Land Use Strategy (LUS) Delivery Evaluation Project - Volume 2: Appendices

Appendix 2. Case Study Workshop Summary Report

Introduction

2.1 This report provides a record of the Land Use Strategy (LUS) Delivery Evaluation Project Case Study Workshop. The workshop was held on the 21^st June 2013 at the Scottish Government's offices at Victoria Quay, Edinburgh.

2.2 The aim of this record is to provide an aide memoire for participants and the project team, therefore notes recorded during the day (on worksheets, flipcharts and sticky notes) are presented verbatim. Worksheets and flipchart notes are presented as they were recorded on the day in order not to change the meaning.

2.3 The LUS Delivery Evaluation Project is being undertaken by Collingwood Environmental Planning (CEP) Ltd in partnership with the University of Strathclyde Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering for the Scottish Government. Further information on the project and its aims and objectives can be found on the Scottish Government's LUS Delivery Evaluation Research pages^[1].

Rationale and objectives for the workshop

2.4 The rationale for the workshop was to enable knowledge exchange between the case studies and to provide an opportunity to share good practice on the basis of their various experience of land management across Scotland. The workshop was also intended to help maintain interest in the research project and to provide an opportunity for the projects to provide feedback on emerging findings from the evaluation as presented in the draft Interim Report.

2.5 The workshop was designed to be undertaken at a stage in the research where it could provide a timely and valuable input to the final stages of data collection, analysis and reporting from the evaluation project. As such, the outputs from the workshop will be factored into the ongoing case study research plans/data collation activities and considered in the analysis and conclusions presented in the Final Report in March 2014.

2.6 The objectives of the case study workshop were as follows:

To provide an opportunity to share good practice between the case studies

To ground truth with the case studies the draft findings of the evaluation presented in the Interim Report

To explore in more depth with the case studies the opportunities and successes and/or barriers and challenges to translating and applying the LUS Principles on the ground

Workshop agenda

2.7 The workshop agenda is shown at Table 1.1. The agenda has been used as the basis for structuring this report. In particular, the write-up documents the outputs of the four workshop sessions that were held throughout the day.

2.8 A list of workshop participants is provided at Table 1.2.

Table 1.1 LUS case study workshop agenda

Time	Session	Approach
10.00	Arrival, registration and refreshments
10.30	Session 1: Welcome and introductions	Plenary
10.55	Session 2: Getting to know the projects - 1	Posters and discussion
11.30	COFFEE BREAK
11.55	Session 2: Getting to know the projects - 2	Posters and discussion
12.45	LUNCH
13.45	Session 3: Findings from the research	Presentation and small group discussions
14.50	Session 4: LUS principles in practice: building on success	Working groups
15.15	TEA BREAK
15.30	Session 4:LUS principles in practice: addressing the challenges	Working groups
15.45	Bringing it together	Plenary
16.00	Next steps
16.15	Thanks and close

Table 1.2 Workshop participants

Name	Organisation	Case study where relevant
Andrew Snedden	Buccleuch Group	Buccleuch Estates WEDP
Sue Evans	Central Scotland Green Network (CSGN) Partnership	CSGN
Viv Halcrow	Coigach Assynt Living Landscape (CALL)	CALL
Bruce Wilson	Scottish Wildlife Trust	CALL
Lindsay Bamforth	Scottish Wildlife Trust	CALL
Etive Currie	Glasgow City Council	Glasgow LDP
Peter Hall	Glasgow City Council	Glasgow LDP
Robert Patton	Highlands Council	Highlands Forestry and Woodland Strategy
Ross Macleod	Affinityworks	Wildlife Estates Scotland
Roger Crofts	Independent	Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere
Sally Thomas	Scottish Government/RAG	N/A
Liz Hawkins	Scottish Government/RAG	N/A
James Cogle	Scottish Government/RAG	N/A
Maida Ballarini	Forestry Commission Scotland/RAG	N/A
Grainne Lennon	Scottish Government/RAG	N/A
Ric Eales	CEP Ltd	N/A
Clare Twigger-Ross	CEP Ltd	N/A
Peter Phillips	CEP Ltd	N/A

Session 2 - Getting to know the case studies

2.9 Following general introductions to the LUS, the research team and the research project during Session 1, Session 2 provided case study representatives with an opportunity to present their projects and also to discuss their experiences considering and translating the LUS Principles in their work.

2.10 Prior to the event, case study leads had been asked if possible to prepare a poster presentation for their project covering the following points:

The context that they are operating in

Their objectives

Summary details of an aspect of good-practice or process that they are using to consider/translate one or more of the LUS Principles

The potential wider relevance of their work to other land use delivery mechanisms in Scotland

2.11 Each case study lead presented their project, using their poster as appropriate. This was followed by a facilitated discussion around related issues that were raised through the case study poster presentations.

2.12 Summary details from this discussion were recorded on flip chart paper. These summaries are shown at Table 2.1. The information gleaned through this process of presentation and discussion will play a key role informing the findings of the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project.

Table 2.1 Summary of workshop session 2 - getting to know the case studies

Comments related primarily to discussion around the Buccleuch Estates Whole Estates Development Plan (WEDP) approach:

• The WEDP approach is potentially of wider relevance to other landowners and application at a range of scales - from whole estates down to individual farms.
• There is a question around the deliverability on the ground of high-level strategies informed by the WEDP approach given the wide range of stakeholders/land uses/actors involved - getting buy-in at start with them is key.
• Deliverability needs to be broken down into bite-size chunks.
• The WEDP approach is flexible/it will evolve to account for changing context, lessons learned etc.
• Community involvement with the WEDP approach is primarily in-house at the present through engagement with estate 'enterprise leaders'.
• Third party consultation (e.g. with the community) has been done through the WEDP process. Before the approach to consultation is really refined however, Buccleuch Estates are currently focussing on defining and agreeing technical elements of the WEDP approach first of all.
• Crucially the WEDP approach is a decision informing not decision-making tool.

Comments related primarily to discussion around the Coigach Assynt Living Landscape (CALL) initiative:

• Is the habitats data required to run the Integrated Habitat Networks (IHN) model available to CALL?
• The range of designated sites within the CALL project area means that there is some good National Vegetation Classification (NVC) survey data available from SNH through the SNHi Natural Spaces spatial data download (i.e. to underpin the IHN modelling). Also, some of the CALL partners (e.g. SWT, John Muir Trust) are already in possession of habitat survey data for their land which includes non-designated areas.
• Data gaps can be filled in in the first instance with remote sensing data. This will be replaced by habitat survey data when available.
• IHN modelling work is also supported by effective engagement with private landowners - some of whom have commissioned their own habitat surveys.
• Scottish Wildlife Trust's (SWT) Developing Ecological Surveying Skills (DESS) course/team has been utilised for some survey work meaning that data costs are reduced.
• New survey work is prioritised on partners' land which hasn't yet been surveyed.

Comments related primarily to discussion around the Central Scotland Green Network (CSGN) initiative:

• There has been a good deal of early impetus around the CSGN - how do we make sure that the CSGN vision and high level strategy is carried on and continued given the long timescales involved in CSGN delivery?
• There was a question/comment about whether or not the CSGN is just a revision of similar approaches that have been tried before to reflect what is politically popular at the moment. For example, what is now the CSGN region has a legacy of various organisations working in this landscape e.g. Central Scotland Forest Trust (CSFT) etc.
• There is a concern within the CSGN Support Unit in terms of how to keep the CSGN fresh and reflect a changing political context.
• The visions of the various historic and current plans and programmes within the CSGN region remain intact - it is the methods/language (i.e. in relation to land use/environmental planning within the region) that changes and not the overarching vision. This was perceived as a strength as the deliverability of the vision is maintained - it is just the method and communication of how that vision is delivered that changes.
• Grant availability can impact sustained engagement (with programmes like CSGN) - particularly with land owners. The availability of suitable funding can dictate how willing land owners are to embrace change/new approaches.
• It can be a very long term process to get action on the ground - personnel/continuity issues are key (i.e. having people in post for long enough to really drive through projects).
• NGO representatives expressed concerns that the biodiversity/conservation emphasis of the CSGN is a bit lost in NPF3 over its role supporting active travel.
• There is a requirement for existing and new grants/incentives to drive change to reflect changing priorities e.g. vacant and derelict land, active travel etc.
• The requirement/necessity to navigate policies (that are always changing) in order to identify mechanisms for land use and land management delivery can be challenging.
• Using financial and other drivers (e.g. planning policy, proposals within LDPs etc) to ensure that the CSGN can influence and deliver wider LUS type issues is key. For example, the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Network Partnership Opportunities Mapping work incorporates a layer on Community Growth Areas (CGAs) - CGAs are key drivers of change and tagging the green network along with proposed development in these areas will ensure that development/the private sector is contributing to the delivery of the CSGN and the LUS. The more data/parameters within the model, the greater the sophistication and multiple benefits delivered?
• Similarly, woodland opportunities mapping work within the CALL project will incorporate wider views (i.e. the affected communities, land owners and other stakeholders). The opportunities map will be published online as an interactive Geographic Information System (GIS) allowing stakeholders to draw their own polygons to identify constraints (e.g. conflicting land uses or land management objectives) to habitat expansion known to them. This approaches ensures that wider/different types of expertise can be incorporated with decision-making i.e. not just ecological criteria informing habitat works. Data captured in this manner will inform habitat works/planning.
• Spatial data representation and communication to the wider public needs to be undertaken very carefully - people often view maps as 'the truth' though the woodland opportunities identified through the IHN process are precisely that (i.e. just potential opportunities and not what will definitely be delivered on the ground).
• There are issues around the cost and availability of spatial data and associated software (GIS) - is there more potential for open source data?
  • There is a need to 'break down barriers' to data access.
  • There is a need to integrate and capture local knowledge (as well) e.g. through the use of participative GIS.

Comments related primarily to discussion around the Highlands Forestry and Woodland Strategy (HFWS):

• The Forestry Commission's ecological site classification system/methodology^[2] for woodland expansion was discussed in the context of its use in the development of the HFWS.
• Issues were raised regarding the appropriateness of using this approach at the whole Highlands Council scale as its use was regarded as being more appropriate at the site specific scale.
• Highlands Council looked at a lot of different types of forestry as part of this work.
• There was a query as to whether or not this system/methodology will be developed or adapted for easy use at the landscape scale. What is the wider relevance of this approach?

Comments related primarily to discussion around Wildlife Estates Scotland (WES):

• Current involvement in WES is focussed on those estates that are already very committed to conservation management. Where there is a financial implication of involvement, small estates in particular are unlikely to engage with the scheme.
• A Key driver/delivery mechanism to encourage involvement with the WES scheme may be the SRDP - can the SRDP be more spatial/priority focussed (e.g. forestry land use incentives in the 1990s had a location specific premium)?
• Engagement with these types of scheme (i.e. WES type accreditation schemes) has to come from the land owners/managers as it is these people that know the land - NGOs can't lead the way.
• A big obstacle to farmers who may want to do more environmentally outcome focussed work is that there are no tangible/visible outputs and benefits that will support their business - e.g. is there scope for a 'Green Tractor' type scheme to help incentivise involvement?

Comments related primary to grant scheme monitoring requirements

• There is an ever increasing requirement to monitor/evaluate - this is tricky over time.
• SRDP monitoring is less detailed than it previously was e.g. there is no requirement to collect spatial data/polygons on the uptake of measures due to data protection issues. Therefore it is hard to link investment with action on the ground and resultant impacts/outcomes.
• Applicants are asked for lots of data but this isn't transferred to comprehensive monitoring.
• Lack of understanding and traceability between investment (i.e. cause) and effect.
• Different data language between statutory agencies.
• Primary issue (or reason/driver for this) relates to data protection.
• Agriculture is a particular case in point in terms of attributing funding/investment to resultant impacts and outcome delivery.

Session 3 - Findings from the research

2.13 This session commenced with a presentation from the research team on the Interim Report and its findings.

2.14 Following the presentation, workshop participants were split into groups and asked to reflect on the Interim Report findings and record their comments, ideas and suggestions on worksheets.

2.15 This aspect of the workshop included generic questions about the Interim Report in general and also two LUS Principle specific questions. The questions and the outputs from this part of the workshop are summarised at Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Summary of workshop session 3 - findings from the research

Question 1: how do the interim findings match with your experience?

• GIS and the use of spatial data emerging as a key theme for all projects reflected many peoples' experiences. Access to data is key - need open source data and free to use data tools to enable that data to be used. Publically funded data should be available. Data is needed at a range of scales for different situations. Data is a cornerstone of success for delivery of the LUS.
• Involvement of the wider community beyond the land owning and land managing community. How do we do this effectively? How do we distil genuine interest in the issues from those that have a passing interest? This is about ensuring a focus. Communities of interest and communities of place - both have a valid interest. Question - is everyone a genuine stakeholder?
• Principle B on regulation - is this more widely applicable? For example Glasgow LDP has a statutory function. There is a question of how this should be incorporated.
• Principle A on multiple benefits - more thought required on the multiple benefits issue - can too many benefits dilute the output?
• Principle A on multiple benefits - how helpful is land use change if this impacts, say, on future business decisions?
• Principle F on climate change - would we expect land managers to meet the climate change principle given the focus of this within government?
• Key importance of involving people from public sector. LUS helping to coordinate specific approaches. Public Sector - questions about engaging with people in process - language and communication with the objective of making issues accessible. Private land management interests can be engaged with LUS type requirements via site designations and GAEC etc. Expanding this involvement may require further incentivisation.

Question 2: LUS Principle A on multiple benefits has been implicitly or explicitly translated by all case studies at the relevant vision/corporate/strategy level. What might the practical challenges be in delivering Principle A on the ground? How might the delivery of multiple benefits/functions from land use and land management be defined? Two or more?

• More than one equals a multiple benefit. The challenge is getting different sectors to communicate and finding a platform where this discussion and debate can take place.
• Multiple benefits need to come from a range of ecosystem services to avoid being counter-productive. For example if all the benefits are cultural this is to the disadvantage of others such as agriculture.
• Need to treat natural capital as something which must be accounted for on the 'balance sheet'. Sustainable development to ensure benefits for future generations.
• Ecosystems approach can cloud the process because it makes everyone a potential stakeholder.

Question 3: LUS Principle F on climate change has been implicitly or explicitly translated by all case studies at the relevant vision/corporate/strategy level. What are your views on land use and land management activities delivering joint climate change mitigation and adaptation actions? Should this be an objective for all land use delivery mechanisms/contexts?

• Yes - both mitigation and adaptation should be considered for example the Highlands Forestry and Woodland Strategy, Glasgow LDP and the CSGN.
• There is a disconnect between the desire to do something and the ability to do something on the ground e.g. retrofitting (green roofs, SuDS) - barriers are farming, landowner willingness.
• Guidance for planting on deep peat may resolve a previous conflict.
• Issue on species choice looking ahead (pest, diseases and future management of woodlands)
• Can adaptation and mitigation be managed on the same land holding/area?

Session 4 - LUS Principles in practice: building on success and addressing the challenges

2.16 The final workshop session focussed on specific methods and approaches that may be useful for considering and translating the LUS Principles into action on the ground.

2.17 On the basis of the evaluation work undertaken to date, the session considered two Principles that seem to be being translated well (Principle A on multiple benefits and I on involving people) and two Principles where translation may be more challenging (Principle D on ecosystem services and J on land use and the daily living link).

2.18 For each Principle, participants were provided with one or more examples of methods/approaches that could potentially be used for considering and translating the Principle and then asked to consider the following questions:

How useful do you think the example approach/method shown might be for translating the Principle?

How could the approach/method be improved?

2.19 The example methods/approaches presented in this part of the workshop were gleaned from the case studies themselves as per data collation and analysis activities undertaken to date to help answer the third research question: "what methods and approaches are working well and not so well and why?" (see Chapter 6 of the Interim Report).

2.20 The specific methods/approaches are listed at Table 4.1. The outputs from this stage of the workshop are documented at Table 4.2.

Table 4.1 Potential methods/approaches for translating key LUS Principles

LUS Principle	Method/approach considered	Relevant case studies
A - multiple benefits	Integrated land and water management planning using catchment scale stakeholder engagement	Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere
D - ecosystem services	Use of integrated habitat network (IHN) modelling to inform habitat expansion activities	CALL Glasgow LDP
I - involving people	Use of novel approaches for engaging people in land use/management decision-making	Glasgow LDP North Harris Trust
J - land use and the daily living link	Using brownfield sites for temporary uses to re-engage people in the value of land	Glasgow LDP

Table 4.2 Summary of workshop session 4 - LUS Principles in practice

LUS Principe A - opportunities for land use to deliver multiple benefits should be encouraged

How useful do you think the example approach/method shown might be for translating the Principle?

• Applied to a specific, recognised area. Sense of identity. Brings together different stakeholders. Opportunity to reconcile different land uses/activities. Removing perceived blockages, acronyms. Can have wide-ranging benefits. Creating awareness of what information is available to stakeholders.
• Involvement of academics could point to benefits of objective, information-based approach but this involvement needs to be 'matched' to the initiative.
• Constraints with open source data. Need for credible information and data (and metadata)
• One strength is the scale i.e. whole catchment.
• Integration is not as painful at this scale and can be helpful to see other peoples' point of view.
• Challenge is right people at the table - can't just be officers from key agencies as those involved needs to be au fait with what's implementable.
• Data/language use needs to cater for everyone and not be in anyway excusive.

How could the method/approach be improved?

• Easy access to credible information and mapping.
• Reconcile different data sources.
• Need for initial funding to problem solve data requirements.
• Make sure that everyone is represented in terms of stakeholders round the table(s).
• Chairing the meeting needs to be very clear.
• At the primary stage it must be inclusive.
• Use of correct language to encourage engagement.
• The involvement of community councillors and residents should help to ensure a balance and wider understanding across the whole catchment.
• Need to balance group size to ensure that different stakeholder groups are adequately represented.
• How to avoid the potential intimidation of 'community level' stakeholders?

LUS Principle D - land use decisions should be informed by an understanding of the functioning of the ecosystems which they affect in order to maintain the benefits of the ecosystem services which they provide

How useful do you think the example approach/method shown might be for translating the Principle?

• Integrated habitat network (IHN) modelling is a useful tool to assist in prioritisation but it still relies upon the willingness of landowners/managers to participate.
• IHN deals with a limited range of ecosystem services.
• Useful for considering the impacts of new development and land use changes e.g. forestry.
• IHN is a tool to inform thinking and decisions; it will not provide the 'correct' answer. So it informs Principle C as well as Principle A.

How could the method/approach be improved?

• IHN modelling will require expert input and interpretation in order to be useful. Interpretation for the non-expert is required in order to communicate the benefits of any proposed land use change.

LUS Principe I - people should have opportunities to contribute to debates and decisions about land use and management decisions which affect their lives and their future

How useful do you think the example approach/method shown might be for translating the Principle?

• Glasgow LDP
• The approach enables an individual to respond without the influence of peer pressure.
• The postcards can be taken away for consideration and posted back.
• Use of attractive graphics, people will want to pick them up.
• A good way to engage those who are not familiar with the LDP, who may be transient and disengaged.
• Seems like a useful/simple approach with language that is easy to understand.
• But negative image used on one of the postcards is perhaps loaded?
• North Harris Trust
• Going into schools makes the message relevant in the curriculum.
• Children will go home and discuss with their parents thus spreading the message further. Beyond the classroom into the community.
• They are doing what we would expect and targets those who are probably already engaged. We would expect most people in North Harris to be well engaged already anyway.
• Comments relevant to both approaches
• It is critical to provide space for community engagement/get together (in community owned organisation).
• Involving too broad/large an audience can cloud action - danger to watch.
• Engaging young people very important - looks useful therefore.
• Very relevant to specific situation in North Harris.

How could the method/approach be improved?

• Glasgow LDP
• Use of different languages on the postcards in order to engage ethnic minorities.
• The more these postcards can reach into the community, such as in shops, post office, on the bus, the more likely people are to engage.
• Use more neutral images.
• Local authorities need to be careful with loaded questions.
• North Harris Trust
• Road shows can be expensive, need to be able to justify spending (was not able to come up with way to prioritise/justify costs).
• Need to consider other means of communication.
• Comments relevant to both approaches
• Neither approach addresses the online community, this could particularly engage with a younger age group. Use a pop-up advert e.g. on Facebook.
• Generally felt they were good so limited improvements suggested.

LUS Principe J - opportunities to broaden our understanding of the links between land use and daily living should be encouraged

How useful do you think the example approach/method shown might be for translating the Principle?

• Community-driven decision on use. They make application, can receive help and support.
• Ensuring long-term usage.
• Mixed age groups participating.
• Could be translated to rural community setting. Not complicated to deliver, just requires confidence to put a proposal forward.
• Allows people to re-engage with space and place.
• Creates/facilitates the development of community groups.
• Yes, training in land based skills etc.

How could the method/approach be improved?

• Ability to trace ownership.
• Building in monitoring - does the existence of the initiative mitigate social isolation, increase sense of community?
• Do people get attached to the space and want to retain i?
• Maybe parts of the site could be retained within the consented development.
• Increases opportunities for development to deliver community space.
• Tree nursery at CALL was a key field that wasn't in use - activities involving schools etc.

Next steps

2.21 The final session discussed the next steps with the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project. This included a brief discussion on: receiving feedback on and finalising the draft Interim Report; continued data collection activities and analysis with the case studies; and preparing the Final Report (end March 2014).