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

5 Methods and approaches used to apply the LUS principles

5.1 Research Question No.3 asks "what methods and approaches are working well, and not so well, and why? What successful aspects might be applied more generally across Scotland in a range of different circumstances?" Chapter 2 provides further information on the evaluation framework and the research questions.

5.2 The development of a comprehensive and reasoned response to Research Question No.3 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 which methods and approaches might be working well/less well.

5.3 This Chapter includes a summary of the analysis approach used for the Research Question No.3 evaluation and a summary of the methods and approaches, identified through the research, that have potential to support the translation of the strategic LUS Principles into practical land use/management decision-making 'on the ground'. Each method/approach identified is linked to relevant LUS Principles that it could potentially help to translate as well as to the case studies from this research that have used the method/approach.

Analysis approach

5.4 The Research Question No.3 analysis approach involved three main steps which are detailed below:

• Step 1: Analysis of all primary and secondary data produced/gathered during the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project (i.e. interview notes/transcripts, document review, Research Question No.1 evaluations etc) to identify methods and approaches that the eleven case study land use delivery mechanisms have utilised
• Step 2: Categorising methods and approaches from Step 1 in terms of LUS Principle relevance. In essence this step identifies which Principles the methods and approaches have a strong/less strong relationship with - i.e. where the relationship is strong, the method or approach is considered to have greater utility in terms of helping to translate the LUS Principle into decision-making 'on the ground'
• Step 3: Analysis of methods and approaches from Step 1 to identify areas of overlap, differences and similarities to produce a consolidated list of methods and approaches and to identify potential groupings or categories

5.5 Steps 1 and 3 identify the range of methods/approaches evidenced by the eleven case study land use delivery mechanisms and also the frequency of their occurrence i.e. some methods/approaches have been used by several case studies whereas others have only been put into practice by one or two. Accordingly, one potential conclusion that can be drawn from this data is that the greater the number of case studies that have used a given method or approach, the greater its potential utility for translating LUS Principles into action 'on the ground'. The strengths, weaknesses and limitations of this finding are discussed further in the synthesis section at the end of this Chapter, especially paragraphs 5.88 and 5.89.

Summary of key methods/approaches identified

5.6 Through the Research Question No.3 Step 1 analysis described above, 20 individual methods and approaches were identified from the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project dataset. Via Step 3, these were then grouped into seven broad categories of method/approach that may have some utility helping to translate the strategic LUS Principles into decision-making 'on the ground'. These categories are as follows:

• Spatial analysis
• Environmental assessment
• Ecosystem services
• Partnerships and governance
• Engagement and awareness raising
• Planning and design
• Grants and incentives

5.7 The remainder of this Chapter describes each of these broad categories in turn including more detailed information, where relevant, of specific methods and approaches used by the case studies. Additional information includes: 1) reference to tools, skills and data that may be required; and 2) suggestion of the LUS Principles that the method/approach could help to translate. The detailed Research Question No.1 evaluation in Appendix 4 provides further, case study specific information, including illustrative diagrams and figures, on the various methods/approaches outlined in this Chapter.

Spatial analysis

5.8 Given the inherently spatial nature of land use/management planning it is unsurprising that several of the case studies have used spatial analysis and spatial data to varying degrees in their activities. For the most part, spatial analysis has been facilitated through the use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS). The research has identified three specific methods/applications of spatial analysis in land use/management planning. These are detailed in Table 5.1 along with links to relevant LUS Principles and the case studies that have utilised the specific methods.

Mapping core areas of primary land to delineate a land use/management framework

5.9 The Buccleuch Estates WEDP and Biosphere case studies both used spatial datasets pertaining to key primary land uses to delineate a land use/management framework for a defined management unit. In the case of the former the management unit was an estate and in the latter it was a water catchment (the River Doon).

Table 5.1 Spatial analysis - specific methods/approaches identified through the research

Method/approach	Strongly relevant LUS Principles	Less strongly relevant LUS Principles	Case studies that have used the method/approach
Mapping core areas of primary land use to delineate a land use/management framework	C	A, D, E and F	Buccleuch Estates Biosphere
Use of spatial analysis and spatial datasets to define constraints for land use/management	A and C	D, E, F and H	Buccleuch Estates Biosphere FWS CSGN CALL
Use of spatial analysis and spatial datasets to identify opportunities for land use/management to deliver multiple benefits	A, D, E, F and H	J	Biosphere FWS CSGN CALL Glasgow LDP

5.10 The primary land uses mapped are such that they are of overriding importance for management - e.g. in the case of Buccleuch, key primary land uses were the Estate's core heritage area around the historic castle and areas of high value land for agriculture/land capable of supporting arable agriculture i.e. Macaulay Land Capability for Agriculture^[41] (LCA) Classes 1 - 3.1.

5.11 In essence, these key areas of primary land use provide a core land use framework that is then protected and managed for primary objectives. Areas of land outwith these core areas may be more flexible in terms of capacity for land use/management change for different objectives and/or for the delivery of multiple benefits. Where GIS is used to support this sort of approach, sensitivity analysis can be used to explore the land use implications of altering primary use parameters/thresholds e.g. permitting agro-forestry on more marginal arable agriculture land (LCA Class 2.5 - 3.1 for example).

5.12 The Biosphere case study used extant policy objectives/targets to guide the consideration of core areas of primary land use. For example, policy objectives on climate change (as a proxy for peat/carbon rich soils) and forestry (i.e. afforestation targets) were used to scope out areas of land where existing use/management should be retained (e.g. deep peat).

Use of spatial analysis/datasets to define constraints for land use/management

5.13 Several of the case studies used spatial analysis to define constraints for land use/management as an initial stage of their planning activities. Constraints in this regard included biophysical (e.g. the Biosphere case study considered the potential implications of catchment geology for land management options), political (e.g. the Biosphere case study considered how policy objectives for afforestation might impact other land use/management options), legal (e.g. both FWS case studies considered how the spatial distribution of statutory conservation designations might impact their spatial planning for preferred, potential and sensitive areas for forestry) and practical (e.g. issues relating to access, slope, ground conditions, infrastructure requirements etc can constrain certain land uses such as forestry). Constraints/sensitivities mapping from the two FWS case studies are shown at Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1 FWS constraints/sensitivities maps

(Source: Stirling and Clackmannanshire Councils, 2012; Perth and Kinross Council, 2013c)

• The Figure above shows how spatial analysis has been used to help identify key constraints to forest development in the Stirling and Clackmannanshire FWS (left hand map) and Perth and Kinross FWS (right hand map)
• Stirling and Clackmannanshire's approach identifies key international, European, national and local level natural heritage designations. These are important primary land uses where woodland creation is likely to be inappropriate (or at least less appropriate)
• The Perth and Kinross approach identifies a broader range of constraints/primary land uses including wild land and peat/carbon rich soils. Crucially, much of the strategy area is comprised of these land uses as shown on the right-hand map above - red areas are wild land and the grid of red squares is peat/carbon rich soils. These are both important primary land uses providing a range of ecosystem services. Both of these land uses can be negatively affected by poorly sited and poorly designed woodland creation projects^[42]

5.14 Within the overall approach of using spatial analysis to define constraints for land use/management, several potentially useful and interesting approaches were identified from individual case studies. These included:

• Exploiting opportunity areas in heterogeneous landscapes: The use of fine grained constraints data for more heterogeneous landscapes to support the development of detailed land use/management plans that can be fully integrated with the landscape (FWS and CSGN)
• Linking land use/management pressures to sensitive primary land uses: For example, the FWS case studies identified landscape pressures caused by different woodland types^[43] and linked these to different Landscape Character Types (LCTs) as defined through the extant Landscape Character Assessments (LCAs) for the area. This information was then used to support constraints analysis and assessment of different FWS scenarios - e.g. different spatial configurations of woodland types were overlayed with the LCA data to understand the potential implications of different spatial strategies in terms of landscape sensitivity/constraints
• Use of related studies to inform constraints analysis and land use/management planning: Both the Glasgow LDP and FWS case studies drew heavily on existing studies produced for other planning purposes to inform their land use/management decision-making. Landscape capacity studies for renewable energy development were used to support constraints analysis, particularly as the more strategic, extant LCAs were not granular enough to support more detailed/integrated planning

Use of spatial analysis to identify opportunities for multiple benefits

5.15 Several of the case studies used spatial analysis to integrate spatial datasets and identify opportunities whereby land use/management change could be designed to deliver multiple benefits. For example, the Glasgow LDP case study drew on existing datasets produced through a green network opportunities mapping exercise^[44] undertaken for the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan (GCVSDP). In essence, this approach integrates various spatial datasets relating to integrated habitat networks (IHNs), access, greenspace quality and health to identify spatial priorities whereby green network development (i.e. sustainable land use/management intervention) has the potential to deliver multiple benefits.

5.16 The Stirling and Clackmannanshire FWS case study used additional, more detailed/granular spatial datasets in order to tease out specific, local level opportunities whereby integrated land use/management could potentially deliver multiple benefits at a more local scale. For example, the Macaulay Land Capability (LCA) for Agriculture data was used to identify more marginal agricultural land that may be appropriate for certain types of agro-forestry. Also, SEPA's flood extent data was used to identify opportunity areas for floodplain woodland planting as a sustainable approach to flood risk management (FRM).

Tools, skills and data that may be required

5.17 Access to GIS software, suitably skilled personnel and a substantial range of spatial data are required for the types of method/approach outlined above. Also, the more data available, the greater the range of constraints and opportunities that can be considered in the spatial analyses. Some data is available free of charge from relevant agencies^[45] whereas other data has to be purchased (e.g. the Macaulay LCA data).

Environmental assessment

5.18 The nature of several of the case studies is such that they have qualified for statutory environmental assessment (EA) processes e.g. the Glasgow LDP and both of the FWS case studies qualified for Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) as per the requirements of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005^[46].

5.19 The objectives of SEA, and indeed EA more generally, are such that EA has potential to support translation of the LUS into decision-making 'on the ground'. In particular, the assessment process will identify impacts of the plan, programme or strategy (PPS) in SEA or the impacts of the project in Environmental Impact Assessment^[47] (EIA). This information will often be useful for understanding how the PPS or project might influence sustainable land use outcomes, as per the LUS Principles. For an assessment of impacts on biodiversity, flora and fauna, as part of SEA, can help plan-makers understand ecosystem function issues in relation to LUS Principle D.

Table 5.2 Environmental assessment - specific methods/approaches identified through the research

Method/approach	Strongly relevant LUS Principles	Less strongly relevant LUS Principles	Case studies that have used the method/approach
Use of EIA and its constituent impact assessment processes to inform significant land use/management change decisions	C, D, E, F and H	A and I	Buccleuch Estates
Use of SEA as a legal driver for considering other relevant PPS (including LUS) in plan-development	Potentially all LUS Principles		Glasgow LDP FWS
Use of SEA to support consideration and translation of LUS Principles	Potentially all LUS Principles - B and G less so perhaps		Glasgow LDP FWS

5.20 Furthermore, public and stakeholder consultation is a legal requirement of all statutory EA processes. As such, EA can provide a useful legal driver for consultation and engagement including through the use of methods and approaches identified under the engagement and awareness raising category described at paragraphs 5.52 - 5.63.

5.21 The research has identified three specific methods/applications of environmental assessment in land use/management planning. These are detailed in Table 5.2 along with links to relevant LUS Principles and the case studies that have utilised the specific methods.

Use of EIA to inform significant land use/management change decisions

5.22 The Buccleuch Estates case study highlighted how EIA processes can usefully inform significant land use/management change decisions e.g. energy development, major deer fencing projects, afforestation/deforestation etc. EIAs can be statutory EIA (e.g. as a requirement of certain woodland planting or felling operations or the construction of forest roads^[48]) or non-statutory (e.g. for smaller scale projects where there is no legal requirement for EIA but where an EIA type impact assessment process can contribute to better decision-making) and can help to ensure that LUS Principles are considered in significant land use/management change decisions.

5.23 For example, an EIA may involve the use of Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment^[49] (LVIA) to assess the effects of change on landscape (i.e. LUS Principle E type issues) from significant proposals such as windfarms or the use of Ecological Impact Assessment^[50] (EcIA) to assess impacts on ecosystem function and biodiversity (i.e. LUS Principle D type issues) from significant proposals such as afforestation. One issue however is that EIA practice generally considers impacts on discrete environmental topics as opposed to a more holistic consideration of impacts on whole ecosystems and ecosystem services (Baker et al, 2013).

Use of SEA as a legal driver for considering other relevant PPS in plan-development

5.24 Schedule 3 of the Environmental Assessment (Assessment) Scotland Act 2005^[51] requires SEA Environmental Reports to include "an outline of the contents and main objectives of the plan or programme, and of its relationship (if any) with other qualifying plans and programmes" and also "the environmental protection objectives, established at international, Community or Member State level, which are relevant to the plan or programme and the way those objectives and any environmental considerations have been taken into account during its preparation".

5.25 In this regard, Scotland's SEA legislation provides a legal driver for the consideration of other relevant PPS within plan-development, including the LUS and its ten Principles for sustainable land use. In effect, there is a strong case for all relevant plans (i.e. those having some influence over land use/management) qualifying for SEA to consider the LUS as part of plan-development.

5.26 This is in addition to the consideration of other relevant PPS that are linked to the LUS/sustainable land use type issues in some way e.g. River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs), Flood Risk Management Strategies, Local Biodiversity Action Plans (LBAPs), Climate Change Adaptation Strategies etc. These related PPS will likely capture LUS Principle specific issues e.g. LBAPs and LUS Principle D on ecosystem services, RBMPs and LUS Principle A on multiple benefits, C on primary use, D on ecosystem services and F on climate change.

5.27 As such, SEA can provide a useful legal driver encouraging plan-developers to consider the LUS itself and other related PPS that incorporate LUS/sustainable land use type issues within the development of their plans.

Use of SEA to support consideration and translation of LUS Principles

5.28 The Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 defines the environment in terms of several discrete environmental issues or 'SEA topics'. As indicated on Figure 5.2 there is potentially significant overlap between these SEA topics and the LUS Principles.

5.29 In this regard, SEA can provide a useful means by which the LUS and its Principles can be considered within strategic planning (the intention being therefore that effective consideration of LUS Principles at the strategy/policy level should eventually influence practical land use/management decision-making 'on the ground'). There are several key stages within the SEA process where consideration of LUS Principle type issues could be integrated. For example:

• Identification of key environmental issues/opportunities: At scoping, SEA processes are focussed through the identification of key environmental issues/problems and opportunities. This scoping task informs all other tasks undertaken in the SEA. Many environmental issues considered in SEAs of certain qualifying plans may also be relevant to sustainable land use e.g. degraded peat bogs may be a key issue within an LBAP SEA and of direct relevance to LUS Principle F on climate change or opportunities to join up strategic habitat networks may be identified through an SEA of a Strategic Development Plan (SDP) - this is of direct relevance to LUS Principle D on ecosystem services and F on climate change
• Developing the SEA framework: SEA methodologies in Scotland frequently use an SEA objectives-led approach. At scoping there may be a key opportunity to ensure that LUS Principle type issues are integrated with relevant SEA objectives and assessment criteria as appropriate - e.g. consideration of LUS Principle G on vacant and derelict land (VDL) within relevant SEA objectives under the material assets SEA topic

Figure 5.2 Potential links between SEA topics and LUS Principles

• The Figure shows hypothetical links between SEA topics and LUS Principles - see key for further information
• For example, the SEA topic 'soil' has strong links with several LUS Principles including Principle E on climate change (e.g. soils can be managed for carbon storage) and Principle G on vacant and derelict land (e.g. VDL sites frequently contain soils that have been contaminated by former uses)
• In this regard, scoping in soil issues to SEA could facilitate consideration and translation of LUS Principles - e.g. it may be the case that data on carbon rich soils is collated, potentially supporting the identification of opportunities for land management within the plan area to deliver climate change mitigation objectives

Tools, skills and data that may be required

5.30 SEA is a legal requirement for many plans and programmes in Scotland and there is already a good deal of capacity within the various SEA Responsible Authorities in Scotland including local authorities and key agencies such as SEPA and FCS (SEPA, 2011). In this regard, many of the tools, skills and data required to integrate consideration of LUS Principles with SEA are likely to be in place already. Existing SEA guidance in Scotland (Scottish Government, 2013a) provides the basis for this practice including guidance on the key SEA tasks discussed above.

5.31 Conversely, EIA can be more data and resource intensive, often involving the collation of fresh survey data across the range of issues considered (e.g. habitats, species, soil type and structure, hydrology etc). As such, EIAs are generally contracted out to external consultants with associated financial implications.

Ecosystem services

5.32 Several of the case studies have explicitly used the ecosystem services concept within their land use/management activities. This ranges from comprehensive ecosystem service assessments to using ecosystem services more generally as a framing to communicate the benefits of the natural environment to stakeholders.

5.33 The research has identified two specific methods/applications of ecosystem services in land use/management planning. These are detailed in Table 5.3 along with links to relevant LUS Principles and the case studies that have utilised the specific methods.

Table 5.3 Ecosystem services - specific methods/approaches identified through the research

Method/approach	Strongly relevant LUS Principles	Less strongly relevant LUS Principles	Case studies that have used the method/approach
Use of ecosystem service assessment to understand the 'value' of existing land use in terms of single and multiple benefits	A, C, D, E, F and H	I and J	Glasgow LDP FWS Biosphere
Use of integrated habitat networks (IHN) data to model ecosystem processes and intermediate services	D, E and F	A and C	CALL CSGN FWS Biosphere Glasgow LDP

Use of ecosystem service assessment to understand land use value

5.34 Assessments of ecosystem services can range from simple qualitative descriptions (e.g. what makes a given area's natural environment important) to comprehensive assessments based on primary data from the study region (e.g. peat depth survey to model the equable climate/carbon storage services provided by an area of peat bog). This range of approaches is characterised in the literature also - for example Baker et al (2013) discuss the use of comprehensive ecosystem service assessment at one end and the use of a more general ecosystem services 'philosophy' at the other. Different approaches to ecosystem service assessment are illustrated on Figures 5.3 and 5.4, noting that the qualitative example at Figure 5.3 has been sourced from the literature and not the case studies.

Figure 5.3 Example of a qualitative ecosystem service assessment
(Source: Sheate et al, 2012)

5.35 Several of the case studies have used different ecosystem service assessment approaches within their land use/management activities. The Glasgow LDP for example uses ecosystem services as a means of 'selling' the benefits of the natural environment to stakeholders who have perhaps traditionally regarded it more as a constraint (e.g. developers, engineers).

Figure 5.4 Example of a more comprehensive ecosystem service assessment - spatial representation of ecosystem services using a proxy based approach
(Source: CSGN Partnership Board, 2011b)

• The maps above are taken from a green network opportunities mapping study undertaken for the three Ayrshire local authorities with support from the CSGN Development Fund
• The study used a proxy approach to mapping ecosystem services to identify where green network development and enhancement may be required in order to enhance certain ecosystem services
• The maps above depict locations where green network development/enhancement may be required to enhance ecosystem services relating to prosperity and wellbeing (left hand map) and climate change adaptation (right hand map)
• The map has been constructed using landcover data as a proxy for ecosystem services supported by related 'causal variable' datasets (Eigenbrod et al, 2010). Causal variables define the contextual factors that influence the value and importance of ecosystem services (e.g. adjacency to flood zone and water storage capacity of land use in the example above)

5.36 On the other hand, the Biosphere has used a more comprehensive ecosystem service assessment to map and value (using a mixed metric approach) the ecosystem services provided by existing land use within the Biosphere. In this regard, the intention is to better understand the 'value' and distribution of ecosystem services within the Biosphere in order to facilitate a more transparent and considered approach to land use/management decision-making. For example, understanding the full range of ecosystem services provided by an area of shallow-medium peat soils relative to the full range of services provided by the same area of land if all or part of it was cultivated for commercial forestry or developed for renewable energy provision.

5.37 In terms of methods, the more comprehensive ecosystem service assessments often involve spatial representation of ecosystem services^[52] using primary data (e.g. peat depth surveys to measure carbon storage/climate regulation ecosystem services) or proxy approaches based on landcover data alone (e.g. using the landcover class^[53] 'bog' to define a very simple proxy for carbon storage/climate regulation ecosystem services). For example, proxy approaches were used by the Perth and Kinross FWS and Biosphere case studies in the assessment of carbon storage services.

5.38 Assessments can also consider monetary or non-monetary/mixed metric valuation of ecosystem services. As per the Biosphere example above, the mapping and valuation of ecosystem services can aid land use/management decision-making by comparing the change in value (either monetary or mixed metric) of changing land use/management for different ecosystem services.

Use of IHN data to model ecosystem processes

5.39 Integrated habitat network (IHN) modelling^[54] has emerged in recent years as a useful technique for prioritising and planning habitat restoration and expansion projects. In essence, the IHN modelling approach considers the configuration of existing habitat patches within the landscape and the potential for key species to move between habitat patches - i.e. the connectivity of habitat(s) across a landscape.

5.40 Using GIS, IHN modelling considers landscape 'permeability' as a function of land use to create an 'intelligent' buffer around individual habitat patches. For example, where a patch of woodland habitat is surrounded on one side by mixed use development and pasture on the other, the landscape will likely be more 'permeable' for wildlife on the pasture side than on the development side. This is then represented in the size and shape of the 'intelligent' buffer within which wildlife may be able to disperse.

5.41 Where the 'intelligent' buffers of two or more habitat patches overlap, a potential habitat network is formed. Within these networks, there is scope for wildlife to disperse between distinct yet separate habitat patches. This interaction supports various landscape scale ecosystem processes including interbreeding, natural habitat regeneration etc.

5.42 The outputs of IHN modelling can be used spatially to explore and prioritise potential strategies for habitat expansion and restoration projects. For example, a strategic habitat creation project could act to join up otherwise disparate habitat patches, reducing habitat fragmentation and increasing habitat connectivity.

5.43 IHN modelling has been used to varying degrees by a number of the case studies. CALL have used the approach to identify potential areas for the establishment of native woodland habitat. The CSGN commissioned an IHN model for the whole CSGN region and, based on this data, 'habitat network enhancement zones' and other habitat network related issues are incorporated as priorities within the CSGN Development Fund application process.

5.44 The Glasgow LDP MIR discusses a potential approach to biodiversity conservation based on "an integrated policy approach which protects, and promotes the expansion and enhancement of, habitat networks, helping safeguard species and habitats and the ecosystem services they provide".

Tools, skills and data that may be required

5.45 This is likely to be dependent on the specific ecosystem service assessment approach used. For example, mapping/valuation approaches using landcover proxies only may be less onerous but will still require access to landcover data and GIS software and expertise. Mapping/valuation approaches drawing on primary data are likely to be much more resource intensive. There is a close relationship between ecosystem service assessments involving spatial representation of ecosystem services and the spatial analysis approaches described at the start of this Chapter. In essence, both the constraints and opportunities mapping approaches consider ecosystem services in an implicit manner (e.g. mapping wild land and peat/carbon rich soils).

Partnerships and governance

5.46 Most of the case studies in the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project have involved partnership working, to a greater or lesser degree. As such, a number of key methods/approaches have been identified through the research in relation to partnerships and governance. In particular, the research has identified two specific methods/approaches in relation to partnerships and governance that have key relevance for land use/management planning. These are detailed in Table 5.4 along with links to relevant LUS Principles and the case studies that have utilised the specific methods.

Table 5.4 Partnerships and governance - specific methods/approaches identified through the research

Method/approach	Strongly relevant LUS Principles	Less strongly relevant LUS Principles	Case studies that have used the method/approach
Use of partnership working and formalised partnership agreements to deliver greater benefit than would otherwise be possible	Potentially all LUS Principles		CSGN CALL DCP Glasgow LDP FWS LLTNP Partnership Plan North Harris Trust Biosphere
Cross-boundary partnership working	A, D, E and F	C and H	CALL FWS Biosphere

Use of partnership working and formalised partnership agreements

5.47 As discussed at Chapter 4, the literature and 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. Throughout the Research Question No.3 analysis, several key methods/approaches relating to partnerships and governance were forthcoming from the data. Key examples include:

• Identifying scope for additionality: The CSGN, DCP and LLTNP Partnership Plan case studies sought to identify shared priorities and objectives across the partner organisations. In this manner it was possible to align policies and projects in order to identify where resource could be saved and additionality achieved i.e. 'freeing-up' resource to progress land use/management projects that may not otherwise have been possible
• Shared vision: Several case studies (including the CSGN, CALL, LLTNP Partnership Plan and Biosphere) developed a shared strategic vision incorporating shared objectives, aims and principles. In essence, this is an expression of agreed shared priorities and objectives for land use/management. In the case of the LLTNP Partnership Plan, the agreed vision and priorities document was developed using a workshop based approach, allowing all partners to input equally to the process
• Partnership agreements and good governance: The CSGN, CALL, LLTNP Partnership Plan and Biosphere case studies developed partnership agreement type documents (e.g. terms of reference, charters, concordats etc) to exert a degree of formality over partnership/joint working arrangements e.g. what the partnership's objectives are, arrangements for decision-making and funding, who is responsible for what etc. Partnership agreements are different from the vision documents which are more public facing - the partnership arrangements provide the basis for governance and clear delineation of roles and responsibilities
• Working with a broad range of partners: The Biosphere case study's catchment scale approach to integrated land/water management is designed to incorporate the views of both 'top-down' (e.g. statutory agencies, local authorities etc) and 'bottom-up' (e.g. farmers/other land managers, community groups etc) stakeholders. The rationale behind this approach is to ensure that the full range of land management interests, approaches and ideas can be considered in decision-making, contributing to more integrated land use/management planning and better outcomes overall

Cross-boundary partnership working

5.48 The CALL, FWS and Biosphere case studies all promote and/or adopt a degree of partnership working across administrative and/or land ownership boundaries. The key rationale for this model of partnership working in these three case studies is effective planning for landscape scale ecosystem processes/intermediate services, especially ecological networks and relevant hydrological cycle processes. In essence, this recognises that landscape and ecosystem boundaries very rarely map directly to administrative or ownership boundaries.

5.49 In the case of CALL, the project area (which is comprised of several estates) is defined by the area's distinctive landscape influenced by the underlying geology of Torridonian sandstone and Lewisian gneiss. In the case of the Biosphere, the catchment scale approach to integrated land/water management is designed to work at the catchment scale - i.e. a 'discrete ecosystem'. In the case of the FWS case studies, the RTRP guidance (FCS, 2010) suggests that FWS can be developed collaboratively by multiple local authorities to facilitate better planning for key issues, such as ecological networks.

5.50 The proposed SRDP 2014-2020 (Scottish Government, 2013b) includes a specific scheme on support for cooperative action that may provide funding for cross-boundary partnership working. In particular, the proposed scheme has an emphasis on collaborative working to enable ecosystem or landscape scale projects that have the potential to deliver across a range of outcomes e.g. "a project that covers all of a priority catchment area in order to secure improvements in water quality, flood-risk and biodiversity, or reduces habitat fragmentation" (Scottish Government, 2013b p.64). Furthermore, public service reform in Scotland^[55] is also a key driver of improved partnership working, including in relation to land use/management activities.

Tools, skills and data that may be required

5.51 The most important requirement for effective partnership working is arguably the partners themselves. Raising interest in the partnership and the role of partnership working in the delivery of integrated land use/management more generally may require significant preparatory engagement and awareness-raising. This may particularly be the case where there are a diverse range of partners involved including community groups (as is the case in the Biosphere case study for example) and/or where there are likely to be financial implications for partners.

Engagement and awareness-raising

5.52 Many of the case studies considered in this research have a statutory requirement to consult stakeholders and the public (e.g. as a component of SEA or statutory plan-development processes). Equally, many of the case studies have undertaken consultation activities as a matter of good-practice. As such, a number of key methods/approaches have been identified through the research in relation to engagement and awareness-raising in land use/management planning decision-making. These are detailed in Table 5.5 along with links to relevant LUS Principles and the case studies that have utilised the specific methods. The methods in Table 5.5 are arguably applicable for both statutory and non-statutory consultation processes.

Table 5.5 Engagement and awareness-raising - specific methods/approaches identified through the research

Method/approach	Strongly relevant LUS Principles	Less strongly relevant LUS Principles	Case studies that have used the method/approach
Use of maps, visuals and other more novel techniques to engage the public and affected communities in land use/management decision-making	Potentially all LUS Principles		Buccleuch Estates CALL Glasgow LDP LLTNP Partnership Plan Biosphere
Use of case studies, good-practice, networking events and publicity to raise awareness of the benefits of sustainable land management	Potentially all LUS Principles		CSGN Glasgow LDP Monitor Farms North Harris Trust
Use of carefully designed volunteering and educational programmes to engage the public in land use/management issues	I and J	Potentially all other LUS Principles	CALL DCP
Use of a 'neutral space' where land managers and regulators can come together to discuss issues	B	A, C, D, E and F	Monitor Farms

Use of novel techniques to engage the public and affected communities

5.53 Several of the case studies used more novel approaches to encourage engagement in land use/management decision-making including intelligent use of maps at a variety of scales to communicate policy (Glasgow LDP) or a desired direction of change (Buccleuch Estates), the novel use of media to engage people in decision-making (Glasgow LDP, LLTNP Partnership Plan and Biosphere) and the use of specific consultation sessions with harder to reach communities (Glasgow LDP and North Harris Trust).

5.54 Once adopted, the Glasgow LDP case study anticipates an extensive use of maps, at a range of different scales, to communicate planning policy effectively to stakeholders, the public and affected communities. Crucially, an online mapping system will allow people to look at the specific policies affecting their street or neighbourhood - i.e. communicating planning policy at a human scale. Similarly, Buccleuch Estates have reported that mapped outputs from the WEDP approach provide a useful means of communicating land use/management decisions to the public/affected communities recognising, however, that the public are not currently involved in land use/management planning at the whole estate level.

5.55 The Glasgow LDP, LLTNP Partnership Plan and Biosphere case studies all used a postcard based consultation method^[56] to slightly different ends. In Glasgow, postcards were used to engage people on the range of policy issues outlined in the LDP Main Issues Report (MIR). Example postcards are shown at Figure 5.5. This also involved distributing the postcards in slightly unexpected places (including the city's universities) to try and elicit as broad a response as possible.

Figure 5.5 Glasgow LDP MIR postcard consultation - example postcards
(Source: Glasgow City Council, 2011c)

Use of case studies etc to raise awareness of the benefits of sustainable land management

5.56 The CSGN, Glasgow LDP, Monitor Farms and North Harris Trust case studies all used a variety of case studies, good-practice publications, networking events and publicity to raise awareness of the benefits of sustainable land management. In essence, all of the approaches/methods used were designed to demonstrate the 'win-win' outcomes of different sustainable land management practices.

5.57 This was a particular issue for the CSGN and Glasgow LDP case studies who are working closely with the private sector to demonstrate the benefits of integrated green infrastructure (IGI) thinking and design in development (e.g. housing developers). The CSGN use their news bulletins^[57] to communicate good-practice case studies to a wide audience and frequently attend meetings to raise awareness of the benefits of the green network across a range of interests. The CSGN often use 'win-win' business examples of how the green network and IGI approaches can help to reduce costs and/or add value, deliver multiple benefits and expedite planning.

5.58 The Monitor Farms case study is predicated on the use of networks of interest (i.e. livestock farmers and others with an interest in the impacts or benefits of livestock farming) to discuss new approaches and develop practical recommendations that can be trialled on a given farm.

Use of volunteering and educational programmes to engage people in land use/management issues

5.59 Several of the more community focussed case studies used carefully designed volunteering and engagement programmes as a means of engaging people in land use/management issues. This ranged from practical volunteering opportunities whereby people could get involved in practical land and/or conservation management activities (e.g. planting days, habitat management - CSGN) to higher level educational and work experience opportunities (e.g. internships, joint MSc research projects etc - CALL).

5.60 The FCS RTRP guidance promotes the use of community owned or managed natural assets (i.e. woodlands) as a means of engaging people in practical land use/management issues, potentially through volunteering activities as per the above and/or through specific training courses. In a similar vein, the WES case study highlights how private estates can provide a resource for educational visits, outreach activities etc as a means of raising awareness of practical land management and the role of the land fulfilling a variety of different functions.

Use of a 'neutral space' where land managers and regulators can come together to discuss issues

5.61 From discussions with contacts from the Monitor Farms case study it emerged that a potential side benefit of the Monitor Farms approach is the way in which meetings can provide a 'neutral space' whereby farmers/land managers and regulators can come together to discuss shared issues relating to land management and regulation. In this manner, it was felt that meetings can sometimes help to agree a way forward on a specific issue e.g. through the identification of common ground.

5.62 This sort of 'neutral space' approach could potentially be relevant to other land management sectors (e.g. arable farming, forestry, renewable energy development) though a knowledge broker/facilitator role may be desirable, as is the case with the Monitor Farms approach. In addition to identifying common ground between land managers and regulators, it was felt that the Monitor Farms approach can also be useful for sharing good-practice on regulatory compliance.

Tools, skills and data that may be required

5.63 As per the above, effective engagement and awareness-raising activities can often involve a degree of innovation in order to identify a new angle or approach that has appeal for a specific stakeholder group (e.g. hard to reach communities). In this regard, there is often a case for the use of creative design input to the development of materials for engagement and awareness-raising activities. As such, the development of effective materials can often require input from design professionals which may have a cost attached if these skills are not available in-house. In this regard, there may also be other skills that need to be bought in where the skills are not available in-house e.g. facilitation and data analysis.

Planning and design

5.64 Two of the case studies considered in this research (CSGN and Glasgow LDP) have a specific urban focus. Between them, the CSGN and Glasgow LDP case studies encompass Scotland's two largest urban conurbations, Glasgow and Edinburgh (see Figure 4.1 in this regard). As such, it is unsurprising that the Research Question No.3 evaluation has highlighted several methods/approaches that relate specifically to urban planning and design in terms of process, land use issues and the placemaking agenda. These have been categorised as planning and design methods/approaches and are detailed in Table 5.6 along with links to relevant LUS Principles and the case studies that have utilised the specific methods.

Table 5.6 Planning and design - specific methods/approaches identified through the research

Method/approach	Strongly relevant LUS Principles	Less strongly relevant LUS Principles	Case studies that have used the method/approach
Use of Supplementary Guidance to LDPs and SDPs to articulate key land use/management policy issues	Potentially all LUS Principles		CSGN Glasgow LDP
Temporary use arrangements for brownfield sites	A, G and J	D, E, F and H	CSGN Glasgow LDP
The placemaking agenda and its constituent approaches	A, C, D, E, F, H and I	Potentially all other LUS Principles	CSGN Glasgow LDP Biosphere

Use of Supplementary Guidance to articulate key land use/management policy issues

5.65 Various data relating to the two main urban case studies from the research (CSGN and Glasgow LDP) highlighted how Supplementary Guidance to LDPs and SDPs can be used to articulate key land use/management policy issues. This was felt to be a particularly important method/approach in urban areas where Town and Country Planning is the primary mechanisms for delivering land use (in contrast to more rural areas where land use is driven more by private objectives, the grants/incentive regime etc).

5.66 In this regard, Supplementary Guidance was construed as a useful and structured means of articulating key land use/management policy issues that are of direct relevance to the LUS - e.g. specific guidance on the role of green infrastructure contributing to ecological networks (i.e. LUS Principle A on multiple benefits, D on ecosystem services and F on climate change) and water management (i.e. i.e. LUS Principle A on multiple benefits and F on climate change).

5.67 Crucially, the Glasgow LDP case study, once adopted, will include provision for Supplementary Guidance on more detailed, location specific planning matters. In this regard, these more detailed planning frameworks (e.g. Local Development Frameworks and masterplans) will provide specific locational guidance for translating the LUS Principles at more local levels including, for example, location, design and capacity guidelines/policy for key infrastructures, including green infrastructure (e.g. strategic water management assets, strategic habitat networks and access links etc).

Temporary use arrangements for brownfield sites

5.68 Within the Glasgow LDP case study, Glasgow City Council (GCC) have been promoting the temporary use of brownfield sites for a number of years, in response to the economic downturn and the prevalence of 'stalled' development sites across the city^[58]. The CSGN are promoting similar approaches and are seeking to embed temporary greening as a useful approach for dealing with vacant and derelict land (VDL) issues in relevant Scottish Government policy and grant support mechanisms.

5.69 GCC have developed a specific approach whereby temporary use agreements for stalled sites can be brokered between land owners/developers and community groups wishing to use the site, on a temporary basis, for specific functions. Key functions in this regard include small scale food growing, environmental education, outdoor play and recreation. There is scope for this sort of approach to be rolled-out to other urban areas in Scotland though specific provision needs to be in place in terms of appropriate legal/lease agreements to satisfy land owner/developer concerns (e.g. the risk that sites may cease to be temporary in the eyes of the community group).

The placemaking agenda

5.70 The placemaking agenda in Scotland was brought to the fore in 2010 with the publication of Delivering Better Places in Scotland - A guide to learning from broader experience (Scottish Government, 2010). The notion of 'place' is generally applied to more local/human scales - e.g. the Scottish Government Architecture and Design pages^[59] talk about creating "successful, thriving and sustainable places and communities" - as opposed to the notion of 'landscape' which is generally applied to broader scales. In terms of this research, the notions of 'place' and 'landscape' have been considered together within LUS Principle E on landscape. In terms of placemaking in particular however, the data highlights a particular focus on the more local/human scale and often in an urban/peri-urban context.

5.71 As such, it is unsurprising that placemaking has emerged as a useful method/approach within the CSGN and Glasgow LDP case studies though it has also been considered within the Biosphere. In terms of the CSGN for example, the role of the placemaking agenda and its constituent tools and policies^[60] influencing the consideration of many LUS Principle type issues has been highlighted as a useful approach, particularly in an urban/peri-urban context and particularly at the neighbourhood scale.

5.72 The Glasgow LDP, once adopted, will likely include an overarching/headline policy on placemaking. The rationale for this approach is that placemaking policy will then influence all planning decisions, especially in relation to forcing developers and Development Management (DM) planners to think 'beyond the redline' and consider how a given development relates to and is integrated with its surrounding landscape and context.

5.73 The Biosphere case study used elements of a placemaking approach as part of a consultation exercise that sought public and community views on issues around place and landscape - i.e. at a range of scales, what makes the Biosphere special to you? This approach has close relations with a number of other methods/approaches identified through this research. For example, this sort of broad, qualitative approach can be used to inform qualitative assessments of ecosystem services i.e. an ecosystem services 'philosophy' approach as per Baker et al (2013).

Tools, skills and data that may be required

5.74 The methods/approaches described in this section are all broadly related to the statutory functions of planning authorities. Given this, there are no new concepts or methods as such, rather there is more of an emphasis on service delivery in line with up to date planning and design policy/guidance.

Grants and incentives

5.75 Grant and incentive mechanisms can have a significant impact on land use/management in a variety of different contexts. The Research Question No.3 evaluation has highlighted several methods/approaches that relate specifically to methods/approaches that can facilitate the more targeted use of grant and incentives. The specific methods/approaches identified are detailed in Table 5.7 along with links to relevant LUS Principles and the case studies that have utilised the specific methods.

Table 5.7 Grants and incentives - specific methods/approaches identified through the research

Method/approach	Strongly relevant LUS Principles	Less strongly relevant LUS Principles	Case studies that have used the method/approach
Spatial and thematic targeting of grants and incentives to deliver desired outcomes form land use/management	Potentially all LUS Principles		CSGN FWS WES
Using the LUS Principles as a guide or framework for relevant grant applications	Potentially all LUS Principles		North Harris Trust
Use of accreditation schemes to promote and encourage good-practice in sustainable land management	Potentially all LUS Principles		WES

Spatial and thematic targeting of grants and incentives

5.76 Within the scope of their specific remits, several of the case studies have used spatial and thematic targeting of relevant grant and incentive mechanisms to prioritise and focus grant/incentive supported land use/management activities for the delivery of specific outcomes.

5.77 Thematic targeting is construed as a focus on specific objectives or priorities. For example, the CSGN case study uses thematically focussed grant support (i.e. the Development Fund) to drive consideration of specific issues in land use/management policy and projects. In essence, the Development Fund application process highlights specific priorities that prospective projects should aim to support (e.g. addressing VDL, joining up links in habitat and access networks, projects in more deprived areas etc). The more priorities supported by a given project, the greater the chance that the project will receive funding.

5.78 In a similar vein, the Perth and Kinross FWS is considering how targeted support from public bodies (e.g. the council and FCS) and other forestry stakeholders can be used to encourage and promote small scale agro-forestry initiatives for the provision of greater multiple benefits from land holdings (noting that this approach also ties in with some of the methods/approaches identified in relation to spatial analysis - e.g. using more granular data to identify land use/management constraints and opportunities in highly heterogonous landscapes).

5.79 Spatial targeting is used to focus certain types of grant support/incentives on specific geographical areas. This, in essence, is the overall premise of the FWS approach - i.e. using the FWS spatial strategy to target locational premiums for forestry grant support (what types of woodland and where). This sort of spatial targeting approach can also apply to compensatory planting^[61]. For example compensatory planting that may be required following energy development related clear fell - i.e. using FWS to ensure that the right sort of compensatory planting takes place in the right location. Spatial targeting of grant support/incentives through the use of locational premiums was also highlighted by the WES case study as a potentially useful approach for driving land use/management change in a desired direction.

Using the LUS Principles as a guide/framework for relevant grant applications

5.80 Data pertaining to the NHT case study suggested that the suite of ten LUS Principles could be used as an overall framework or guide to support relevant grant applications. In this manner, the LUS Principles can provide a consistency check with which to check the objectives and scope of prospective projects or fundable activities - i.e. to what degree is the proposal consistent with Scottish Government policy on sustainable land use?

5.81 Potential grants that this sort of approach could be applied to include the various SRDP schemes, Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) and the CSGN Development Fund.

Use of accreditation schemes to promote and encourage good-practice in sustainable land use/management

5.82 The WES case study is predicated on the use of accreditation schemes to promote and encourage good-practice land management amongst the private sector. In this regard, accreditation schemes such as WES can be used as a driver to encourage private businesses (e.g. estates, farms etc) to consider the LUS Principles or LUS Principle type issues in land management. Furthermore, there is a feeling that accreditation can also drive continuous improvement in this regard - i.e. by setting a benchmark that can be improved upon (and potentially encouraging friendly competition).

5.83 A stronger approach suggests that accreditation schemes (such as WES) can potentially be used as a means of industry self-regulation, thereby avoiding the need for additional top-down regulation of estate management from Government. Rather, there would be greater reliance on the body of existing good-practice, continuous professional development etc as opposed to additional regulation.

Tools, skills and data that may be required

5.84 As with the planning and design methods/approaches discussed above, many of the tools, skills and data required for the grant and incentive methods and approaches will be in place already and/or will require consideration of other relevant data that already exists. A key example in this regard includes the various spatial datasets that may be required to support the spatial targeting of grants and incentives (i.e. there are close links between grants and incentives and spatial analysis methods/approaches).

5.85 Consideration of LUS Principles within grant applications may simply require a greater awareness and understanding of the LUS and its ten Principles whereas effective use of accreditation schemes may require better awareness of and training for sustainable land use (i.e. demonstrating links with some of the engagement and awareness-raising methods/approaches discussed above).

Summary of key themes/issues identified

5.86 The sub-sections above describe the twenty key methods and approaches, identified through this research, that may have some utility helping to translate the ten LUS Principles into decision-making 'on the ground'. In essence, all of the methods/approaches are likely to have some utility as they have all been used by at least one of the case studies. In this regard, a given method or approach may potentially be attractive for use if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

• The method/approach has been proven to work: it could be endorsed in statutory guidance or recommended by a trusted colleague or associate who has used the method themselves (e.g. use of spatial analysis to define constraints to land use/management, SEA and EIA)
• The method/approach has been used previously: it has been used already by the organisation/individual and is a trusted approach
• The method/approach is easy to use: tools that are easy to use will generally be used before tools that are more complex or harder to interpret/learn. The notion of 'easy to use' is a value judgement and will vary depending on a person's specific skills, knowledge and experience
• The data required for the method/approach is readily available: similarly to 'ease of use', it may be the case that methods/approaches are selected for use based on data availability. For example, SEA practice in Scotland is becoming increasingly embedded (SEPA, 2011) and data requirements for SEA (including SEA guidance and environmental baseline data) are improving

5.87 As touched on briefly at the start of this Chapter (see paragraph 5.5), another way of analysing the methods/approach data is to look at the frequency with which case studies are using the twenty different techniques. This analysis is undertaken by considering the number of case studies that have used a given method/approach, as indicated in the summary tables at the start of each sub-section - see Table 5.7 for example.

5.88 In this regard, the most widely used method could potentially be construed as the most useful method, as this is the method used most frequently by the eleven case studies considered in the research (recognising that this is based on a case study sample of mechanisms from the wider land use delivery landscape discussed at Chapter 1 - see paragraph 1.19). Figure 5.6 illustrates this point.

5.89 It is important to recognise however that the most widely used method (as per Figure 5.6) could also be the method that is more broadly applicable, has some utility in many different circumstances or is a more familiar or standard method/approach (e.g. Method_9 on partnership working and Method_11 on novel approaches to consultation/engagement). Equally, methods that are used less widely could be new, highly innovative methods that are simply less well known or have not been 'tried and tested' yet (e.g. Method_19 using the LUS Principles as a guide/framework for preparing relevant grant applications).

5.90 In terms of the data shown on Figure 5.6 therefore, the method/approach most widely used by the eleven case studies is Method_9 on partnership working and formalised partnership agreements (used by eight case studies). Other methods/approaches with high levels of use are Method_2 on spatial analysis for defining constraints, Method_3 on spatial analysis for the identification of opportunities, Method_8 on the use of Integrated Habitat Network (IHN) data to model ecosystem processes and Method_11 on the use of novel techniques to engage the public and affected communities. Each of these methods was used by five of the case studies.

5.91 In terms of methods/approaches that were used less frequently, four were used by one case study only. These were Method_4 on the use of EIA to inform significant land use/management change decisions, Method_14 on the use of a 'neutral space' where land managers and regulators can discuss issues, Method_19 on using the LUS Principles as a framework for grant applications and Method_20 on the use of accreditation schemes to promote good-practice.

Figure 5.6 Methods/approaches used to apply the LUS Principles - frequency of usage across the eleven case study land use delivery mechanisms

5.92 As discussed at paragraph 5.89, the nature of the methods/approaches that were used less frequently highlights a useful point, namely that several of the methods/approaches identified through the research are context specific - e.g. Method_15 on the use of supplementary guidance to LDPs and SDPs is clearly only relevant to local and strategic planning authorities preparing their respective Development Plans. It is unsurprising therefore that this method was used by the two case studies that have a strong Town and Country Planning context - i.e. CSGN and the Glasgow LDP.

Figure 5.7 Overview of methods/approaches identified in the research that may have some utility helping to translate the LUS Principles into decision-making 'on the ground'

5.93 Furthermore, some methods, by their very nature/type/characteristics are likely to have utility supporting the translation of several or all of the LUS Principles (e.g. all methods/approaches under the grants and incentives category - see Figure 5.7). Conversely, other methods are likely to be much more focussed in terms of their utility in this regard (e.g. Method_16 on temporary use agreements for brownfield sites - see Figure 5.7). This is not to say that one method is better than the other per se, rather, land use/management practitioners should seek to use a suite of methods to deliver sustainable land use in a given context. In effect, the chosen suite of methods and approaches should be such that they can support the translation of all relevant LUS Principles^[62].

5.94 As such, when the Scottish Government and other land use stakeholders are considering the methods/approaches identified in this report, it will be important to also consider their relevance/applicability for different contexts. Figure 5.7 provides an overview of all twenty methods/approaches highlighting the LUS Principles they are strongly and less strongly relevant to. Strong and less strong relevance in this regard relates to the given method's utility helping to translate LUS Principles i.e. a strongly relevant method will have greater utility than a less strongly relevant method.

5.95 Figure 5.7 may also be a useful tool for the Scottish Government and other land use stakeholders to aid the consideration and prioritisation of different methods/approaches (e.g. focusing policy and methodology development on methods/approaches that help translate a specific LUS Principle or sub-set of Principles).