Land Use Strategy (LUS) Delivery Evaluation Project - Volume 1: Main Report

4 Situations in which the lus principles have been successfully applied

4.1 Research Question No.2 asks "in what situations and how have the LUS Principles been successfully applied?" In developing the response to this question, the research team have focussed on the 'situation' element as opposed to the 'how' element which has been considered comprehensively under Research Question No.3 (see Chapter 5).

4.2 The development of a comprehensive and reasoned response to Research Question No.2 is predicated on a comprehensive response to Research Question No.1 (see Chapter 3). In essence, it has been necessary to fully understand the degree to which the case studies have translated the LUS Principles 'on the ground' to then draw robust conclusions on how case study situation/context might be influencing this.

4.3 This Chapter includes a summary of the analysis approach used for the Research Question No.2 evaluation, a summary of the key characteristics and factors defining each of the case studies and consideration of specific questions in relation to situation/context and how this might be influencing translation of LUS Principles 'on the ground'.

Analysis approach

4.4 The initial stage of the Research Question No.2 analysis involved an assessment of each case study to define them in terms of the specific situation/context characteristics considered in the research. Further information on the characteristics is provided below and at Appendix 5. This assessment was undertaken on the basis of all relevant case study information including semi-structured interviews and the document review (see Chapter 2 paragraph 2.9 onwards).

4.5 The location/degree of rurality characteristic was assessed on the basis of the Scottish Government Urban Rural Classification 2011-2012 (Scottish Government, 2012). Based on an understanding of the location of the eleven case studies across Scotland, this involved a broad-brush assessment, by eye, of the 8-fold urban/rural classification map (see Figure 4.1) in order to identify the class (or classes) of relevance to each case study. In this regard, the majority (eight) of the case studies fell into multiple classes.

4.6 Once the key characteristics of each case study have been defined as per the above, the Research Question No.1 dataset (see Chapter 3 and Figure 3.4 in particular) provided the basis for the Research Question No.2 analysis. In particular, the dataset shown at Figure 3.4 has been investigated by appraising the data relative to the various characteristics that have been used to define the case studies, as per Table 4.1.

4.7 In this manner, the Research Question No.1 dataset can be viewed through a variety of different situation/context 'lenses' to understand how these characteristics may be influencing the degree to which the case studies have translated the LUS Principles 'on the ground'. For example, how does case study location/degree of rurality affect translation of LUS Principles, if at all?

Figure 4.1 Scottish Government 8-fold urban/rural classification 2011-2012
(Source: Scottish Government, 2012)

4.8 During the course of the project a number of hypotheses emerged concerning possible situation/contextual factors that could potentially influence the ability of land use delivery mechanisms to translate the LUS Principles into decision-making 'on the ground'. In particular, these hypotheses were identified through the data collection and analysis undertaken for Research Question No.1 and also through interviews with the case studies. In this regard, the following three key hypotheses emerged during the research and have been tested during the Research Question No.2 analysis:

• Hypothesis 1: formal partnership working with clear governance structures/arrangements can support the delivery of multiple benefits by helping to align the objectives and priorities of multiple/diverse partners
• Hypothesis 2: the greater the breadth of land use/management activities and sectors a case study is involved in, the greater the potential for the delivery of multiple benefits/translation of more LUS Principles
• Hypothesis 3: case studies operating at broader scales (i.e. greater spatial extents) and/or encompassing a greater range of urban/rural classifications are more likely to deliver multiple benefits and translate more of the LUS Principles in general

4.9 The scope of the Research Question No.1 dataset and the nature of the case study characteristics detailed at Table 4.1 are such that the possible lines of enquiry for the Research Question No.4 analysis are almost limitless (i.e. the different combinations of case study characteristics and LUS Principles that could be investigated).

4.10 In this regard, it was considered prudent (e.g. given the time and resource available for this project) for the Research Question No.4 analysis to maintain focus on the three key hypotheses that emerged through the data, as described above. An additional line of enquiry could, for example, have looked into whether or not the statutory basis^[30] of the case study land use delivery mechanisms (see Table 4.1) has had any bearing over the degree to which LUS Principles have been translated.

Key characteristics of the case study land use delivery mechanisms

4.11 As per the above, the initial step in answering Research Question No.2 has focussed on identifying the various characteristics that define land use delivery mechanisms. As a starting point, these characteristics were based on the Scottish Government's criteria for scoping and then selecting case study land use delivery mechanisms for this research project.

4.12 These characteristics are generic and of relevance to any land use delivery mechanism but they have been imposed specifically on the eleven case studies considered in this research as part of the response to Research Question No.2.

4.13 The different categories of land use delivery mechanism characteristics are listed below. The comprehensive schedule of characteristics is provided at Appendix 5.

1. Location/degree of rurality (e.g. large urban area, accessible rural)
2. Scale (national, regional, sub-regional, local)
3. Rationale for spatial delineation of area encompassed by the land use delivery mechanism (e.g. existing administrative boundary, natural feature)
4. Tenure/actors involved (e.g. public sector, private sector, third sector community based etc)
5. Partnership based
6. Breadth of activities/sectors (limited/<3, multiple/3-5, extensive >5)
7. Details of specific activities/sectors covered (e.g. economy/economic development, transport, climate change, nature and landscape etc)
8. Statutory basis (where relevant)
9. Funding source (where relevant)

4.14 The characterisation of the eleven case study land use delivery mechanisms is summarised in Table 4.1. The comprehensive schedule of land use delivery mechanism characteristics is provided at Appendix 5. Appendix 6 provides further detail in terms of the breadth of activities/sectors covered (i.e. characteristic 6 - see above) by each case study as Table 4.1 only includes a summary in this regard.

4.15 The characterisation depicted in Table 4.1 provides the basis for exploring how issues relating to context/situation may be influencing the degree to which the case studies are translating the LUS Principles. As with all findings in this research however it is important to bear in mind that the findings here are representative of the eleven case studies considered in this research and not of the wider land use delivery landscape in Scotland.

Partnership working

4.16 Various data produced through this research suggest that formal partnership working with clear governance structures/arrangements can support the delivery of multiple benefits by helping to align the objectives and priorities of multiple/diverse partners.

4.17 For example the CSGN Vision document includes specific reference to working with a range of stakeholders as partners "...to achieve these ambitions we have to make sure that others share our vision including local government, health boards, urban regeneration companies, enterprise and tourism agencies, private sector, third sector and local communities" (CSGN Partnership Board, 2011a p.3). Similarly, a key premise of the CALL initiative is partnership working between landowners and local communities as enshrined within the CALL Programme Plan's objectives and an underpinning value on 'working in partnership' (CALL, 2011).

4.18 Also, lessons from the research team's wider experience of evaluating partnership based policy and process suggests that effective partnership working can be used to deliver benefits that are greater than the sum of the partnership's individual parts. In particular, partnership working has the potential to: 1) engender a shared identify that all partners can get behind; and 2) facilitate shared leadership/ownership of process and decision-making (Cascade Consulting et al, 2013). A further obvious benefit of partnership working is pooling of resources (e.g. skills, finance, in-kind contributions etc), potentially contributing to the more effective delivery of shared priorities/objectives, supporting objectives for multiple benefits.

Table 4.1 Characterisation of the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project case study land use delivery mechanisms

Note: See Appendix 5 for a comprehensive schedule of the characteristics considered in the Research Question No.2 evaluation

• The coloured columns in the Table above highlight data relevant to the specific themes and hypotheses that have been investigated through the Research Question No.2 analysis, as outlined in the analysis approach section at the start of this Chapter. The coloured highlighting in the location/degree of rurality indicates case studies that have been classified as either very remote rural (dark red) or a mixture of accessible, remote and very remote rural (pale pink)

Figure 4.2 Relationship between partnership working and translation of LUS Principle A on multiple benefits

• Solid red lines indicate case studies where land use/management is predicated on partnership working
• Dashed red lines indicate case studies where partnership based approaches are utilised to a degree but are not considered to provide the overall basis for the case study's land use/management activities
• Case studies that are not highlighted in red have not considered partnership working at all
• Please refer to Figure 3.4 for explanation of the rationale for scoring the Glasgow LDP and FWS case study Research Question No.1 evaluations (indicated by a ? on the Figure above)

4.19 Figure 4.2 highlights the relationship between partnership working based approaches to land use/management and translation of LUS Principle A on multiple benefits. As indicated on Figure 4.2, based on the case study sample considered in this research, there appears to be the relationship between partnership working and translation of Principle A is quite mixed^[37]. In particular all three of the case studies where land use/management activity is only partially based on partnership working have translated LUS Principle A fully. Equally, the CALL case study, which is considered to have adopted a comprehensive approach to partnership working, has only translated LUS Principle A to a degree. Conversely, two of the three case studies (Buccleuch Estates and Monitor Farms) that do not adopt partnership based approaches to their land use/management activities have only translated LUS Principle A to a degree.

4.20 Despite the fact that the findings of this research indicate that there are no strong links between partnership working and translation of LUS Principle A, effective partnership working can have key benefits for land use/management activity, as outlined above. A specific question on partnership working was posed to three of the case studies who are considered to have adopted a comprehensive approach to partnership working. As is evident from the below, partnership working is clearly a key component of these organisations' overall approach to meeting their objectives (including objectives for land use/management).

4.21 Question posed to case studies that have adopted a comprehensive approach to partnership working: what does partnership or collaborative working mean to you/your organisation?

• "Partnership working is both desirable and essential if we are to realise the CSGN Vision. Collaboration is written throughout the Vision document" (Sue Evans, CSGN Head of Development, February 2014)
• "It means combining the experience and strengths of the various partners to ensure a good outcome for the area. It helps with creating understanding between partners with varying aims and objectives. It leads to all sorts of positive things which were not expected!" (Viv Halcrow, CALL Project Manager, February 2014)
• "Without partnership the Biosphere would not exist. It cannot function as some independent authority as it would have no authority even though it is a Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisation (SCIO). We purposely set up the entity as a partnership to recognise that many different interests should be involved: government departments, government agencies, local councils, independent groups representing business interests, local communities and scientific and academic interests. All have equal status in terms of the constitution" (Roger Crofts, Chair of the Biosphere Partnership Board, February 2014)

Activities/sectors covered

4.22 Similarly to partnership working, there was a suggestion from the data produced through this research that the greater the breadth of land use/management activities and sectors a case study is involved in, the greater the potential for the delivery of multiple benefits/translation of more LUS Principles.

4.23 In essence this is quite intuitive - i.e. the more activities/sectors addressed by a case study, the more stakeholders involved and the more objectives for land use/management activities considered. Figure 4.3 highlights case studies involved in less than three activities/sectors in terms of the criteria^[38] (Buccleuch Estates and Monitor Farms) and case studies involved in more than five (Dee Catchment Partnership, LLTNP Partnership Plan and the Biosphere). Case studies involved in 3-5 activities/sectors have been left out to focus the analysis on the two extremes - i.e. limited and extensive breadth of activities/sectors.

Figure 4.3 Relationship between breadth of activities/sectors covered and delivery of multiple benefits/translation of multiple LUS Principles

• Solid red lines indicate case studies that address an extensive (>5) breadth of activities/sectors
• Dashed red lines indicate case studies that address a limited (<3) breadth of activities/sectors
• Please refer to Figure 3.4 for explanation of the rationale for scoring the Glasgow LDP and FWS case study Research Question No.1 evaluations (indicated by a ? on the Figure above)

4.24 The Figure highlights the degree to which LUS Principle A on multiple benefits, D on ecosystem services, E on landscape change, F on climate change and H on outdoor recreation and access have been translated. In essence, these five Principles are used as proxies^[39] for land use/management benefits or functions e.g. LUS Principle D on ecosystem services could represent designated natural heritage sites, ecological networks and the equable climate (carbon storage) ecosystem services provided by peat/carbon rich soils for example. The more LUS Principles translated, the greater the potential for the delivery of multiple benefits from land use/management.

4.25 Figure 4.4 amends Figure 4.3 to show only instances where the case studies have translated LUS Principles A, D, E, F and H fully. This has the effect of reducing the number of LUS Principles across all case studies except for the FWS which has translated all five Principles fully. It also has the effect of completely removing the Monitor Farms case study which had only translated the selected Principles to a degree. The Buccleuch Estates case study has only translated one of the five Principles. The Monitor Farms and Buccleuch Estates case studies address only a limited breadth of activities/sectors (<3).

Figure 4.4 Relationship between breadth of activities/sectors covered and delivery of multiple benefits/translation of multiple LUS Principles - fully translated Principles only

• The yellow dashed line groups the three case studies (DCP, FWS and Biosphere) that address an extensive (>5) breadth of activities/case studies
• Of the two case studies that address a limited (<3) breadth of activities/sectors, only Buccleuch Estates remains after a sieve of the data to remove LUS Principles that have only been translated to a degree
• Please refer to Figure 3.4 for explanation of the rationale for scoring the Glasgow LDP and FWS case study Research Question No.1 evaluations (indicated by a ? on the Figure above)

4.26 As is evident from Figure 4.4, the data suggests that the greater the breadth of activities/sectors covered by a case study, the greater the delivery of multiple benefits/translation of multiple LUS Principles observed in the data. This finding supports hypothesis 2 (outlined at paragraph 4.8).

Location/degree of rurality and scale

4.27 Five of the case studies considered in this research are of a scale (spatial extent) such that they encompass a broad range of classes from the Scottish Government's Urban Rural Classification (Scottish Government, 2012). These are CSGN, DCP, FWS, LLTNP Partnership Plan and the Biosphere. Other case studies fall into one or two of the classes, either because they are located in very remote rural parts of Scotland (CALL and NHT) or because the area of land encompassed (spatial extent) by the case study is relatively small (Glasgow LDP, Buccleuch Estates and Monitor Farms). As such, case study location/degree of rurality provides a useful 'lens' with which to view the Research Question No.1 data to see if any trends emerge in terms of the degree to which this specific situation/context factor may be influencing translation of LUS Principles.

4.28 Figure 4.5 shows translation of LUS Principles by individual case study. For the five case studies that encompass a broad spatial area all ten LUS Principles are considered to be relevant. Furthermore, with the exception of the DCP case, these case studies have translated at least half of the LUS Principles fully whilst both the FWS and LLTNP Partnership Plan cases have translated eight of the Principles fully. Conversely, in four of the five case studies that fall into a much narrower band of urban/rural classification, at least one of the LUS Principles is deemed to be non-applicable, given the specific context.

Figure 4.5 Degree to which individual case studies have translated the LUS Principles into decision-making 'on the ground'

• For the two case studies that did not reach their specific 'on the ground' decision-making juncture during the lifetime of the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project (the Glasgow LDP and the two FWS - see Table 2.4), the Figure above includes Research Question No.1 process issue data only (Appendix 1 as well). This is for the purposes of illustration

4.29 From the eleven case studies considered in this research therefore, the findings suggest that a broader range of LUS Principles (if not the full suite) are likely to be relevant to land use delivery mechanisms that encompass a broader spatial area. Again, this finding is quite intuitive - in essence, the greater the area of land encompassed by a given land use delivery mechanism, the greater the range of land uses and potential land management objectives likely to be present/available. A key example in this regard is LUS Principle G on VDL - i.e. unless VDL is present this Principle is likely to be non-applicable (see Figure 4.6).

4.30 Also, it may be the case, for example, that case studies covering a broad spatial area encompassing many different land uses have more expertise/experience in managing land for a diverse range of objectives. In this regard, these case studies are perhaps better placed and resourced (e.g. in terms of experience, methods and approaches etc) to translate the full suite of LUS Principles into decision-making 'on the ground'. This is borne out by the data to a degree although the CALL and Glasgow LDP case studies, both of which fall into only one of the urban/rural classes, both translated half of the Principles fully.

4.31 Specific consideration of the more rural, smaller spatial extent case studies highlights some interesting themes with regard to the discussion above. Figure 4.6 highlights the translation of LUS Principles 'on the ground' for case studies where the urban/rural classification is either very remote rural (CALL and NHT) or a combination of accessible rural and remote rural (Buccleuch Estates, Monitor Farms and WES^[40]). This is in contrast to the other five case studies which are all of a scale (in terms of spatial extent) such that they encompass most of the urban/rural classifications.

4.32 The LUS' third objective is for "urban and rural communities better connected to the land, with more people enjoying the land and positively influencing land use" (Scottish Government, 2011a p.3). This is linked specifically to LUS Principle I on involving people and J on land use and the daily living link. A key driver for this objective and Principles is the concern that the population is becoming disconnected with the natural environment. This is seen as a particular issue for urban populations and for children and young people especially (Stewart and Costley, 2013).

4.33 The corollary of this however is that rural populations are somehow more connected to the land and the natural environment, perhaps through its greater immediacy and the greater opportunity for ready access afforded by this immediacy. Another relevant issue is the nature of employment opportunities in rural areas which are often more land based. This hypothesis is borne out in the findings from this research (recognising the limitations of the case study based approach as discussed elsewhere). In particular, Figure 4.6 highlights how in all but one of the more rural case studies, LUS Principle J has been translated fully into decision-making 'on the ground'.

4.34 In addition however, three of the case studies that encompass most of the urban/rural classifications have also translated LUS Principle J fully (FWS, LLTNP Partnership Plan and Biosphere). Crucially, all of three of these case studies encompass significant areas of more rural character (including very remote rural) so similar issues may apply. In contrast, the three case studies that encompass areas of land classified as large urban area (CSGN, DCP and Glasgow LDP) have only translated LUS Principle J to a degree e.g. given the scope of the issues faced within these areas, it may be the case that this Principle is less of a priority compared to say Principle E on landscape change or G on VDL.

4.35 In the case of the CALL initiative for example, LUS Principle J type issues are inherent to the overall approach and philosophy as the area's iconic landscape and its management are key to much of the area's economic activity. In this sense the 'link to the land' is about more than just the role of the land in some abstract sense - the CALL area landscape is fundamental to the livelihood of its communities. The vision, for example, suggests that the landscape and biodiversity aims of the project can be met "[through the] creation of local employment and training opportunities, and, building on the communities strong cultural heritage linked to the land" (CALL, 2011 p.3).

Figure 4.6 Translation of LUS Principles into decision-making 'on the ground' - focus on rural case studies

• Solid red lines indicate case studies that are classified as very remote rural in terms of the Scottish Government urban/rural classification 2011-2012
• Dashed red lines indicate case studies that are classified as both accessible rural and remote rural in terms of the Scottish Government urban/rural classification 2011-2012
• The yellow dashed line highlights translation of specific LUS Principles in relation to these five more rural case studies

4.36 LUS Principle G on VDL was deemed to be non-applicable in four of the eleven case studies. As indicated on Figure 4.6, all four of these instances were in case studies of a more rural character, including the two defined as very remote rural in terms of the Scottish Government's classification. As discussed above, this is entirely intuitive as without a VDL resource of which to speak, the Principle is of little or no relevance.

Summary of key themes/issues identified

4.37 Research Question No.2 asks "in what situations and how have the LUS Principles been successfully applied"? This question is directly related to Research Question No.1 - i.e. by understanding where the LUS Principles have been translated into decision-making 'on the ground' it has then been possible to ask other questions of the data in relation to context/situational factors - i.e. what are the characteristics that might be defining a case study's ability to translate the LUS Principles?

4.38 Table 4.1 defines the eleven case studies in terms of nine key land use delivery mechanism characteristics. This covers issues such as case study location/degree of rurality (i.e. how urban, rural, remote is the area of land encompassed by the case study), scale in terms of spatial extent (i.e. does the case study land use delivery mechanism cover a national, regional, sub-regional or local scale) and tenure/actors involved (i.e. is the case study led by the public sector, private sector, third sector or a mixture thereof). An analysis of the data in Table 4.1 gives a clear indication of the diversity of the eleven case studies considered in the research.

4.39 As discussed at paragraph 4.8, the approach taken to answering Research Question 2 has focussed on the testing of specific hypotheses that emerged from the data. The three hypotheses identified are listed below:

• Hypothesis 1: formal partnership working with clear governance structures/arrangements can support the delivery of multiple benefits by helping to align the objectives and priorities of multiple/diverse partners
• Hypothesis 2: the greater the breadth of land use/management activities and sectors a case study is involved in, the greater the potential for the delivery of multiple benefits/translation of more LUS Principles
• Hypothesis 3: case studies operating at broader scales (i.e. greater spatial extents) and/or encompassing a greater range of urban/rural classifications are more likely to deliver multiple benefits and translate more of the LUS Principles in general

4.40 The analysis documented in the sub-sections above tests these hypotheses. Hypothesis 1 on partnership working was not supported by the case studies although the wider benefits of partnership working, as outlined in the discussion at paragraph 4.18, are such that the approach is considered to be a useful means of land use delivery for several reasons.

4.41 Hypothesis 2 on the breadth of land use/management activities was supported by the case study data - case studies involved in a greater breadth of land use/management activities all translated LUS Principle A on multiple benefits fully as well as other key Principles including D on ecosystem services, E on landscape change and F on climate change.

4.42 Hypothesis 3 on case studies operating at broader scales and/or encompassing a broader range of urban/rural classifications was also supported by the case studies. For example, for the five case studies that encompass a broad spatial area, all ten LUS Principles were considered to be relevant and, with the exception of the DCP case study, these five case studies translated at least half of the LUS Principles fully, including LUS Principle A on multiple benefits.