MANAGEMENT OF CHILD CAMPS: A STRUCTURED LITERATURE REVIEW AND NEW DIRECTIONS

GESTÃO DE CAMPOS DE FÉRIAS PARA CRIANÇAS: UMA REVISÃO ESTRUTURADA DA LITERATURA E NOVAS DIREÇÕES

GESTIÓN DE CAMPAMENTOS INFANTILES: UNA REVISIÓN ESTRUCTURADA DE LA LITERATURA Y NUEVAS DIRECCIONES

Abstract

The study of child camps has grown over the last years. Still, the common use of different terminology and the dispersion of the information in literature regarding camps management, makes it difficult to clarify research and hinder the improvement of managerial practices. This study aims to synthetise existent knowledge in child camps’ management, identify inconsistencies and gaps in the literature, and set directions for future research and practice on child camps. A structured review of peer-reviewed articles published between 1950-2021 was conducted. Results indicate that half of the studies used the term “summer camp”; but other ten different terms were also used. Five different management areas were identified: safety, consumer behaviour, human resources, event planning and camp research. Gaps were also identified in the literature. These findings are important to set new research avenues and to improve practice.

Keywords:
Structured Review; Child Camps; Sport Management; Events.

Resumo

O estudo dos campos de férias para crianças aumentou nos últimos anos. Todavia, a utilização de diferentes termos e a dispersão da informação na literatura acerca da gestão destes eventos dificulta o esclarecimento das diretrizes de pesquisa, por um lado, e dificulta a melhoria das práticas de gestão, por outro. Este estudo visa sintetizar o conhecimento existente na gestão destes eventos, identificar inconsistências e lacunas na literatura, e definir direções para futuras pesquisas e práticas. Foi realizada uma revisão estruturada de estudos publicados entre 1950-2021. Metade dos estudos utilizou o termo “campos de verão”; mas também foram utilizados outros dez termos diferentes. Foram identificadas cinco áreas de gestão: segurança, comportamento do consumidor, recursos humanos, organização de eventos e pesquisa em campos de férias. Foram ainda identificadas lacunas na literatura. Estes resultados são importantes para definir novos caminhos de pesquisa e melhorar a gestão destes eventos.

Palavras-chave:
Revisão Estruturada; Campos de férias; Gestão Desportiva; Eventos.

Resumen

El estudio de los campamentos de verano para niños se ha incrementado en los últimos años. Pero, el uso de términos diferentes, y la dispersión de información en la literatura, sobre la gestión de estos eventos, dificulta la clarificación de las directrices de investigación, e impide que los gestores mejoren sus prácticas. Este estudio buscó sintetizar el conocimiento existente en la gestión de estos eventos, identificar inconsistencias y lagunas en la literatura y definir direcciones para futuras investigaciones y prácticas. Se realizó una revisión estructurada de estudios publicados entre 1950-2021. La mitad de los estudios utilizaron “campamento de verano”; pero también se utilizaron otros diez términos diferentes. Se identificaron cinco áreas de gestión: seguridad, comportamiento del consumidor, recursos humanos, organización de eventos y investigación en campamentos de verano. También se identificaron lagunas en la literatura. Estos resultados son importantes para definir nuevos caminos de investigación y mejorar la gestión de estos eventos.

Palabras clave:
Revisión estructurada; Campamentos infantiles; Gestión deportiva; Eventos.

1 INTRODUCTION

Child camps have often been used as a toll for children to practice sport (WEAVER et al., 2014), improve their physical literacy and encourage healthy lifestyles (D'HAESE et al., 2015), while also becoming an important source of employment for physical education teachers (JEFFERIES, 2005). As result, nowadays, millions of children worldwide participate in camps during their vacations (WYCOFF, 2021). Due to its importance, the prevalence of research examining child camps has increased over the last decades. This is evident by growing numbers of publications in the sport and physical education literature, including opinion articles (e.g., HENDERSON, 2018), special issues (e.g., BIALESCHKI; BROWNE, 2018), or specific sources for industry trends (e.g., Camping Magazine), which has led to two main areas of camp study: outcomes and operations (HENDERSON et al., 2007). A large part of recent publications covers participation outcomes (e.g., WEAVER et al., 2014), while some focus on operational (HENDERSON et al., 2007) or managerial aspects as camp safety (e.g., CHANG et al., 2017), consumer behaviour (e.g., OMELAN et al., 2018), or staff (e.g., DUBIN et al., 2020). This dispersion of information has limited critical discussion on how child camp management processes can be improved. Specifically, little is known about best practices in a child camp organization, or camp management areas to consider, which narrows the development of its management processes.

Additionally, the use of different terminology to identify these events (e.g., summer camp, summer school, athletic camps) often creates misunderstandings to readers about what is being studied, making the formulation of transversal conclusions challenging. As per Tähtinen and Havila (2019), the adoption of different terms to refer to one phenomenon, without clear elaboration, creates conceptual confusion. Thus, the different terminology used not only creates confusion, but also limit its management processes development. This structured review of the literature was conceived based on this scattered information and terminology confusion, being also justified by the increasing importance and visibility of child camps (HENDERSON et al., 2007; MOOLA et al., 2014). Organizing conclusions from previous research to generate insights is challenging due to the broad nature of the topic and the limitations noted above. The opportunity to gather information regarding child camps management (that will help to better organize and manage these events) might be enhanced with the identification of management areas developed in these events. Also, the provision of a unified and clear terminology for child camps is important to ensure consistency and formulation of transversal conclusions, aligning with the focus of the event and target population. This study synthesizes child camp research through a structured review to help drive theoretical and managerial implications. It is intended to (1) categorize child camp management areas; (2) analyse existent terminology to provide a unified term that provides guidance for future research; and (3) identify gaps to set new management and research avenues.

1.1 CHILD CAMPS: HISTORY, PURPOSE, AND DIVERSITY

Child camps have a long history, dating back to the industrial revolution where youth attended camps to rest from their daily life and promote development (OMELAN et al., 2018). Its history evolved following four stages (RAMSING, 2007): recreation (1861-1920: focus on youth to escape from big cities and connect with nature), education (1920-1950: focus on character development and production of good citizenry), social orientation (1940-1970: post II World War focused on education for democracy), and new directions (1970-2007: diversity and specialization of camps supporting various programs).

Child camps have become a common setting for youth development with a variety of programmatic foci and serving a range of participant needs (CHANG et al., 2017; PARIS, 2008). Camps can be private or agency-affiliated, for-profit, or non-profit (THURBER, 2007); day-camps or resident-camps (e.g., VENTURA; GARST, 2013). Also, camps can be religiously or not religiously affiliated (THURBER, 2007); focused on a specific activity or offer a broad array of activities (e.g., KOTÍKOVÁ; SCHWARTZHOFFOVÁ, 2016). They can be part of summer instruction to promote learning and prevent losses (BORMAN; BENSON; OVERMAN, 2005) or be focused on music skills, science, and technology or different sport-levels. In sport, camps can aim to introduce new skills and improve existing ones in a specific sport (e.g., WALSH; GREEN; COTTINGHAM, 2017), or embrace all ages and skill levels (SEIFRIED, 2007), allowing their participants to play sports (OMELAN et al., 2018) in quality learning experiences (WEAVER et al., 2014). These camps can target one or both genders (THURBER, 2007), children with health challenges (e.g., ADAMS et al., 2002), learning disabilities (e.g., MICHALSKI et al., 2003), chronic illnesses (e.g., MELTZER; ROURKE, 2005), or behavioural problems (SHEFTER et al., 2017). Considering the diversity and evolution of the child camp purposes, the management complexity increased. Consequently, camps’ research has become important to synthesize existent knowledge and aid managerial practices.

1.2 CHILD CAMPS AND SOCIAL IMPACT

Child camps always had social impact, and its purposes have evolved according to society requirements. These camps were initially envisioned as a ‘civilizing process’ of sorts (DUNKLEY, 2009), inculcating values and morals, such as respect for others and the environment, hard work and discipline (MOOLA et al., 2014). By instilling such virtuous behaviours, camps were also perceived as a “salvation and sanctuary” for children at risk (MOOLA et al., 2014). Indeed, historians claim that child camps have always functioned as a response to social anxieties (DUNKLEY, 2009; PARIS, 2008).

In the beginning of the 20^th century, due to industrialization, child camps were used to encourage children from urban environments to experience healthier atmospheres (RAMSING, 2007). After World War II, child camps were crucial to educate future generations for democracy (RAMSING, 2007). In the 21^st century markedly by an increasingly sedentary society, camps provide an opportunity for children to practice sport (WEAVER et al., 2014) and encourage healthy lifestyles (D'HAESE et al., 2015). Moreover, therapeutic recreation camps for children with chronic illnesses (e.g., ADAMS et al., 2002), or camps for children at risk (e.g., KIRSCHMAN et al., 2010) are determinant to ensure their future. In contemporary societies, child camps are an important leisure provider (OMELAN et al., 2018) that benefit children and parents, being useful for occupying children’s free time (e.g., CHANG et al., 2017) and to provide parents with a break from parental duties (OMELAN et al., 2018). The child camps’ social impact, and its capability to implement changes in society and educate of future generations, justifies further investigation.

1.3 GAPS IN CHILD CAMPS’ RESEARCH

Although camp research started in the early 20^th century, it was only in the turn of the 21^st century that it becomes more prevalent (KWOK; FOWLER; YUAN, 2010). The number of related studies (Figure 1) has increased considerably, and different terminology emerged regarding these events: residential summer camp (VENTURA; GARST, 2013), summer camp (D'HAESE et al., 2015), summer school (BORMAN; BENSON; OVERMAN, 2005), summer day camp (BAKER et al., 2017), youth summer camp (LEHTO et al., 2020), physical education summer camp (JEFFERIES, 2005), athletic camp (COSTA et al., 2004), or youth sport camp (WALSH; GREEN; COTTINGHAM, 2017). However, these different terms may suggest terminological inconsistencies; also compromising research endeavours, given that different terminology can create conceptual confusion (TÄHTINEN; HAVILA, 2019) and limits knowledge integration. These different examples of terms used in the literature suggest that researchers do not define their terms adequately; not apply them rigorously; or define them differently than others who investigate the same phenomenon.

Figure 1
Number of studies per type of camp and year of publication.

Despite this, Henderson et al. (2007) completed a review on camp research, concluding that the major areas of camp study included operations (i.e., physical, and emotional health, and safety of participants) and outcome research (i.e., self-esteem and independence, social skills, physical and thinking skills, positive values, and spirituality). Later, Henderson (2018) admitted that most of the existing camp research has focused on participants’ outcomes, criticizing this focus as being overly generic. Most camps expose participants to new and challenging experiences to promote growth, and these experiences often result in positive child development (THURBER, 2007). Reported outcomes of participating in these camps include improved self-esteem, friendships, increased autonomy, social competence, leadership skills (VENTURA; GARST, 2013), increased creativity and imagination (THURBER et al., 2007), enhanced physical fitness (e.g., OMELAN et al., 2018), better anxiety management (EHRENREICH-MAY; BILEK, 2011) and decrease in seasonal diseases (ERCEG et al., 2009).

Child camps also represent opportunities for organizational profit (MONK; DEUTSCH, 2016) making its study relevant for academics and practitioners. But in operations-related studies, the information is dispersed and unstructured, becoming difficult for managers to obtain information on how to improve their practices. Some research focused on camp staff work by examining their motivations (e.g., BIALESCHKI; DAHOWSKI; HENDERSON, 1998), training and development (e.g., WEAVER et al., 2014), performance (e.g., DUBIN et al., 2020), satisfaction and retention (e.g., BUTTON, 2001) or even fatigue and illness prevention (e.g., BAILEY; KANG; KUIPER, 2012). Also, significant attention has been devoted to camp consumer behaviour (e.g., KWOK; FOWLER; YUAN, 2010) and safety (e.g., CHANG et al., 2017). Evidence from past studies has the potential to inform practice in ways that benefit staff, participants, and managers. However, despite continued growth, little is known about the breadth of the academic literature related to operations. Therefore, this structured literature review (MASSARO; DUMAY; GUTHRIE, 2016) can be an important contribution towards combining existent knowledge and set new managerial and research directions.

2 METHOD

2.1 DATA SOURCES AND PROCEDURES

A structured literature review of peer-reviewed journals, book chapters and thesis were undertaken on EBSCO, SCOPUS, Web of Science, ProQuest, and ProQuest Thesis. The following keywords were used: Manage* AND “Child camps” OR “summer camps” OR “summer school” OR “youth camps” OR “summer youth activities”. The inclusion criteria included: complete texts available in these databases; texts in English; peer-reviewed documents; publication between 1950-2021; studies related to management of child camps. Studies that have been published in outlets that do not employ the peer-review process were excluded. Similarly, studies about summer schools (programmes to promote learning during this period or to prevent losses; BORMAN; BENSON; OVERMAN, 2005), medical camps (for children with medical conditions to manage their disease; MCAULIFFE-FOGARTY; RAMSING; HILL, 2007), or athletes’ camps (targeting athletically gifted children to develop skills; SEIFRIED, 2007; WALSH; GREEN; COTTINGHAM, 2017) were not included, since creative and entertaining free time occupation were not their purpose.

The initial search identified 363 titles. Duplicates were eliminated, leading to 322 articles that were screened according to the title and abstract for relevance. The abstract analysis confirmed that several studies were about summer schools, medical camps, or athletes’ camps, resulting in another 276 studies eliminated. The full texts of the remaining 42 articles were thoroughly analysed and additional 20 articles were rejected due to not meeting all inclusion criteria. In total, 22 articles were considered for the analysis (Figure 2). The earliest reference was from 2001 and the most recent from 2020. All these papers received further in-depth reading, and the information about management area, study type and nature, terminology, location, sample, instruments, variables, and limitations were registered (Appendix A).

Figure 2
Research strategy - Flow Chart.

2.2 DATA ANALYSIS

Three types of studies were considered (FILO; LOCK; KARG, 2015): primary (i.e., online, and in-loco questionnaires, interviews, and focus groups), secondary (i.e., archival materials), and conceptual (i.e., theoretical pieces without empirical data). All studies were further classified into quantitative, qualitative or opinion pieces, depending on the nature of variables analysed. The appraisal of the studies’ quality was assessed using two different tools. First, the Standard Quality Assessment Criteria for Evaluating Primary Research Papers (KMET; LEE; COOK, 2004), which incorporates two scoring systems and allows quality assessment to be conducted on both quantitative (10 items) and qualitative research (14 items). The items were scored depending on the degree to which the specific criteria were met (yes=2, partial=1, no=0). Items not applicable (NA) to a particular study design were excluded from the final score. All studies were scored with moderate quality (at least 60% of the criteria), and thus kept in the analysis. Complementarily, as some studies were conceptual and one had a mixed method approach, the Joanna Briggs Institute’s (JBI) checklists were performed (JBI, [2021]). These checklists assess the methodological quality and determine the extent to which a study has addressed the possibility of bias in its design and analysis (JBI, [2021]). Conceptual studies were kept in the analysis if they met at least half of the methodological criteria (JADOTTE et al., 2016). These two instruments were used independently by two researchers. Differences emerging from the comparison were resolved through consensus. Appendix B provides the results of the studies’ quality assessment.

Next, to identify the child camps terminology, management areas and its key findings, a content analysis was conducted in the selected studies, as suggested by Hsieh and Shannon (2005). Management areas emerged from the text, during the reading of selected articles. Data analysis started with reading all data repeatedly to achieve immersion and obtain a sense of the whole (TESCH, 1990). Then, the information was read word-by-word to derive codes, highlighting the exact words from the text that appear to capture key thoughts or management ideas (MORGAN, 1993). Codes were then sorted into management areas based on how different codes were related (HSIEH; SHANNON, 2005). Finally, researchers discussed, combined, and organized the resultant management areas, and definitions for each area were developed (Table 1).

Table 1
Management categories from content analysis.

Management area	Definition
Safety	Studies based on the participants and staff safety and camp overall safety.
Consumer Behaviour	Studies based on consumers’ perceptions and preferences (participants, parents, and camp managers).
Human Resources	Studies focused on staff and managers.
Event Planning	Studies focused on camp planning.
Camp Research	Studies focused on the camp research analysis.

Source: Compiled by the authors.

3 RESULTS

3.1 TERMINOLOGY

The analysis of the articles indicates that child camps terminology lacks clarity, as eleven terms have been used to describe these events. Although 50% of the studies (n=11) used “summer camp”, the terms “Physical Education Summer camp” (n=1), “Boy Scout Summer Camp” (n=1); “Youth Sport Camps” (n=1); “Summer Soccer camp” (n=1); “Children’s summer camps” (n=2); “Youth Sport camp” (n=1); “Camp” (n=2); “sport camp” (n=1); “summer youth camp” (n=1) and “overseas summer camp” (n=1) were also used. Four studies do not describe the event analysed, five used descriptions proposed in past studies and 12 presented their own description (Table 2).

Table 2
Terms applied in child camps articles

Study	Term	Description provided?		Description
CHANG et al. (2017)	Children’s summer camps	Yes	Self-made	“Summer camps are supervised programs for children and adolescents that cater to different interests, populations, and age groups.”
MILLER; BARTH (2016)	Boy Scout Summer Camp	No
MONK; DEUTSCH (2016)	Sport camp	Yes	Self-made	“[…] a great way to keep kids active throughout the summer and to make money for the program sponsoring them.”
PAPAGEORGIOU; MAVROMATIS; KOSTA (2006)	Summer camp	Yes	Self-made	“At summer camp, they are involved in many physical activities and live-in group cabins or outdoors.”
POWELL; FIELDS (2002)	Summer youth camp	No
ROBINSON et al. (2019)	Summer camp	Yes	Olsen et al. (2018)	“[…] where they are engaged in a wide range of often novel activities in unique and unfamiliar settings “
SCHELLPFEFFER et al. (2020)	Summer camp	No
ALEXANDRIS; KOUTHOURIS (2005)	Summer children’s camp	Yes	Self-made	“Their main objective is to offer an attractive leisure environment for the children, combining with sport and educational experiences.”
JONES (2005)	Summer Soccer Camp	Yes	Self-made	“This type of camp was actually referred to a ‘general day’ summer soccer camp because there was no specific attempt to attract intact soccer teams or to use overnight residency as a promotional camp focus.”
KOTÍKOVÁ; SCHWARTZHOFFOVÁ (2016)	children’s camps	Yes	Self-made	“[…] in which Czech children spend free time during their holidays.”
KWOK; FOWLER; YUAN (2010)	Summer camp	Yes	Getz (2008)	“This has made summer camps, as educational and scientific events […]”
OMELAN et al. (2018)	Summer camp	Yes	Self-made	“[…] an organized type of summer recreation for children and adolescents.”
WALSH; GREEN; COTTINGHAM (2017)	youth sport camps	Yes	Self-made	“[…] camps to teach the game of basketball and promote positive character values, to introduce campers to new skills and to improve on existing skills, to promote the NBA team in the community, and to provide a unique setting that shares the NBA ‘game’ experience out in the community.“
LEHTO et al. (2020)	Overseas summer camp		(American Camp Association, 2013)	“[…] a typical overseas summer camp experience features an organized pro- gram that offers experiential learning with both recreational and educational sources to participants.“
DUBIN et al. (2020)	Summer camp	Yes	(American Camp Association,2013)	“[…] an important setting for youth summertime experiences [...]”
KO et al. (2012)	Summer camp	Yes	Self-made	“[…] all camps described provided services to people with developmental disabilities […]”
LYONS (2003)	Summer camp	No
MCCOLE et al. (2012)	Summer camp	No
JEFFERIES (2005)	Physical Education Summer Camp	Yes	Self-made	“[…] organized alternatives for children who desire to participate in competitive sports, to be active, have fun, learn new skills, and spend time with like-minded peers in physical activity settings.”
WALSH (2011)	University-Sponsored Youth Sports Summer Camp	Yes	Self-made	“[…] self-sufficient, fee-based, physical activity and youth sports summer camp.”
HENDERSON (2018)	Camps	Yes	OZIER (2018)	“[…] camp is more than summer learning; it offers an opportunity to develop life skills to extend into the future.”
HENDERSON et al. (2007)	Camps	Yes	Self-made	“[…] organized experiences in group living in the outdoors that use trained leaders to accomplish intentional goals.”

Source: Compiled by the authors.

From the 22 studies, descriptions seem to be focused on the type of event (e.g., KWOK; FOWLER; YUAN, 2010); population to target (e.g., CHANG et al., 2017); activity type (e.g., PAPAGEORGIOU; MAVROMATIS; KOSTA, 2006); camp environment (e.g., ROBINSON et al., 2019); or camp purpose (ALEXANDRIS; KOUTHOURIS, 2005). However, these events remain uncategorized.

3.2 MANAGEMENT AREAS

The studies analysed were divided into five management areas, indicating a narrow scope. Consumer behaviour and safety were covered in seven studies each. Four studies focused on human resources, two were related to event planning and two with camp research. Sub-areas were also identified (Table 3).

Table 3
Management categories in child camps.

Management Categories
	Safety	Consumer Behaviour	Human Resources	Event Planning	Camp Research
Management sub-categories	Parents Participants Camp Director	Camp Participants Staff Perception	Staff instructors Camp Director	How to run a camp Specific camp organization	Importance of camp research Camp research areas and implications for practice

Source: Compiled by the authors.

3.2.1 Safety

Safety was covered by studies developed in Canada, Greece, and the USA. These studies were based on document analysis, staff, and participant perceptions, with questionnaires, registration forms and multi-instruments being used (Appendix A). Papageorgiou and colleagues focused on injuries typology concluding that cut/wound, ankle sprain and shoulder sprain are frequent injuries in child camps (PAPAGEORGIOU; MAVROMATIS; KOSTA, 2006). Miller and Barth (2016) analysed visits to camp health centres, founding that over 90% of participant complaints were minor injuries and illnesses, easily treatable, and that most visits were due to illness. Papageorgiou and colleagues also offered guidelines for preventive strategies (PAPAGEORGIOU; MAVROMATIS; KOSTA, 2006), while Miller and Barth (2016) recommended supply lists for camp health centres to provide more efficient care for participants and staff.

Studies focused on staff perceptions are based on how they perceive risk management, concussion management, and allergy food preparedness. Powell and Fields (2002) analysed legal cases in child camps and camp professionals' perceptions of risk management, founding that most lawsuits in the USA are related with staff negligence, and that camp professionals reported "worry" about risk management tactics of staff training and certification. However, this study is limited to published legal cases in the USA. Robinson et al. (2019) analysed the level of comfort in managing participant concussion injuries in camp, finding that more than 50% of staff expressed discomfort. Consequently, the strategies used by them were unnecessarily conservative, leading to over-utilization of health care services and indicate staff discomfort with safety. Schellpfeffer et al. (2020) analysed staff perceptions of camp overall safety and the state of food allergy anaphylaxis training. They concluded that staff were unsatisfied with training materials, showed lack of confidence in manage anaphylaxis, and that camp-tailored food allergy training was needed.

Studies about camp overall safety focused on the level of disaster preparedness, risk management in camps, and frequency of food-allergic reactions. Chang et al. (2017) analysed the degree of disaster preparedness, and the camps’ disaster plans and management, founding that many camps were missing emergency supplies, shelter, vehicles for evacuation, quarantine isolation areas, or emergency supplies. They also identify a lack of plans for power outages, lockdowns, illness outbreaks, tornadoes, fire evacuation, flood, or chemical spill, and other severe weather conditions. Further, they found several camps without online emergency plans, medication for children with special needs, methods to rapidly communicate with parents or evacuation procedures. Monk and Deutsch (2016) described how to legally organize a sports camp and provided tips about risk management plans, staff background check, facilities and equipment, camp rules, and range of activities. They highlighted the need to better plan to increase safety for staff and participants; to avoid legal negligence; and ensure awareness of the risks of participating. They also propose safety recommendations and equipment to be adopted by managers. Lastly, Schellpfeffer et al. (2020) estimated the frequency of food-allergic reactions in camps. They found that, although most camps had food-allergic children attending, half of them did not require individual food allergy and anaphylaxis action plans for campers. Thus, appropriate policies to manage food anaphylaxis events were missing in a substantial proportion of camps analysed. Despite the contribution of prior studies, it remains to be understood why there are so many failures associated with safety in the analysed child camps.

3.2.2 Consumer behaviour

This area was covered by studies developed in Europe, China, and the USA. These studies were based in questionnaires and interviews, analysing participants, parents, and camp managers (Appendix A). Most important motivations for participants were socialization and camp experiences, particularly among girls (ALEXANDRIS; KOUTHOURIS, 2005; JONES, 2005). Camp experience was often the strongest predictor of satisfaction and loyalty among participants (e.g., KWOK; FOWLER; YUAN, 2010). Concerning preferences, the most popular camps are overnight- and sport-specific-camps (e.g., OMELAN et al., 2018). These studies also highlighted that, participants and their parents pay special attention to the program when choosing camps (e.g., JONES, 2005).

Regarding parents’ perspectives, Walsh and colleagues work (WALSH; GREEN; COTTINGHAM, 2017) analysed the levels of identification and noted its importance in camp evaluations. The authors also highlighted that children participation in these events, tends to favour the relationships between their parents and the camp organizations. Lehto et al. (2020) concluded that parents value camps based on the quality of the staff, program structure (camp group size, camper age composition, costs, camp length), dining options and accommodation quality. They also take into consideration supporting facilities and services including the proximity camp-airport, infrastructures, and outdoor recreational opportunities. Additionally, parents prefer camps with availability to advanced educational resources (e.g., universities), cultural, historical, and natural attractions. Omelan et al. (2018) further refer that participant satisfaction is mainly influenced by staff and camp activities. They also note that charismatic staff is determinant to catch participants’ attention, but the activities should be attractive for both.

3.2.3 Human resources

This area was covered by studies in the USA and Canada, focused on staff sense of community (SOC) and fatigue (Appendix A). Questionnaires, interviews, and mix-methods approaches were used. The SOC was explored by Lyons (2003) and McCole et al. (2012). Lyons noted that SOC was associated with group belongingness and that it was a product of intentional effort undertaken by staff and management. Thus, they suggested it is essential to cultivate these feelings through daily routines. In turn, McCole and colleagues analysed how staff SOC relates with their retention, noting that SOC can be a good indicator of staff retention, helping managers to solve a growing problem in camp industry: how to attract and retain quality seasonal staff.

Ko et al. (2012) focused on staff burnout and noted they were exposed to frequent aggressions and emotional exhaustion, suggesting that greater attention should be paid to staff training. These authors also observed that the investment in training could increase staff retention. Similarly, Dubin et al. (2020) concluded it was essential to identity fatigue causes, and that improving privacy and personal space at camp and access to technology could help alleviate staff fatigue. It was also proposed to incentivise staff to use their time-off for sleeping, reduce the program of activities, and allow staff to have more time in passive supervision and relaxation activities.

3.2.4 Event planning

The survey identified two studies about camp planning process (Appendix A). Jefferies (2005) described how to organize a camp, focusing on budget, promotion and registration, and overall administration. He highlighted these camps represent an opportunity to children to be active and learn new skills. In turn, Walsh (2011) reflected on strategies for developing a university-sponsored camp, focusing on organizational mission, marketing strategy and implementation, staff recruitment and management. His study highlighted that camp success implies strategic planning and constant vigilance. Both studies propose tips to proper develop this type of events.

3.2.5 Camp research

Two conceptual studies composed this area. Henderson et al. (2007) highlighted two areas of camp study: operations and outcomes. The first was described as research focused on “staffing, camp evaluation ad business analysis” (p. 758) and the second on the youth developmental outcomes obtained from camp experiences. In both areas, Henderson and colleagues reviewed studies that fell within their working definition of camps (Table 2) and reflected on associated challenges. They noted the importance of documenting best practices and alerted for challenges in camp-related research: reliable instruments to measure camp experience; parental permission to avoid intrusiveness; control of children to prevent the effects of peer and/or staff influence; sampling strategies to examine different camp experiences and larger samples.

Henderson (2018) extended his prior work by conducting a thorough review of research related to camp experiences and identified nine “direct contributions to better understanding camp experiences” (p. 318). These directions included theory, social issues, methodological imagination, emerging audiences, samples, linking operations and outcomes, and staff/youth development. This follow-up study also highlighted an upcoming shift in research since several studies have moved from the “what” to “how”. Henderson also enumerates four directions to guide research and practice: how change occurs and distinctiveness of camp experiences; role camps play on life beyond the immediate outcomes; challenges and dark sides of camp experiences; and negative experiences at camps. Although potentially useful for managers and practitioners, related empirical studies are needed to support the proposed strategies.

4 DISCUSSION

From the point of view of child health and growth, the expansion of research on child camps is crucial due to their contribution to struggle sedentary lifestyle and obesity (JEFFERIES, 2005; D'HAESE et al., 2015; WEAVER et al., 2014) and encourage healthy lifestyles (D'HAESE et al., 2015). This mission is mainly developed by physical education teachers, who are the main staff of these events (JEFFERIES, 2005).

Considering the inconsistent terminology in past studies and the dispersion of information about child camps, this structured review investigated how were child camps events termed in the literature; which event management areas were explored; and categorized the existent information. The results show a variety of terms used in the literature. Also, five management areas were examined in previous literature: safety; consumer behaviour, human resources, event planning and camp research. These findings combine existent knowledge about child camps and provide the basis for setting new research and managerial directions.

4.1 TERMINOLOGY

The most used term (summer camps) is vague regarding its nature and purpose. Although different studies used it, the assigned meaning is different, which obstructs the establishment of a common language (SUDDABY, 2010) and may limit advancements on camp research. Some described summer camps as educational and scientific events (KWOK; FOWLER; YUAN, 2010), while others as types of summer recreation (OMELAN et al., 2018), or even as youth summertime experiences (DUBIN et al., 2020). Considering these inconsistencies and the need to know what is being measured in research endeavours (TÄHTINEN; HAVILA, 2019), this study proposes the term “child camps” for future research and define it as programs designed to children/adolescents’ free time occupation and supervised by adults, that combine learning, recreation, and leisure activities, out of familiar setting, allowing the participants’ development of life skills. This broader term allows the inclusion of different camp types, focus, target population or nature, while also setting guidance for future research, independently of the season or occurrence localization. There are numerous benefits of an expanded term. First, the word “child” prioritizes the target population, excluding activities dedicated to adults, families, or other age groups. Second, by using the word “camps”, other events targeting children’s free time occupation (e.g., summer schools, volunteering activities, or extracurricular activities) are excluded. Third, by emphasizing that this term refers to activities supervised by adults with children out of familiar settings, we underscore the notion of activities that should be properly organized and planned since children must be under adult supervision. Fourth, the suggestion that these events result in the participants’ development of life skills accounts for camps from different types or nature (e.g., based on sports practice, arts development, nature contact, etc.).

4.2 MANAGEMENT AREAS

4.2.1 Safety

Safety is a priority to parents, especially when children are not under their direct supervision (OMELAN et al., 2018). All physical activity involves risk, including physical education classes (FITZGERALD; DEUTSCH, 2016) and well as child camps (GOLDLUST, 2009). Participant’s safety research so far has only focused on injury occurrences (“what”) ignoring its causes (“how” or “why”). Papageorgiou and colleagues (PAPAGEORGIOU; MAVROMATIS; KOSTA, 2006) and Miller and Barth (2016) proposed recommendations, but those are related with the assistance process disregarding its prevention. Previous literature gives significant importance to risk prevention, advising that risks that occur frequently should be planned and appropriately resourced (TAYLOR; TOOHEY, 2011). Considering that safety regulations differ between and within countries (GOLDLUST, 2009), the elaboration of universal safety guidelines is paramount, as future studies must to consider this. Moreover, some safety programmes have been successfully applied (CHAVEZ et al., 2014) decreasing the accidents occurrence and improving safety knowledge among participants. The reduction of staff/participants ratio is also important to reduce the likelihood of illness and injury (HANDLER et al., 2018), but more research is needed to understand if camp managers consider this.

Concerning staff perceptions, findings indicate that causes of injury episodes could also be related with staff conditions, preparation, and training. The discomfort revealed by staff in managing safety shows they do not feel prepared, supported, and protected for emergencies. It is not determined whether this level of staff unpreparedness has contributed to the occurrence of injuries mentioned above. Therefore, staff training must be improved. Simulation training processes are often an effective means to facilitate procedural skills and enhance knowledge retention (LOPREIATO; SAWYER, 2015), and deepening the knowledge about staff training is important to make them prepared in different situations during child camps.

Regarding camp organization preparedness, safety failures were frequently noted in past studies. The American Camping Association has used the accreditation process to establish an industry standard, being the primary focus health, safety, and risk-management (REYNOLDS, 2021). The American Academy of Paediatrics has also proposed recommendations for medical emergencies, but not all states have adopted them (CHANG et al., 2017). Although the law differs between or inside countries (POWEL; FIELDS, 2002), the risks of comparative camps may be roughly similar. Therefore, failures found on camp preparedness are likely not caused by the absence of information, but rather due to lack of planning, and these studies failed to acknowledge it.

4.2.2 Consumer behaviour

Current findings support the literature (WILSON, 2017), suggesting that camp managers need to understand how to make their camps exciting for (prospect) consumers. When analysing events, all stakeholders’ perspectives must be considered (GETZ, 2008; HEDE, 2007). Although results reveal that both participants and parents are important for camp sustainability (e.g., ALEXANDRIS; KOUTHOURIS, 2005), most studies focus on participants. Despite parents influence in decision-making (e.g., KOTÍKOVÁ; SCHWARTZHOFFOVÁ, 2016) just few studies consider parents’ perspectives, with no studies considering simultaneously parents and consumers opinion. This lack of information coming from all camp consumers, limit the definition of priorities when managing a camp, and become the results of research, mainly based on participants perceptions.

Participants’ preferences and its relationship with their satisfaction and loyalty corroborates the literature in other fields (e.g., BAKER; CROMPTON, 2000), and confirms that (i) service experiences are key to develop long-term-relationships between individuals and organizations (e.g., BISCAIA; YOSHIDA; KIM, 2021); and (ii) social interaction is an important aspect since early ages (e.g., EIME et al., 2013). However, these studies fail in understand what consumers expect from camp experience. Considering the link between expectations and satisfaction (e.g., ROBINSON, 2006), the assessment of participants’ expectations with camps is critically important to guarantee their favourable judgement, and to identify important service attributes (THEODORAKIS; KAMBITSIS; LAIOS, 2001).

Parents' perspectives were analysed in different contexts (e.g., youth sport participation; NEELY; HOLT, 2014; home-based character education activities; PAUL et al., 2020). Moreover, they invest time, money, and energy towards their children’s participation in organized leisure, playing an essential role in their experience (WATCHMAN; SPENCER, 2020), and their participation (ALEXANDRIS; KOUTHOURIS, 2005). But this review shows parents perceptions have been ignored in child camps. Scarce literature found indicates that they value characteristics related with camp activities programme and location (LEHTO et al., 2020; OMELAN et al., 2018), corroborating the literature in tourism destination choices (PANDEY; JOSHI, 2021). Therefore, parents’ perspectives, are an opportunity for future research, since camp managers must be aware that providing information about camp destination, programme, or attributes likely influences consumers choice.

4.2.3 Human resources

Staff are often described as determinant to the event success (DUBIN et al., 2020), however, the existent literature seems to be mainly focused on staff SOC and fatigue. Findings on staff SOC show that it can be intentionally created in camp, being crucial to their retention (MCCOLE et al., 2012). Retained staff allows camp managers time and cost savings, while improving program quality and contributing to nurture relationships with participants (MCCOLE et al., 2012) through more enjoyable experiences (e.g., PERIĆ; TANKOVIĆ, 2021). Considering that SOC is an important driver of sport consumption in youth sport (LEGG; WELLS; BARILE, 2015), camp managers should implement measures to develop it between staff and camp participants, increasing their camp consumption and retention. For instance, encouraging staff and participants to eat at the same time and in the same place (BREUNIG et al., 2010); implementing participants/staff “buddies”, helping new elements integration into camp, and allowing old ones to share knowledge (RAY, 2017); and develop pre- (ice breaker) and post-camp (debrief) activities between staff and participants (BREUNIG et al., 2010).

Considering that the work in child camps can be strenuous for staff because they are tasked with a multifaceted and difficult role (BAKER, 2018), staff fatigue was also explored in prior studies (e.g., KO et al., 2012). But despite some strategies to mitigate fatigue are proposed (e.g., staff training and support), more research is needed to provide guidance under stressful situations (BAILEY; KANG; KUIPER, 2012). Similarly, research on teachers’ burnout shows that reduced workload, enhanced teamwork (PANAGIOTI et al., 2017), and mindfulness-based programs (MARICUŢOIU; SAVA; BUTTA, 2016) can effectively reduce work-related stress. Also, in physical education teachers, suggestions that they should receive an adequate pre- and in-service training that aims preparing them to the main sources of stress, building up adequate coping strategies, are also made in literature (e.g., VON HAAREN-MACK et al., 2020). In addition, Physical Education teacher education should consider interventions to prevent health consequences of stress such as voice disorders.

In medical student’s burnout research, preventive measures as the openly discussion of mental health, and the providing of medical services (CAPDEVILA-GAUDENS et al., 2021) are also proposed. These can be applied in camp staff to prevent their burnout and early fatigue.

4.2.4 Event planning

These studies are important for creating a roadmap to aid managers at implementing camp strategies (e.g., budget, promotion, safety, staff), but just a few studies were found. Jefferies (2005) and Walsh (2011) provide a step-by-step to organize camps, which is transversal to any type of event organization. Thus, small event managers or inexperienced managers may consider these studies in their practice. However, these studies are limited to a description of tasks, failing the discussion about the strategies implemented. Additionally, other event issues as sustainability (RAJ; MUSGRAVE, 2009), post-event evaluations of the management process (GETZ, 2008) and sponsorship raising tips (INOUE; HAVARD; IRWIN, 2016), analysed in the literature of events, seem to have not yet been developed in child camps. Sustainability (social, economic, and environmental) is a priority in any event (RAJ; MUSGRAVE, 2009), and post-event evaluations could be useful in informing present and future decision-making. If not addressed, it may hinder the success of future events.

4.2.5 Camp research

Camp research studies describe the camp analysis made until the present and is poorly developed. Henderson et al. (2007) identified two main streams on child camps research (operations and outcomes), but later suggested that these two areas become intimately connected (HENDERSON, 2018). In fact, the analysis of event experiences in a holistic way seems to have gained importance in the sports- and physical education literature (YOSHIDA, 2017; WARD; GRIGGS, 2011; WEISS, 2011), since it allows to build knowledge toward developing a framework for planning and managing events (ZIAKAS, 2020). Additionally, the perspective that operations and outcomes areas should be evaluated in an integrated way (i.e., from “what” to “how”; HENDERSON, 2018) is gaining strength, since any change in the operations area will obviously influence the outcomes for its participants. Considering that child camps are fields of practice, understanding how camp experiences occur is crucial to obtain insights for practice.

5 FUTURE RESEARCH AVENUES

The development of a body of knowledge is a continuous process. As more is known about child camp management, more sophisticated opportunities for future research arise. First, future research should focus on the development of preventive measures, identifying for instance, the causes of emergencies. Also, staff training process requires further analysis, mainly regarding legislation. Camp safety failures existence also need special attention, mainly in its origin, since it can compromise participants safety. Second, as parents are pivotal in the decision-making process, future research must consider their perspectives, analysing, for instance, simultaneously parents and participants. Additionally, considering its influence in satisfaction, also camp consumers expectations must be considered in future research. This holistic understanding will provide camp managers with more robust information to better deliver child camps. Third, future research should explore how SOC can be developed between staff and camp consumers, finding strategies to increase camp consumption and retention. Similarly, staff training process analysis must be developed to understand its role on fatigue and burnout prevention. Fourth, future camp planning research must analyse the strategies implemented, as well as the post-event evaluation by stakeholders. Exploring camps sustainability is also critical since no studies were found on this theme.

6 CONCLUSIONS

A structured review of child camps was carried out to (1) categorize child camp management areas from past studies, (2) analyse existent terminology to provide a unified term that provides guidance for future research, and (3) identify gaps that allow to set new research avenues and managerial practices. Results indicate that half of the studies used the term “summer camp”; but other ten different terms were also used. Future studies are recommended to use the term “child camps” to ensure consistency and provide a common language. This term is not reductive and presents itself as a broader term, because it is not based on the camps type, focus, target population or nature, season, or occurrence localization.

Through this review, five management areas were also identified: safety, consumer behaviour, human resources, camp planning and camp research. Safety and consumer behaviour are the most developed areas, and numerous gaps linked to these five areas still require further examination. This study represents an effort to understand what has been studied in the management of child camps and combine findings in a document that aids camp managers and researchers. The results serve to identify the state of the art and launch new research lines and should be considered by child camp managers.

• FUNDING
  There was no funding.

EDITORIAL BOARD

*Alex Branco Fraga*, Elisandro Schultz Wittizorecki*, Mauro Myskiw*, Raquel da Silveira*

*School of Physical Education, Physiotherapy and Dance of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil

APPENDIX A - Descriptive characteristics of included studies

Study Management Area Type Nature Terminology used Location Sample Instruments Variables Limitations Chang et al., 2017 Safety Primary Quantitative Summer Camp USA and Canada 169 camps Questionnaire Disaster preparedness. Sample selection bias.Background influence respondents’ perspectives.Inadequate type of questions to respondents to quantify food and water reserves.Results do not reflect the feasibility of camps’ disaster plans or available online plans for parents.Miss to identify possible causes to the failures. Miller; Barth, 2016 Safety Primary Quantitative Boy Scout Summer Camp USA 1586 participants Logbooks Visits to health center. Sample limited to one camp and only included treatments in centre.Findings not generalized.Data limited to logbook format.Cause of injuries not explained. Monk; Deutsch, 2016 Safety Conceptual Sports Camps USA N/A N/A Risk Management PlanAthletic TrainersBackground ChecksFacilities/EquipmentSupervisionCamp RulesAppropriate Activities Only sports camps.Recommendations not generalizable.No empirical analysis the proposed model. Papageorgiou; Mavromatis; Kosta, 2006 Safety Primary Quantitative Summer Camp Greece 726 documents Registration form: Students Injury and Incident Reports for Use in Swedish School Injury Classes Results do not explain why the injuries occurred.Participant’s characteristics not considered in examining the injuries. Powell; Fields, 2002 Safety Primary Quantitative Summer Camp USA Documents: 119 published decisions in a legal databaseStaff: 102 camp professionals Documents: legal databaseRisk Management Perspective Inventory (survey) Published Legal Cases.Camp professionals' perceptions of risk management. Only legal cases in the U.S. Only published cases discussed.Non-representative sample.Perceptions rather than behaviours Robinson et al., 2019 Safety Primary Quantitative Summer Camp USA Staff: 108 Questionnaire Comfort level in managing concussion.Use of concussion protocols.Willingness to use a concussion protocol.Practice in managing concussion in camp. Respondent bias. Influenced of pre-written answer choices in providers’ decision.Miss to understand the cause of staff discomfort. Alexandris; Kouthouris, 2005 Consumer behaviour Primary Quantitative Children’s summer camps Greece Participants: 453 Questionnaire Incentives for camp participation.Satisfaction.Loyalty Word-of-mouth. Parent’s decision-making not considered. Jones, 2005 Consumer behaviour Primary Qualitative Summer Soccer camp USA Participants: 100 Questionnaire Things that children enjoyed in camp. Only pilot studyResults not generalizable.Sample limited to participants. Kotíková; Schwartzhoffová, 2016 Consumer behaviour Primary Quantitative Children’s summer camps Czech Republic Participants: 497 Questionnaire Participation.Number of camps attended.Decision makersSource of information.Type of camp.Focus.Organizer.Camp length.Price.Accommodation.Satisfaction. Pilot studyData not representative of the target group.Sample limited to participants Kwok; Fowler; Yuan, 2010 Consumer behaviour Primary Quantitative Summer Camp USA Participants 58 Questionnaire SatisfactionFuture Intentions Small sample size.Lack of theoretical contributions.Results do not explain the “how” and “why” of events.Sample limited to participants. Omelan et al., 2018 Consumer behaviour Primary Quantitative Summer Camp Poland Participants: 100Camp Directors: 2 Questionnaire Interviews ParticipantsRecreational options.Participation.Frequency of participation.Reasons for participation.Who chooses the camp?Important factors in camp choice.Popular types of camps.Willingness to revisit.Reason for wanting to revisit.Camp DirectorsImportant features to achieve participants satisfaction. Results of travel agents’ interviews not presented.Sample limited to participants. Walsh; Green; Cottingham, 2017 Consumer behaviour Primary Quantitative Youth Sport Camps USA Parents: 70 Questionnaire Team identification.Brand attitudes.Organizational satisfaction. Small sample size.Limited to programmes of NBA teams.Sample limited to parents. Lehto et al., 2020 Consumer behaviour Primary Quantitative Oversea summer camp China Parents : 234 Quantitative:Questionnaire Push Factors: Social; Personal; Educational; and Cultural Benefits. Pull Factors: Summer camp destination: Educational Resources; Supporting Facilities and Services; Destination Attractions.Summer camp programs: Program Structure; Staff Quality; Program Image; Accommodation and Dining.Overall perceived attractiveness of summer camps Small sample size compared with the larger sample size available.Sample limited to parents. Dubin et al., 2020 Human Resources Primary Qualitative Summer Camp USA Staff: 29 camp health care professionals. Interview Workplace fatigue.Outcomes of workplace fatigue.Strategies to mitigate workplace fatigue. Convenience sample.Possible recall and self-report bias in data collection process. Sample not representative of nurses and directors at all camps. Ko et al., 2012 Human Resources Primary Quantitative Summer Camp Canada Staff: 169 camp employees Questionnaire Exposure to Aggression.Burnout. Pioneering study on exposure to aggression, thus there was no previous data available for comparison.Sample size: staff who responded only represented a proportion of all summer camp staff.The cross-sectional nature of the study does not infer causality. Lyons, 2003 Human Resources Primary Qualitative Summer Camp USA Staff: 1 Camp Director and 12 counsellors. Interview and observations. Camp DirectorHistorical overview of the camp.Personal philosophy about the camp. Goals and objectives for counsellor orientation.Practices planned to achieve the objectives.CouncellorsReflexion about orientation.Interactions, routines, and traditions experienced during orientation.Meaning of practices and experiences.Interactions, routines and traditions between counsellors and director.Interactions, routines, and traditions involving counsellors and participants. Sample limited to one camp.Results not generalizable.Sample composed by staff included in the community. McCole et al., 2012 Human Resources Primary Quantitative Summer Camp USA Staff: 12 counsellors. Interview Sense of Community IndexEmployee retention Only residential summer camps. Small sample size. Sense of Community only measured after the return decision had been made. Jefferies, 2005 Event Planning Conceptual Physical Education Summer camp USA N/A N/A Initial camp planning.Camp staff.Camp budget.Camp promotion and registration.Instructional.Groups and activities.Camp administration. No empirical analysis the proposed model. Walsh, 2011 Event Planning Conceptual Youth Sport Summer camp USA N/A N/A Meeting the university’s tripartite missionNavigating university bureaucracyOrganizing and implementing a marketing strategyHiring and managing employeesPlanning for risk management and safety No empirical analysis the proposed model. Henderson, 2018 Camp Research Conceptual Camp N/A N /A N /A Role of theory.Address of social issues.Methodological imagination.Emerging audiences.Samples.Linking operations and outcomes research.Staff and youth development.Moving outcomes from what to how.Thoughtful and intentional implications for practice. No empirical analysis the proposed model. Henderson et al., 2007 Camp Research Conceptual Camp N/A N/A N/A Importance of camp research.Challenges in conduct camp research.Camp study areas. No empirical analysis the proposed model. Source: Research Data

Study	Management Area	Type	Nature	Terminology used	Location	Sample	Instruments	Variables	Limitations
Chang et al., 2017	Safety	Primary	Quantitative	Summer Camp	USA and Canada	169 camps	Questionnaire	Disaster preparedness.	Sample selection bias. Background influence respondents’ perspectives. Inadequate type of questions to respondents to quantify food and water reserves. Results do not reflect the feasibility of camps’ disaster plans or available online plans for parents. Miss to identify possible causes to the failures.
Miller; Barth, 2016	Safety	Primary	Quantitative	Boy Scout Summer Camp	USA	1586 participants	Logbooks	Visits to health center.	Sample limited to one camp and only included treatments in centre. Findings not generalized. Data limited to logbook format. Cause of injuries not explained.
Monk; Deutsch, 2016	Safety	Conceptual		Sports Camps	USA	N/A	N/A	Risk Management Plan Athletic Trainers Background Checks Facilities/Equipment Supervision Camp Rules Appropriate Activities	Only sports camps. Recommendations not generalizable. No empirical analysis the proposed model.
Papageorgiou; Mavromatis; Kosta, 2006	Safety	Primary	Quantitative	Summer Camp	Greece	726 documents	Registration form: Students Injury and Incident Reports for Use in Swedish School	Injury Classes	Results do not explain why the injuries occurred. Participant’s characteristics not considered in examining the injuries.
Powell; Fields, 2002	Safety	Primary	Quantitative	Summer Camp	USA	Documents: 119 published decisions in a legal database Staff: 102 camp professionals	Documents: legal database Risk Management Perspective Inventory (survey)	Published Legal Cases. Camp professionals' perceptions of risk management.	Only legal cases in the U.S. Only published cases discussed. Non-representative sample. Perceptions rather than behaviours
Robinson et al., 2019	Safety	Primary	Quantitative	Summer Camp	USA	Staff: 108	Questionnaire	Comfort level in managing concussion. Use of concussion protocols. Willingness to use a concussion protocol. Practice in managing concussion in camp.	Respondent bias. Influenced of pre-written answer choices in providers’ decision. Miss to understand the cause of staff discomfort.
Alexandris; Kouthouris, 2005	Consumer behaviour	Primary	Quantitative	Children’s summer camps	Greece	Participants: 453	Questionnaire	Incentives for camp participation. Satisfaction. Loyalty Word-of-mouth.	Parent’s decision-making not considered.
Jones, 2005	Consumer behaviour	Primary	Qualitative	Summer Soccer camp	USA	Participants: 100	Questionnaire	Things that children enjoyed in camp.	Only pilot study Results not generalizable. Sample limited to participants.
Kotíková; Schwartzhoffová, 2016	Consumer behaviour	Primary	Quantitative	Children’s summer camps	Czech Republic	Participants: 497	Questionnaire	Participation. Number of camps attended. Decision makers Source of information. Type of camp. Focus. Organizer. Camp length. Price. Accommodation. Satisfaction.	Pilot study Data not representative of the target group. Sample limited to participants
Kwok; Fowler; Yuan, 2010	Consumer behaviour	Primary	Quantitative	Summer Camp	USA	Participants 58	Questionnaire	Satisfaction Future Intentions	Small sample size. Lack of theoretical contributions. Results do not explain the “how” and “why” of events. Sample limited to participants.
Omelan et al., 2018	Consumer behaviour	Primary	Quantitative	Summer Camp	Poland	Participants: 100 Camp Directors: 2	Questionnaire Interviews	ParticipantsRecreational options. Participation. Frequency of participation. Reasons for participation. Who chooses the camp? Important factors in camp choice. Popular types of camps. Willingness to revisit. Reason for wanting to revisit. Camp Directors Important features to achieve participants satisfaction.	Results of travel agents’ interviews not presented. Sample limited to participants.
Walsh; Green; Cottingham, 2017	Consumer behaviour	Primary	Quantitative	Youth Sport Camps	USA	Parents: 70	Questionnaire	Team identification. Brand attitudes. Organizational satisfaction.	Small sample size. Limited to programmes of NBA teams. Sample limited to parents.
Lehto et al., 2020	Consumer behaviour	Primary	Quantitative	Oversea summer camp	China	Parents : 234	Quantitative: Questionnaire	Push Factors: Social; Personal; Educational; and Cultural Benefits. Pull Factors: Summer camp destination: Educational Resources; Supporting Facilities and Services; Destination Attractions. Summer camp programs: Program Structure; Staff Quality; Program Image; Accommodation and Dining. Overall perceived attractiveness of summer camps	Small sample size compared with the larger sample size available. Sample limited to parents.
Dubin et al., 2020	Human Resources	Primary	Qualitative	Summer Camp	USA	Staff: 29 camp health care professionals.	Interview	Workplace fatigue. Outcomes of workplace fatigue. Strategies to mitigate workplace fatigue.	Convenience sample. Possible recall and self-report bias in data collection process. Sample not representative of nurses and directors at all camps.
Ko et al., 2012	Human Resources	Primary	Quantitative	Summer Camp	Canada	Staff: 169 camp employees	Questionnaire	Exposure to Aggression. Burnout.	Pioneering study on exposure to aggression, thus there was no previous data available for comparison. Sample size: staff who responded only represented a proportion of all summer camp staff. The cross-sectional nature of the study does not infer causality.
Lyons, 2003	Human Resources	Primary	Qualitative	Summer Camp	USA	Staff: 1 Camp Director and 12 counsellors.	Interview and observations.	Camp Director Historical overview of the camp. Personal philosophy about the camp. Goals and objectives for counsellor orientation. Practices planned to achieve the objectives. Councellors Reflexion about orientation. Interactions, routines, and traditions experienced during orientation. Meaning of practices and experiences. Interactions, routines and traditions between counsellors and director. Interactions, routines, and traditions involving counsellors and participants.	Sample limited to one camp. Results not generalizable. Sample composed by staff included in the community.
McCole et al., 2012	Human Resources	Primary	Quantitative	Summer Camp	USA	Staff: 12 counsellors.	Interview	Sense of Community Index Employee retention	Only residential summer camps. Small sample size. Sense of Community only measured after the return decision had been made.
Jefferies, 2005	Event Planning	Conceptual		Physical Education Summer camp	USA	N/A	N/A	Initial camp planning. Camp staff. Camp budget. Camp promotion and registration. Instructional. Groups and activities. Camp administration.	No empirical analysis the proposed model.
Walsh, 2011	Event Planning	Conceptual		Youth Sport Summer camp	USA	N/A	N/A	Meeting the university’s tripartite mission Navigating university bureaucracy Organizing and implementing a marketing strategy Hiring and managing employees Planning for risk management and safety	No empirical analysis the proposed model.
Henderson, 2018	Camp Research	Conceptual		Camp	N/A	N /A	N /A	Role of theory. Address of social issues. Methodological imagination. Emerging audiences. Samples. Linking operations and outcomes research. Staff and youth development. Moving outcomes from what to how. Thoughtful and intentional implications for practice.	No empirical analysis the proposed model.
Henderson et al., 2007	Camp Research	Conceptual		Camp	N/A	N/A	N/A	Importance of camp research. Challenges in conduct camp research. Camp study areas.	No empirical analysis the proposed model.

Source: Research Data

Appendix B Results of the quality assessment of selected studies

JBI% "Yes" Kmet; Lee; Cook. (2004)Final score POWELL; FIELDS (2002) 75% 92% Quantitative Primary ALEXANDRIS; KOUTHOURIS (2005) 82% 86% PAPAGEORGIOU; MAVROMATIS; KOSTA (2006) 82% 88% KWOK; FOWLER; YUAN (2010) 69% 76% KO et al. (2012) 94 100% MCCOLE et al. (2012) 75% 98% KOTÍKOVÁ; SCHWARTZHOFFOVÁ (2016) 68% 69% MILLER; BARTH (2016) 82% 96% CHANG et al. (2017) 68% 82% WALSH; GREEN; COTTINGHAM (2017) 82% 88% OMELAN et al. (2018) 75% 90% ROBINSON et al. (2019) 75% 85% LEHTO et al. (2020) 75% 95% SCHELLPFEFFER et al. (2020) 75% 80% LYONS (2003) 80% 100% Qualitative JONES (2005) 80% 88% DUBIN et al. (2020 80% 95% JEFFERIES (2005) 59% Conceptual WALSH (2011) 91% MONK; DEUTSCH (2016) 91% HENDERSON (2018) 91% HENDERSON et al. (2007) 91%

	JBI % "Yes"	Kmet; Lee; Cook. (2004) Final score
POWELL; FIELDS (2002)	75%	92%	Quantitative	Primary
ALEXANDRIS; KOUTHOURIS (2005)	82%	86%
PAPAGEORGIOU; MAVROMATIS; KOSTA (2006)	82%	88%
KWOK; FOWLER; YUAN (2010)	69%	76%
KO et al. (2012)	94	100%
MCCOLE et al. (2012)	75%	98%
KOTÍKOVÁ; SCHWARTZHOFFOVÁ (2016)	68%	69%
MILLER; BARTH (2016)	82%	96%
CHANG et al. (2017)	68%	82%
WALSH; GREEN; COTTINGHAM (2017)	82%	88%
OMELAN et al. (2018)	75%	90%
ROBINSON et al. (2019)	75%	85%
LEHTO et al. (2020)	75%	95%
SCHELLPFEFFER et al. (2020)	75%	80%
LYONS (2003)	80%	100%	Qualitative
JONES (2005)	80%	88%
DUBIN et al. (2020	80%	95%
JEFFERIES (2005)	59%	Conceptual
WALSH (2011)	91%
MONK; DEUTSCH (2016)	91%
HENDERSON (2018)	91%
HENDERSON et al. (2007)	91%

REFERENCES

• ADAMS, Christina et al. Use of a token reinforcement system to promote appropriate behaviour at a pediatric burn summer camp. Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation, v. 23, n. 4, p. 297-304, 2002.
• ALEXANDRIS, Konstantinos; KOUTHOURIS, Charilaos. Personal incentives for participation in summer children’s camps: investigating their relationships with satisfaction and loyalty. Managing Leisure, v. 10, n. 1, p. 39-53, 2005.
• BAILEY, Andrew; KANG, Hyoungkil; KUIPER, Kelsey. Personal, environmental, and social predictors of camp staff burnout. Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education, and Leadership, v. 4, n. 3, p. 157-171, 2012.
• BAKER, Brigitta L. et al. Summer day camp attendance facilitates some children meeting physical activity recommendations: Differences by gender and weight status. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research, v. 22, n. 4, p. 1-7, 2017.
• BAKER, Dwayne A.; CROMPTON, John L. Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Annals of tourism research, v. 27, n. 3, p. 785-804, 2000.
• BAKER, Mandi. Welcome to the Bubble: experiences of liminality and communitas among summer camp counsellors. Journal of Youth Development, v. 13, n. 1-2, p. 24-43, 2018.
• BIALESCHKI, Deborah M.; BROWNE, Laurie B. special issue: perspectives on the value of the camp experience. Journal of Youth Development, v. 13, n. 1-2, p. 1-3, 2018.
• BIALESCHKI, Deborah M.; DAHOWSKI, Kate; HENDERSON, Karla A. Camp gives staff a world of good. Camping Magazine, v. 71, n. 4, p. 27-31, 1998.
• BISCAIA, Rui; YOSHIDA, Masayuki; KIM, Yukyoum. Service quality and its effects on consumer outcomes: a meta-analytic review in spectator sport. European Sport Management Quarterly, p. 1-25, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2021.1938630
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2021.1938630
• BORMAN, Geoffrey D.; BENSON, James; OVERMAN, Laura T. Families, schools, and summer learning. Elementary School Journal, v. 106, n. 2, p. 131-150, 2005.
• BREUNIG, Mary C. et al. The impact of outdoor pursuits on college students’ perceived sense of community. Journal of Leisure Research, v. 42, n. 4, p. 551-572, 2010.
• BUTTON, Scott B. Organizational efforts to affirm sexual diversity: a cross-level examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, v. 86, n. 1, p. 17-28, 2001.
• CAPDEVILA-GAUDENS, Patricia et al. Depression, anxiety, burnout and empathy among Spanish medical students. PloS one, v. 16, n. 12, p. e0260359, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260359
  » https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260359
• CHANG, Megan et al. Assessing disaster preparedness among select children's summer camps in the United States and Canada. Southern Medical Journal, v. 110, n. 8, p. 502-508, 2017.
• CHAVEZ, Audrie A. et al. Teaching safety at a summer camp: evaluation of a fire safety curriculum in an urban community setting. Burns, v. 40, n. 6, p. 1172-1178, 2014.
• COSTA, George et al. The factors for evaluating service quality in athletic camps: a case study. European Sport Management Quarterly, v. 4, n. 1, p. 22-35, 2004.
• D'HAESE, Sara et al. Organizing "play streets" during school vacations can increase physical activity and decrease sedentary time in children. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, v. 12, n. 1, p. 1-9, 2015.
• DUBIN, Alexsandra et al. Workplace fatigue within summer camp: Perspectives from camp health care providers and directors. Journal of Experiential Education, v. 43, n. 1, p. 71-87, 2020.
• DUNKLEY, Cheryl M. A therapeutic taskscape: theorizing place-making, discipline and care at a camp for troubled youth. Health and place, v. 15, n. 1, p. 88-96, 2009.
• EHRENREICH-MAY, Jill; BILEK, Emily L. Universal prevention of anxiety and depression in a recreational camp setting: An initial open trial. Child Youth Care Forum, v. 40, n. 6, p. 435-455, 2011.
• EIME, Rochelle M. et al. A systematic review of the psychological and social benefits of participation in sport for children and adolescents: informing development of a conceptual model of health through sport. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, v. 10, n. 1, p. 98, 2013.
• ERCEG, Linda E. et al. An injury and illness surveillance program for children and staff: improving the safety of youth settings. Journal of Park Recreation Administration, v. 27, n. 4, p. 121-132, 2009.
• FILO, Kevin; LOCK, Daniel; KARG, Adam. Sport and social media research: a review. Sport Management Review, v. 18, n. 2, p. 166-181, 2015.
• FITZGERALD, Andrew,; DEUTSCH, Joe. Limiting the risk of injury through safety guidelines in a physical education setting. Journal of Human Sciences, v. 13, n. 2, p. 2856-2859, 2016.
• GETZ, Donald. Event tourism: definition, evolution, and research. Tourism management, v. 29, n. 3, p. 403-428, 2008.
• GOLDLUST, Eric. Injury patterns at US and Canadian overnight summer camps: first year of the Healthy Camp study. Injury Prevention, v. 15, n. 6, p. 413-417, 2009.
• HANDLER A. et al. Summer camp health initiative: an overview of injury and illness in two Canadian summer camps. Cureus, v. 10, n. 7, p. e2905, 2018.
• HEDE, Anne-Marie. Managing special events in the new era of the triple bottom line. Event Management, v. 11, n. 1, p. 13-22, 2007.
• HENDERSON, Karla A. Camp research: What? So what? What’s next? Journal of Youth Development, v. 13, n. 1-2, p. 316-326, 2018.
• HENDERSON, Karla et al. Summer camp experiences: parental perceptions of youth development outcomes. Journal of Family Issues, v. 28, n. 8, p. 987-1007, 2007.
• HSIEH, Hsiu-Fang; SHANNON, Sarah E. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, v. 15, n. 9, p. 1277-1288, 2005.
• INOUE, Yuhei; HAVARD, Cody T.; IRWIN, Richard L. Roles of sport and cause involvement in determining employees’ beliefs about cause-related sport sponsorship. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, v. 17, n. 1, p. 3-18, 2016.
• JADOTTE, Yuri T. et al. Interprofessional collaboration and health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-synthesis. In: HOLLY, Cheryl; SALMOND, Susan; SAIMBERT, Maria. Comprehensive systematic review for advanced practice nursing. 2. ed. New York: Springer, 2016. p. 425-447.
• JEFFERIES, Steve. Promote healthy and active lifestyles: organize a physical education summer camp. Strategies, v. 19, n. 1, p. 26-28, 2005.
• JBI. Critical appraisal tools. Joanna Briggs Institute, [21 dez. 2021]. Available at: https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools Accessed in: 21 dec. 2021.
  » https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools
• JONES, Rhys. What do children most enjoy about summer soccer camp? Gender and group perceptions. Physical Educator, v. 62, n. 1, p. 2-13, 2005.
• KIRSCHMAN, Keri et al. An evaluation of hope following a summer camp for inner-city youth. Child Youth Care Forum, v. 39, p. 385-396, 2010.
• KMET, Leanne M.; LEE, Robert C.; COOK, Linda S. Standard quality assessment criteria for evaluating primary research papers from a variety of fields. Edmonton: Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research (AHFMR). AHFMR - HTA Initiative #13. 2004. Available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/crdweb/ShowRecord.asp?ID=32004000313 Accessed in: 21 dec. 2021.
  » https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/crdweb/ShowRecord.asp?ID=32004000313
• KO, Clara et al. Burnout among summer camp staff supporting people with intellectual disability and aggression. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, v. 50, n. 6, p. 479-485, 2012.
• KOTÍKOVÁ, Halina; SCHWARTZHOFFOVÁ, Eva. Children’s camps as a tourism product: a case study. Czech Journal of Tourism, v. 5, n. 2, p. 189-202, 2016.
• KWOK, Linchi; FOWLER, Deborah C.; YUAN, Jingxue. Summer camps as a means to recruit prospective college students. Event Management, v. 14, n. 2, p. 149-156, 2010.
• LEGG, Eric; WELLS, Mary S.; BARILE, John P. Factors related to sense of community in youth sport parents. Journal of Park Recreation Administration, v. 33, n. 2, p. 73-86, 2015.
• LEHTO, Xinran Y.; FU, Xiaoxia; KIRILLOVA, Ksenia; BI, Chen. What do parents look for in an overseas youth summer camp? perspectives of Chinese parents. Journal of China Tourism Research, v. 16, n. 1, p. 96-117, 2020.
• LOPREIATO, Joseph O.; SAWYER, Taylor. Simulation-based medical education in pediatrics. Academic Pediatrics, v. 15, n. 2, p. 134-142, 2015.
• LYONS, Kevin D. Exploring the meanings of community among summer camp staff. World Leisure Journal, v. 45, n. 4, p. 55-61, 2003.
• MARICUŢOIU, Laurentiu P.; SAVA, Florin A.; BUTTA, Oana. The effectiveness of controlled interventions on employees’ burnout: a meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, v. 89, n. 1, p. 1-27, 2016.
• MASSARO, Maurizio; DUMAY, John.; GUTHRIE, James. On the shoulders of giants: undertaking a structured literature review in accounting. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, v. 29, n. 5, p. 767-801, 2016.
• MCAULIFFE-FOGARTY, Alicia H.; RAMSING, Ron; HILL, Eddie. Medical specialty camps for youth with diabetes. Child adolescent psychiatric clinics of North America, v. 16, n. 4, p. 887-908, 2007.
• MCCOLE, Dan et al. The relationship between seasonal employee retention and sense of community: the case of summer camp employment. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, v. 30, n. 2, p. 85-101, 2012.
• MELTZER, Lisa J.; ROURKE, Mary T. Oncology summer camp: benefits of social comparison. Children's Health Care, v. 34, n. 4, p. 305-314, 2005.
• MICHALSKI, Joseph H. et al. A multi-method impact evaluation of a therapeutic summer camp program. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, v. 20, n. 1, p. 53-76, 2003.
• MILLER, Ross T.; BARTH, Bradley, E. Health supply utilization at a boy scout summer camp: an evaluation for improvement and preparedness. Wilderness and Environmental Medicine, v. 27, n. 4, p. 482-491, 2016.
• MONK, Steven; DEUTSCH, Joe. How to run a sports camp: legally speaking. Journal of Human Sciences, v. 13, p. 2068, 2016.
• MOOLA, F. J. et al. The psychological and social impact of camp for children with chronic illnesses: a systematic review update. Child Care Health and Development, v. 40, n. 5, p. 615-631, 2014.
• MORGAN, David, L. Qualitative content analysis: a guide to paths not taken. Qualitative Health Research, v. 3, n. 1, p. 112-121, 1993.
• NEELY, Kacey C.; HOLT, Nicholas, L. Parents’ perspectives on the benefits of sport participation for young children. The Sport Psychologist, v. 28, n. 3, p. 255-268, 2014.
• OMELAN, Aneta A. et al. Summer camps from the perspective of participants and organisers. Polish Journal of Sport and Tourism, v. 25, n. 4, p. 33-38, 2018.
• PANAGIOTI, M. et al. Controlled interventions to reduce burnout in physicians: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Internal Medicine, v. 177, n. 2, p. 195-205, 2017.
• PANDEY, Kshitija; JOSHI, Sujata. Trends in destination choice in tourism research: a 25-year bibliometric review. FIIB Business Review, v. 10, n. 4, p. 371-392, 2021.
• PAPAGEORGIOU, Panagiota; MAVROMATIS, George; KOSTA, George. Summer camp injuries: a tool for safety planning at the summer camp. World Leisure Journal, v. 48, n. 3, p. 54-61, 2006.
• PARIS, Leslie. Children's nature: the rise of the American summer camp. New York University Press: New York, 2008.
• PAUL, Shirley-Anne et al. Parents’ perspectives on home-based character education activities. Journal of Family Studies, p. 1-23, 2020.
• PERIĆ, Marko; TANKOVIĆ, Ana. Investigating the satisfaction of active event sport tourists. European Journal of Tourism Research, v. 28, p. 2806, 2021.
• POWELL, Gwynn M.; FIELDS, Sarah K. Summer camps in the United States: legal realities versus risk perceptions. World Leisure Journal, v. 44, n. 4, p. 13-21, 2002.
• RAJ, Razaq; MUSGRAVE, James. Event management and sustainability Cambridge (MA): Cabi, 2009.
• RAMSING, Ron. Organized camping: a historical perspective. Child and adolescent psychiatric clinics of North America, v. 16, n. 4, p. 751-754, 2007.
• RAY, Elizabeth. The phenomenon of community: a summer camp staff perspective. 2017. 77 p. Master Degree (Master of Arts) - Ann Arbor, Prescott College, 2017. Available at:https://www.proquest.com/docview/2022436670?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true/ Accessed in: 19 July 2022.
  » https://www.proquest.com/docview/2022436670?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true/
• REYNOLDS, Tommy. Defining and measuring camp: camper theory of essential camp experiences and the camp experiences exposure scale. 2021. 77 p. Dissertation (Doctor of Education) - New England College, 2021. Available at: https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/defining-measuring-camp-camper-theory-essential/docview/2553202244/se-2 Accessed in: 19 July 2022.
  » https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/defining-measuring-camp-camper-theory-essential/docview/2553202244/se-2
• ROBINSON, Leigh. Customer expectations of sport organisations. European Sport Management Quarterly, v. 6, n. 1, p. 67-84, 2006.
• ROBINSON, Roni L. et al. Concussion management in summer camps. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, v. 37, n. 1, p. 115-123, 2019.
• SCHELLPFEFFER, Natalie, R. et al. Camp leadership perspectives on food allergy-related anaphylaxis events and training for camp staff: a national survey of summer camps. The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: in practice, v. 8, n. 4, p. 1247-1252e1, 2020.
• SEIFRIED, C. Organizing your summer parent-child sports camps. Coach and Athletic Director, v. 76, n. 10, p. 28-32. 2007.
• SHEFTER, Laura et al. Inclusion coordinators at Jewish summer camps: roles and challenges. Journal of Jewish Education, v. 83, n. 1, p. 69-84, 2017.
• SUDDABY, R. Editor's comments: Construct clarity in theories of management and organization. Academy of Management Review, v. 35, n. 3, p. 346-357, 2010.
• TÄHTINEN, Jaana; HAVILA, Virpi. Conceptually confused, but on a field level? A method for conceptual analysis and its application. Marketing Theory, v. 19, n. 4, p. 533-557, 2019.
• TAYLOR, Tracy; TOOHEY, Kristine. Ensuring safety at Australian sport event precincts: creating securitised, sanitised and stifling spaces? Urban Studies, v. 48, n. 15, p. 3259-3275, 2011.
• TESCH, Renata. Qualitative research: analysis types and software. London: Routledge. 1990.
• THEODORAKIS, Nicholas; KAMBITSIS, Chris; LAIOS, Athanasios. Relationship between measures of service quality and satisfaction of spectators in professional sports. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, v. 11, n. 6, p. 431-438, 2001.
• THURBER, Christopher A. Youth development outcomes of the camp experience: Evidence for multidimensional growth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, v. 36, n. 3, p. 241-254, 2007.
• VENTURA, Alison K.; GARST, Barry, A. Residential summer camp: a new venue for nutrition education and physical activity promotion. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, v. 10, n. 64, p. 1-9, 2013.
• VON HAAREN-MACK, Birte et al. Stress in physical education teachers: a systematic review of sources, consequences, and moderators of stress. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, v. 91, n. 2, p. 279-297, 2020.
• WALSH, David W. Strategies for developing a university-sponsored youth sports summer camp. The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, v. 82, n. 9, p. 24-50, 2011.
• WALSH, David W.; GREEN, B. Christine; COTTINGHAM, Michael. Exploring the efficacy of youth sport camps to build customer relationships. Leisure Studies, v. 36, n. 5, p. 657-669, 2017.
• WARD, Gavin; GRIGGS, Gerald. Principles of Play: a proposed framework towards a holistic overview of games in primary physical education. Education, v. 39, n. 5, p. 499-516, 2011.
• WATCHMAN, Tina; SPENCER, Nancy L.I. ‘What are you doing for your kids?’ Exploring messages and Canadian parents’ decisions and perspectives in children’s sport and free play. Leisure Studies, v. 39, n. 3, p. 341-354, 2020.
• WEAVER, Robert et al. A coordinated comprehensive professional development training's effect on summer day camp staff healthy eating and physical activity promoting behaviors. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, v. 11, n. 6, p. 1170-1178, 2014.
• WEISS, Maureen R. Teach the children well: a holistic approach to developing psychosocial and behavioral competencies through Physical Education. Quest, v. 63, n. 1, p. 55-65, 2011.
• WILSON, Cait. Seven critical issues facing today’s camps. Camping Magazine, v. 90, n. 5, p. 64-67, 2017.
• WYCOFF, Tylor. Emergent camp trends. Camping Magazine, March-April, p. 38-43, 2021.
• YOSHIDA, Masayuki. Consumer experience quality: a review and extension of the sport management literature. Sport Management Review, v. 20, n. 5, p. 427-442, 2017.
• ZIAKAS, Vassilios. Leveraging sport events for tourism development: the event portfolio perspective. Journal of Global Sport Management, p. 1-30, 2020.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  11 Nov 2022
• Date of issue
  2022

History

• Received
  01 May 2022
• Accepted
  16 July 2022