including parents or friends from other universities. Other activities mentioned include sledding, running, meditating, participating in environmental education, and using recreational drugs. Participants described the Arboretum in similar terms, as a natural or wild space, using words like “oasis, escape, or retreat” from the “hustle and bustle of town” or the stress of academics and classes. Most participants described the Arboretum as a “separate place.” For example, Julia compared campus green spaces like the quad to the Arboretum. Julia related that the Arboretum had a separate purpose that was more public, open, and utilized by the larger community. Julia explained that while a family might walk around campus or city proper, the Arboretum was more conducive to family activities such as strolling or playing.
The maps and interviews revealed that people frequently engaged in similar activities in the same areas of the Arboretum, such as picnicking in the peony garden, walking through the Heathdale, or reading near the river. Participants were also asked to mark areas on a map where they held strong memories, providing insight into their personal connections with the Arboretum beyond mere pleasure or displeasure. The mapping annotations aimed to uncover which specific sites were important to people and why—how these sites fit into their larger stories of participants’ identities and experiences with the university. Participants’ interviews and maps demonstrated that the Arboretum was the site of various activities over time, from everyday walks to special occasions like first dates or birthdays. The most detailed annotated map came from Stanley, an alumnus, university professor, and longtime SITA member. During his interview, Stanley shared that, for him, “every inch of the Arb is imbued with meaning. “ He requested to take the map home to complete the annotation exercise thoroughly, explaining that after thirty years of experience in the Arboretum, it would take him more time than newer participants. Stanley was a student at the university in the mid-1980s, studying biology, pharmacy, literature, and Latin. His map (Figure 7) is a testament to his various studies, interests, and pursuits.
Stanley's Annotated Map. Note: Stanley recorded more than 30 years of memories and experiences ranging from walks, performances, and academic teaching and research sites.
Stanley vividly described a particular day in 1986 when he was nominated to deliver the graduation address, and he spent a whole day in the East Valley memorizing and practicing the speech. Stanley's earliest annotated date was “1982 medieval festival”. Many of his annotations are related to walks: morning walks 1983-84, snowy walks 1996-?, walks with Stacey (wife) 2010, chased by an owl c. a. 1987. “ Stanley's map includes memories from his coursework and teaching: the river area near the prairie was the site of his “Botany plant identification class 1986,” while upriver near the waterfront landing, he collaborated on an “algae gathering project in 2014. “ Even before SITA, Stanley had been a part of theatrical and artistic productions in the Arboretum as evidenced by “rehearsal in the rain ‘As You Like It’ 1995. “ Stanley recorded eight SITA productions and three Shakespeare Scenes (a smaller, more exploratory outgrowth of SITA).
Liza's map provides a parallel example of a novice member's map (Figure 8) to Stanley's more senior Arboretum experiences. Although the two SITA members have different temporal quantities depicted by the maps, the affective qualities of the annotations were similar. Liza, a junior in college and first-time SITA performer, provided personal details about a time that she shared with her family, “Nicholas Drive Entrance: Brought my family here to wander and explore first month of school,” and time with friends: “Riverfront Landing: Got my friends lost here, climbed a huge tree-pure joy being there w/ them. “ She also noted SITA Tempest-related places, such as “Trail into Heathdale: Stairs that Ariels crawled on the first day of rehearsal. “ Liza described the quality of light on her map, using highly descriptive and affective language. “There is a certain path of trees between the main and East Valley where the light streams in golden rods at sunset. “ Despite not being as full of memories as Stanley's map, Liza's map is an eclectic mix, chronicling events and capturing moments of intense affect: “pure joy” and “light as golden rods” stand out as poetic.
Liza's Annotated Map.
Stanley's and Liza's annotations across both time and space provide strong examples of how everyday interactions, memories, and interests create a meshwork of place that extends beyond the Arboretum—family visits, academic courses, celebrations, romantic beginnings and endings. These maps show how past actions in particular places, although invisible to others, leave imprints that people carry to the present. Stanley's map exemplifies how the Arboretum can be conceived as a fully lived space and how people build meaning and make sense of the places they choose to inhabit. Over time, the members build up complicated associations and mental maps that span memories, feelings, and activity flows. These also include somatically charged observations and perceptions.
Case Studies
The cases elucidate the intergenerational and social aspects of SITA. Participants joined SITA through various routes, including academic interests in theater, dance, or historical reenactment, as well as informal connections like friendships with other members, prior attendance to a show, or a general desire to be outdoors. Three cases of focal members were selected from the participants to more deeply understand the participants’ relationship with the Arboretum and their membership in SITA. The four individuals (Table 4) were selected because they represent a diversity of participants and experiences within the community, ranging from founding members to youth performers.
Focal Case Studies and Participant Information.
a Represent a single case.
Malcolm was chosen because he was a founding member of SITA and continues to perform,
direct, and mentor novice members. Rich and Elliot (considered a single case) are a father and son who consider participating in SITA as a family activity. Mona's case is that of a novice member who intentionally sought mentorship from senior members (Malcolm) to improve her directing craft. These cases illustrate the complex, subtle, and diverse ways members identify with and engage with the Arboretum.
Rich and Elliot: Bonding in the Arboretum as a Family
Rich and Elliot performed in the Tempest together. Elliot was an accomplished musician and had been performing in SITA shows since he was about six years old. Rich related that he had always been fond of theater but as an audience member and observer. It was Elliot in fact who urged his father to audition for an acting role. Rich and Elliot and their family, including mom and sister, enjoyed hiking, camping, and other outdoor activities. Rich related that he and Elliot enjoyed observing the animals, especially the hawks, woodchucks, and deer prevalent in the East Valley during rehearsal and performance. Rich viewed the Arboretum as a quiet place of observation and reflection, but more importantly, he saw their shared SITA endeavor as designated bonding time. Rich: For me, that's one of the best things about it is getting to spend time, at least a couple hours a day, three days a week and sometimes it can be four hours three days a week, with Elliot in the Arb, which we both love. That's really one of the total highlights for me … Even last year, my roles were very minor, and I had a lot of downtime at rehearsals … But it was just such a pleasure to be here and to be with Elliot here, that it was totally worth it and totally fun. As much as I love the outdoors, there's just so much that keeps us from necessarily taking the time to get out there. So this was enforced outdoor time, and I'm like, yeah, you can enforce that on me anytime. That's great. Elliot: Must go out more, seriously!”
Rich and Elliot's shared time in rehearsals and performances often included a great deal of downtime as they waited for their scenes and watched other groups perform. However, Rich said he did not mind waiting because it provided “enforced outdoor time” away from computers, cell phones, or household duties. Similarly, SITA provided the father and son with a chance to bond at home, away from the Arboretum, as they spent time working on lines, blocking, reading and discussing the play together. This case illustrates how SITA activities extended beyond the Arboretum into other spaces, such as the family home.
When asked whether they saw the Arboretum as part of the university, city, or something else, Rich and Elliot gave different responses. Elliot considered the Arboretum a “totally different world,” noting that it was often cooler (temperature) and wilder than his backyard, full of nature, trees, plants, and animals. He explained that while some parts of the Arboretum still showed buildings like the hospital, other areas had no visible structures, that is when he felt truly “in the Arb. “ On the other hand, Rich was aware of the Arboretum's connection to the university and town, partly due to his professional relationship with the university. However, he also viewed it as a “wonderful oasis,” feeling that it was part of the university but also a publicly open, accessible space. For Elliot, the Arboretum was a play space distinct from his school, town, or backyard, allowing for adventure with plenty of hiding places and areas to explore. Rich saw it as large enough for adventures but familiar and safe enough to give Elliot freedom of movement and agency, noting, “If he got lost, he has a good head on his shoulders and could find his way out.”
Rich and Elliot exemplify how SITA was not just for students but also, like the Arboretum, open to the community and families. Although the primary goal of SITA was “to put on a show,” for Rich, the the most significant benefit was bonding outdoors with his son. While Elliot enjoyed “hanging out with all these different and cool people.” Rich and Elliot's experience as a family illustrates how the Arboretum enabled families and community members in ways different from other university and city spaces, such as large sporting events or student-focused activities. The ‘separateness’ of the Arboretum lent itself to a different kind of ‘togetherness.’
Rich and Elliot's case illustrates how identities within the university extend beyond formal roles such as “learner” or “faculty” to encompass relational ties that are both social and ecological. As a faculty member (Rich) and as a family, their connection to the university reflects dimensions of place attachment (employment, proximity, and fondness). At the same time, their participation in SITA reveals how belonging is enacted as they move between identities as performers, family members, and participants in a shared practice.
Malcolm: Seeding, Growing, and Cultivating a Place-Based Community
At the time of the data collection, Malcolm was a professor of neuroscience at a nearby university and had been involved in twelve of the seventeen SITA seasons. He was an undergraduate at the University, attended NYU for theater, and returned to the university to complete his doctorate. Malcolm was enrolled in the original course in 2000, which would eventually become SITA. Malcolm viewed his role in SITA as stewardship, fostering community by encouraging others to visit the Arboretum, attend performances, and support creative engagement within this shared space. Malcolm recalled SITA's inception as being “a scrappy bunch of kids” who ventured into the Arboretum “to do this crazy thing” with no clear idea of what they were doing or if they could pull it off. He related that SITA got started because their summer course lacked access to a rehearsal space. Professor and director Karen proposed using the Arboretum because it had plenty of space and was within walking distance of the university buildings.
When asked about his relationship with the Arboretum before his involvement with SITA, Malcolm described his first visit during first-year orientation as “a little overwhelming” because it seemed “too big and confusing.” Besides a few daytime dates, Malcolm usually frequented the space at night despite the Arboretum being closed after sundown. He recalled, “People said, ‘you can't go to the Arboretum at night; it is dangerous,’ so of course, that's when I would go. Back then, it was more wild, tangled, and messy”. After the first SITA production, Malcolm felt a sense of belonging to the Arboretum and a duty to invite others to share in the magical world the performers had created. Malcolm described this feeling of creative ownership, stating, Malcolm: It became this thing where we almost felt like we were stewards of, and guardians of, and responsible for glorifying the Arb because it was this thing that we had created this magical thing and we wanted people to be into it and see it and everything.”
Malcolm's initial sense of belonging as a student evolved into a sophisticated stewardship of the Arboretum and SITA community. Malcolm: I feel very connected to The Arb. It's one of my favorite places. It does feel like an extension of the university because protecting the Arb and protecting our opportunities here is part of being stewards at the university. So, in that sense, you get a sense of belonging, you are aware of its place in the university and also community-wide. That Shakespeare in the Arb is a community institution. And it's taken on a life of its own, well beyond the university.
Malcolm also described the challenge of keeping SITA's staging exciting and fresh, emphasizing that adventure and discovery are at the heart of the SITA experience. He cited the 2016 Midsummer Night's Dream as one of his favorite experiences in the past seventeen years because it recaptured the same excitement and discovery as the initial production. One of the opportunities for experimentation he fondly recalled was shared with Mona, another focal participant, and other cast members when they gathered for fun to try different stagings of the play. One day, some of the cast members gathered for fun to try different stagings of the play. Mona was among the performers. Malcolm: We came one day, and I said [to Mona], “You can be Oberon (King of the Fairies), but you can't use any of the places we've ever used for this play. “ So, like, let's go do this show. We ended up trying all these different, weird backwoods places … I would love to see the play they put together because it not only forced us to reimagine the staging, but it led to re-imagining these characters and the story that we're telling in a way that was legitimate but also so different from this play that we've been doing for 20 years.
Malcolm offers a unique perspective as a founding member of SITA. He has matured into his role as a director, mentor, and steward of the Arboretum. Similarly, through the years, Malcolm has helped shape this small place-based community into an institution that adds to the character of the university and the city.
Mona: Finding One's Place in the Community
Mona was between her junior and senior year, double-majoring in English and neuropsychology. Her first SITA production was Midsummer 2016, where she played one of three Pucks, mischievous fairy-like characters. Mona was interested in learning more about the directing process, and Malcolm mentored her during the production. For the 2017 Tempest, she was a co-director alongside Malcolm and Karen. Malcolm described the 2016 Midsummer as one of his favorite productions “because we had a great cast, especially Pucks (including Mona), who would do anything and were up for trying new things.” Malcolm and Mona continued their mentor/mentee relationship in The Tempest production, with Mona specifically working with the Ariel ensemble and musicians. She emphasized the importance of community membership, citing her relationship with Malcolm and friendship with other SITA members.
Mona credited the SITA experience with helping her overcome her shyness and difficulty talking with others in the production: “I did not walk with anybody anywhere. I just like hid myself”. Initially, she felt like an outsider in a well-established community, saying, “There's no way, I’m just so small, I’m not there yet”. Mona credits Malcolm with helping her integrate into the community. Eventually, she talked to people and became an important member, taking pride in her ability to bring energy to a scene, her willingness to experiment, and her eagerness to perform acrobatic stunts or creative movement. She explained how she strived to be, “productive and therefore valuable to the SITA community. Just being part of something and throwing yourself into it really helps you feel more comfortable in communities and feel more in control of the space.” Mona took on a significant leadership position as co-director in her second year with SITA.
Mona described how her relationship with the Arboretum had changed due to her SITA experience after becoming more familiar with the physical space and its landmarks. Mona spent 9–12 h a week during rehearsals for five weeks in the Arboretum, totaling about 50–60 h. Performances easily added another 16 h or more per week, meaning that in three months, Mona spent almost 120 h in the Arboretum. That is a significant amount of time to be outside, especially for someone who did not identify as “an outdoorsy kinda person”. Before joining SITA, Mona would only occasionally visit the Arboretum. Since then, she has often visited the Arboretum in her free time, sometimes accompanying Malcolm to plan the possibilities for the following year's productions.
Mona and Malcolm separately described an episode during the previous year's Midsummer Night's Dream production where they and a few friends experimented with the spaces and scenes outside the normal production. Malcolm, Mona and other SITA friends began exploring different, more intimate spaces to stage the play. One of these scenes was played by the river, and referred to as H2Oberon. Both spoke animatedly about this experience. Mona wanted to play the character of Oberon both as a challenge and for fun. Although she learned all of Oberon's lines, she never performed the role, so she seized the opportunity to explore the character in a new space. Mona's experience performing in the lush river area, distinct from the woodsy Heathdale (where the scene is normally played), exemplified how members’ experimentation activated affective and imaginative engagement, enabling new interpretations of the characters’ identities. The H2Oberon episode demonstrates the Arboretum's potential to support multiple stagings and interpretations, highlighting how site-responsive improvisation enabled deeper textual and spatial understandings.
Mona and Malcolm's case illustrate how participants become attuned to the affordances of place, shaping both their imaginative play and their reinvention or explanation of practices and performance priorities. Their exploration of a new location in the Arboretum reflects processes of engagement and imagination, as they rework familiar characters in “new spaces”. Mona's description of the lush riverside setting demonstrates how the material qualities of place invite new interpretations, transforming a traditionally “woodland” staging. Malcolm, as an established member, extends this relational engagement by introducing experimentation, “you have to find a new space to perform” which also extends Mona's own playful disruptions of gender norms. These activities, while new, actually reinforce a shared SITA value of discovery, experimentation, and novelty over polished performance.
The three cases illustrate participants’ engagement with the Arboretum, where concentrated meanings and affect enriched SITA participants’ everyday experiences of the space. Malcolm's case represents how the small, experimental student group grew into a community institution. Founding and long-time members like Malcolm viewed their relationship with the community and the Arboretum as one of stewardship. Mona's case illustrates how membership and belonging to the SITA community provided critical social structures that affirmed and expanded her identity as a performer and team member. Rich and Elliot's case showed how the Arboretum and the SITA community supported their familial relationship by dedicating time together outdoors. For the father and son, SITA activities provided a shared project, practicing lines and reading the play together, that extended beyond the Arboretum.
Findings Synthesis
Supported by the diverse data, including maps, interviews, observations, and across the case studies, I offer two main findings: 1) Place attachment and belonging developed by the SITA community can be conceptualized as situated practice around engaging, imagining, and aligning practices with the Arboretum. 2) Paying attention to materiality, affect, and ecological relations of SITA and the Arb elucidated nuanced forms of belonging and learning.
Engagement, Imagination, and Aligning Practices with the Arboretum
SITA participants’ engagement with the Arboretum as a learning space culminates in the shared act of making. The process of staging a performance—navigating terrain, integrating natural elements, and rehearsing in open-air spaces—built a shared repertoire of practices and a common purpose. Participants described their first impression of the Arboretum as a large space with unknown borders and diverse landscapes. The possibility of getting lost created opportunities for discovery. The space allowed people to find, claim, or carve out their favorite spots. Similarly, the Arb was a place to be shared with friends and family. Related to the Arboretum's designation as an open and public place, was its perceived separateness in purpose and landscape from the surrounding town and university. The Arboretum's liminal or othering quality made it feel more physically, socially, and conceptually open than other places at the university. Through sustained engagement, imaginative reinterpretation, and shared practices, participants cultivated deep connections to the Arboretum that extended beyond the temporal bounds of any single production.
Engagement: Living and Learning in/with the Arboretum
Intense and prolonged engagement with the Arboretum developed members’ perception and recognition of seasonal change, friendships, and the excitement of discovering and sharing special spaces with audiences and each other. SITA members engaged with the Arboretum in highly affective ways, focusing on belonging and discovery. They conceptualized the Arboretum as both a public and personal space supporting multiple connections to their experiences and identities. Annotated maps from longstanding members like Stanley and novice members like Liza illustrated participants’ range of activities and emotional connections with the Arboretum. This sense of belonging and place attachment was greatly enhanced by membership in the SITA community, rooted in creative placemaking practices. For example, the father-son case illustrates how SITA activities fostered bonding and outdoor time in the Arboretum extending their theater practice to other contexts, such as memorizing lines at home. Participants also demonstrated creative placemaking and attachment by adopting names for specific areas of the Arboretum (e.g., Frisbee Meadow) even before becoming SITA members.
For SITA participants, the Arboretum was more than a stage; it was a living space intertwined with personal histories, seasonal rhythms, and social relationships. Unlike other university spaces, traditional boundaries between students, alumni, faculty, and local community members were much more fluid and often insignificant in terms of power or expertise. Its expansiveness holds potential for mentorship, friendship, and evolving identities. Longtime members, like Malcolm, saw their role as one of stewardship, ensuring the continuity of SITA's presence in the Arboretum while mentoring newer participants. Others, like Rich and Elliot, extended their engagement beyond the performances into a shared familial practice that deepened their connection to Shakespeare's text and the landscape itself.
Imagination: Performing Place, Reconstructing Memory
SITA members enacted a spatial imagination where familiar spaces became reanimated through new roles, characters, and scenes. Each season, the Arboretum became a space of discovery as actors reinterpreted old locations or uncovered new ones. This recursive engagement turned the Arboretum into an archive of past productions, where rehearsals and performance inscribed new layers. The Arboretum, as a site of performance, memory, and transformation, became an anchor of belonging for SITA participants. SITA members viewed the Arboretum as a place that supported adventure and experimentation. Despite real dangers like ticks, heat stroke, and poison ivy, the risks added a sense of adventure to SITA's activities. Taking chances—venturing off trails, climbing trees, or experimenting with movement and staging—fueled excitement, and shaped small rites of passage and personal rituals/habits.
Aligning Practices: Shared Practices and Public Performance
Through their repeated interactions with the Arboretum, SITA participants developed a shared set of practices—ways of moving through, naming, and performing in the space. These practices passed down through seasons and generations of members, form the connective tissue of SITA's relationship with the Arboretum. Members carried embodied knowledge of how to best use the Arboretum—where to position an audience, how to project in an open clearing, and which trails provided the quickest shortcuts between scenes. This knowledge is accumulated through both personal trial and error and historical/institutional knowledge. Similarly, mentorship was woven into the fabric of SITA's practices, as long-standing members guided newcomers through both logistical and artistic aspects of the performance. This mentorship extended beyond theatrical training to encompass environmental awareness, movement through space, and the ethos of care that defined the SITA community's relationship with the Arboretum.
The public and outdoor nature of SITA redefines conventional understandings of community theater. Rather than centering on the amateur status of its performers, SITA foregrounds the act of public sharing. The open-air setting fosters a distinctive intimacy between performers and audience members, one rarely achievable in traditional theater venues where darkened auditoriums and stage lighting obscure the view of individual faces. In contrast, outdoor performances allow actors to see and respond to the expressions of neighbors, friends, and family, often engaging them directly as they move through the audience. This proximity blurs the boundary between performer and spectator, reshaping the experience as a participatory event with neighbors on picnic blankets, toddlers chasing squirrels, and friends mouthing lines they know by heart.
Place Attachment Through Materiality and Ecological Relations
The second theme of the findings examines how the material and ecological system of the Arboretum facilitated novel relational encounters between SITA members and their environment. As evidenced by the annotated maps, SITA members developed place attachment to areas of the Arboretum based on affective engagement. Places like the river, Heathdale, and East Valley were considered favorite places based on their esthetic and ecological interest. All these places have a distinct terrain, different types of trees, and present a unique esthetic compared to other parts of the Arboretum. Over time, participants adapted to the rhythms of the Arboretum, learning to prepare for heat, rain, and insects and adjusting their practices accordingly. For returning members, noticing environmental changes—a fallen tree, a new growth of wildflowers, the return of a bird to their previous year's nest—was as much a part of their experience as the performances themselves. Material engagement extends beyond naming to the adaptive use of the Arboretum's natural features. Found objects become integrated into productions, supporting scenes or serving as makeshift props. This resourcefulness reflects both the material affordances of the environment and the imaginative ways participants enfold and respond to the environment through performance. The Arboretum, in this sense, is not merely the setting of performance but an active collaborator in the creative process.
Discussion
This work contributes to theorizing belonging and learning space research design and impact using multiple frameworks. Scannell and Gifford's notion of belonging as a function of place attachment enriches Wenger's definitions by adding a layer of emotional, symbolic, and physical connection to the social and participatory aspects of learning communities. Integrating these perspectives can lead to a richer, more holistic understanding of relational belonging by acknowledging both social participation and the significance of place in shaping community dynamics. This understanding is grounded in specific physical spaces and materials.
Returning to Graham and Moir's call for a relational approach to belonging (2022), place attachment in ecological spaces encourages understanding belonging as a lived, situated practice. One in which learners engage with nature in ways that reflect diverse creative, cultural, and experiential narratives. This dynamic perspective allows multiple expressions of belonging to coexist, deepening relational diversity. Shared experiences create opportunities for mutual care, shifting the focus from individual identity to collective engagement with the environment and each other. Moreover, the embodied nature of learning in environmental spaces through activities like walking, gardening, or making art engages learners in sensory, participatory experiences that break down traditional notions of who learns at universities, what learning looks like, and where learning happens.
I argue that prolonged embodied engagement with place is crucial for relational belonging and transformational learning. Learning in SITA depended on various cyclical temporalities, the academic calendar, rehearsal cycle, performance cycles, and seasonal change. In this context, the Arboretum offers both seasonal rhythms and a reliable rehearsal structure, functioning as a steady metronome for the community. Furthermore, sustaining belonging and learning requires continuity and the capacity for growth and adaptation at the margins. The findings also show how the Arboretum extended beyond a physical setting, emerging as a relational entity.
Place Attachment as an Entry Point to Learning and Belonging
Place attachment is a powerful entry point for learning and belonging. It is accomplished by engaging learners in the particularity of a place where multiple identities, materials, and activities intersect. In these environments, learners participate in reciprocal acts of belonging—both giving and receiving connections—that facilitate the development of new attachments and relationships.
The Arb functioned socio-materially as a thick place (Casey, 2001; Duff, 2010). In SITA's case, members developed a repertoire of practices, inscribed specific sites, and developed naming conventions for Arboretum's features. Cases of young adults like Mona and youth like Elliot revealed how the Arboretum fosters maturation through ecological intimacy, play, and shared artistic vision. Members’ experiences, like Malcolm's sense of “stewardship” and “protectiveness” cultivated over two decades, demonstrate how engagement, imagination, and aligning practices through SITA enabled place attachment as a social mode of belonging.
Returning to Ellsworth (2005) the Arboretum and the SITA community it supports exemplify how university spaces can broaden their pedagogical address and epistemic norms—how knowledge is created and shared. For example, shifting the conceptualizations of learning as participation or learning as knowledge-building challenges the metaphor of knowledge acquisition as the primary form of learning in university settings. Wenger's (2010) learning-as-participation emphasizes that knowledge emerges from engaging in social practices within a community, where individuals co-construct meaning and identity through shared activities. Furthermore, the learning as knowledge-building metaphor conceives of learning as an active process of generating and expanding knowledge through inquiry, dialogue, and reflection (Paavola & Hakkarainen, 2005). From this perspective, learning is not a linear process of knowledge transfer but an emergent phenomenon where meaning and agency are co-produced by learners, tools, spaces, and discourses.
Relational belonging, as exemplified in SITA, unfolds through a rhizomatic logic, one in which connections multiply and extend in unpredictable, nonhierarchical ways (Ingold, 2011). Relationships beget further relationships, whether through peer collaboration, the welcoming of new audience members, or the more-than-human connections formed with familiar and beloved trees or local wildlife. This mode of belonging resists institutionalized models tied to enrollment status or conventional markers of academic achievement. Relational entanglement and, by extension, relational belonging, do not reside independently in individuals or spaces but emerge through interactions between learners, materials, environments, and discourses. One way to achieve these forms of engagement in learning is by investing in places that serve as dwelling spaces where people can return throughout their lifespans, continuously creating new and diverse meanings over time. As public institutions embedded in and shaped by place, universities have the potential to foster such expansive forms of belonging. SITA offers a compelling case study of what university belonging could be.
Ecological and Environmental Spaces Foster Relational Belonging
SITA participants’ engagement, imaginative practices, and alignment with the Arboretum's materiality shaped their sense of place attachment. This framing highlights the deeply relational nature of their interactions with the Arboretum, emphasizing how material, environmental, and social entanglements co-constructed their experiences of belonging and creative collaboration. The Arboretum can function like other traditional university spaces: a lab for experimentation, a studio for skill-building with mentors, and a performance space for creative expression—with an ecological twist. Incorporating ecological and environmental relationships into this analysis further challenges the human-centered focus of traditional educational spaces. For example, designing spaces that attend to ecological surroundings and cultural land practices invites learners to see themselves as part of a broader ecosystem (Orenstein et al., 2019). This approach can enable a deeper connection to the land, challenging the artificial divide between human learning and the natural world (Bang & Medin, 2010).
Investing in place connections is of growing concern as learning becomes more distributed across online platforms, time zones, and individualized pathways; opportunities for co-presence and spontaneous interaction diminish. This makes it more difficult to sustain belonging as a relational process, one that depends on shared experiences and moments where affective connections can take root. When engagement is primarily mediated through screens and structured tasks, learners may participate cognitively but remain socially and emotionally disconnected, weakening the communal dimensions of learning. Furthermore, there is a narrowing of ecological and social affordances for community formation. A hyper-individualized, efficiency-driven model of education often privileges streamlined, outcome-oriented interactions over environments that invite exploration, collaboration, and lingering. In this light, designers and educators might ask not only what learning occurs, but how spaces enable individuals to feel recognized, connected, and in right relation with others and their environment?
Directions for Future Work
Understanding the power of ecological and informal spaces is more important than ever, as shared presence across schools and campuses erodes. There is growing interest in designing biophilic learning environments (Peters & D’Penna, 2020) and in renewed investment in spaces that blur the boundaries between university and community. These sites offer rich opportunities for future research. Libraries, for example, increasingly house makerspaces and media commons that provide open, flexible environments for collaborative design, experimentation, and informal mentorship, fostering belonging through shared practice and co-creation. Similarly, campus gardens are re-emerging as important sites of inquiry, particularly in urban contexts, where they support low-barrier engagement with food systems, ecological cycles, and collective stewardship, strengthening place attachment and community ties. A different example of place engagement is seen in programs such as those at Oberlin College, which extend institutional collections into everyday life by allowing individuals to live with artworks, and develop more sustained relationships with art. Together, these spaces represent promising directions for research to explore further the power of place on relational belonging and transformational learning.
Conclusion
This study demonstrates how informal and environmental university learning spaces, such as the Arboretum, function as dynamic learning ecologies that support relational forms of belonging and where new creative practices may emerge. The study offers empirical insight into how belonging and learning emerge through affective, material engagements and place attachments. By bringing together Wenger's modes of belonging with Scannell and Gifford's framework of place attachment, this work advances a conceptual integration that foregrounds the interplay between social participation and the ecological and symbolic dimensions of place. This synthesis provides a more expansive account of relational belonging as both socially enacted and environmentally situated. Methodologically, the study contributes an emplaced approach to ethnography through walking interviews and participant mapping, making visible how relationships, movements, and meanings unfold across space. Together, these contributions reframe learning environments not as static containers, but as lived, relational ecologies.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
This work is dedicated to the memory of Kate Mendeloff, founding director of Shakespeare in the Arboretum.
Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate
The study was conducted in accordance with ethical guidelines, an IRB was submitted and granted from the Pennsylvania State University, April 2017.
Consent to Participate Declaration
All participants provided informed consent before participation. Consent included the agreement to contribute voluntarily and the assurance of confidentiality.
Author Contribution(s)
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data Availability Declaration
The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
AI Statement
AI (ChatGPT-free version and Grammarly) tools were used to support editing and refinement of original composition and data for clarity and conciseness. I acknowledge that the content is original and represents human research.