Review of the Climate Challenge Fund - Appendix A: Sampling Methodology and Appendix B: Topic Guides

Appendix A: Sampling Methodology

Sampling frame: selecting case studies

This section provides detail on the selection process for the Climate Challenge Fund (CCF3) project case studies.

To carry out the case study research it was necessary to identify 24 projects from a total of 169 completed CCF3 projects^[1]. The approach taken ensured a range of CCF3 projects and groups were selected, as based on an agreed set of criteria as outlined below. It should be noted that 25 case studies were sought but one cancelled late on in the research process, meaning only 24 were completed.

During the selection process, 50 case studies were initially chosen with 25 of these serving as 'back up' if any of the first 25 case studies were unable to participate. This happened in two cases and the replacement case studies were chosen to match the characteristics of the replaced project/group as far as possible.

To select the 50 case studies, the following approach was taken:

1. Purposive sampling was carried out to ensure the final list of case studies contained sufficient numbers of projects with the agreed criteria. These projects were chosen at random from the projects database:

• One project that had used the Ideas Bank^[2].
• Four projects that had and four projects that had not worked in partnership with other organisations, based on responses to the CCF Project Survey.
• Four groups which had received £500,000 or more over all CCF rounds.
• Four groups which had received development grants and not progressed to CCF3, and four which had also received development grants and had progressed to CCF3.
• Eight projects which had submitted high quality carbon reporting.

Overall, 26 projects were chosen using these criteria.

2. A sampling frame was then used to select the remaining 24 case studies required (Table A1). The primary selection criteria were the size of CCF grant (low, medium or high) and the three refresh themes. The 26 projects selected from the purposive sampling were placed into the relevant boxes in the matrix to identify gaps where more projects were required^[3].

During the selection process, case studies were assigned either to be light touch or depth. This decision was broadly intended to ensure that the depth case studies represented a wide range of projects and groups, but also to ensure that criteria such as partnership working could be explored in more depth by using these as the in-depth case studies. Two case studies originally intended to be light touch case studies were changed to depth.

Table A1: Sampling frame for selection of case studies

Refresh themes		CCF3 Grant allocation (tertiles)
Theme	Sub-category	Low (£0 - £65,689)	Medium (£65,689 - £130,295)	High (£130,295 - £450,000)
Broaden	Deprived / hard to reach SIMD bottom 30%; Older people; Minority ethnic groups; People w/ disability	2 Light Touch 2 Depth	2 Light Touch 2 Depth	2 Light Touch 2 Depth
	New groups to CCF (groups that had not received CCF funding previously)	2 Light Touch	2 Light Touch 2 Depth	2 Light Touch
	Junior CCF (projects involving only young people[4])	2 Light Touch 2 Depth	2 Light Touch	2 Light Touch 2 Depth
Deepen	Mature groups (groups previously funded by CCF)	2 Light Touch	2 Light Touch 2 Depth	2 Light Touch 2 Depth
Explore	Revenue raising Adaptation projects Innovative carbon ideas	2 Light Touch 2 Depth	2 Light Touch	2 Light Touch 2 Depth
TOTAL (Targeted for recruitment)		10 Light Touch 6 Depth	10 Light Touch 6 Depth	10 Light Touch 8 Depth
TOTAL (Case studies achieved)		5 Light Touch 3 Depth	5 Light Touch 3 Depth	5 Light Touch 4 Depth

To select the required 24 case studies, projects were chosen to fit into gaps in the matrix^[5]. Each project was chosen at random using two categories:

• Topic: energy, waste, food, transport, community building
• Rurality using the six fold classification (e.g. large urban to remote rural)^[6]

For example, this meant that the first project to be chosen was an energy project in a large urban area. In some cases, projects fitting these criteria were not available and therefore the next criterion in the field was chosen and the 'missing' criteria used to inform the choice of the next case study. It should also be noted that many projects have multiple topics (e.g. energy, waste, transport).

The final choice of 50 case studies was then reviewed to ensure a broad range of projects and to ensure that the demographics aligned with the overall mix of CCF3 projects.

It should be noted that the case study selection relied on the data provided in the CCF projects database and where available, CCF3 Projects Survey.

Table A2: Depth Case Studies Overview (x10)

Project code	Main topic(s)	Local authority area	Refresh theme			Grant size (CCF3 project)*	Site visit (in-depth only)	No. additional interviews
			Broaden	Deepen	Explore
CS01	Food; Energy; Waste; Awareness	Glasgow City	Disadvantaged group (SIMD bottom 30%); Junior CCF	Mature group	Revenue raising	High	No	3
CS02	Energy	Highland	New group to CCF			Medium	Yes	5
CS03	Food; Waste	Highland		Mature group		High	No	3
CS05	Transport; Energy	Argyll & Bute		Mature group		High	Yes	4
CS06	Energy	South Lanarkshire	Disadvantaged group (SIMD bottom 30%; older people)	Mature group		High	Yes	3
CS07	Transport; Waste	Moray	New group to CCF		Innovative carbon ideas	High	Yes	6
CS08	Energy	Glasgow City	Disadvantaged group (SIMD bottom 30%); new group to CCF			Low	Yes	2
CS09	Energy; Building	City of Edinburgh	Disadvantaged group (SIMD bottom 30%); new group to CCF		Adaptation projects	Low	No	2
CS12	Food	Glasgow City	Disadvantaged group (SIMD bottom 30%); new group to CCF			High	Yes	3
CS19	Energy; Building	City of Edinburgh	Disadvantaged group (minority ethnic groups); new group to CCF		Innovative carbon ideas and adaptation projects	High	Yes

*Based on splitting full range of CCF3 grants allocated into tertiles: Low = £0 - £65,689; Medium= £65,689 - £130,295; High=£130,295 - £450,000

Table A3: Light Touch Case Studies Overview (x14)

Project code	Main topic(s)	Local authority area	Refresh theme			Grant size (CCF3 project)*
			Broaden	Deepen	Explore
CS10	Transport; food; waste	City of Edinburgh	Disadvantaged group (minority ethnic groups); new group to CCF			High
CS11	Building; energy	Stirling	New group to CCF			High
CS13	Energy; food; waste	Dumfries and Galloway	Junior CCF	Mature group		Medium
CS15	Energy; food; waste; building	North Lanarkshire	Disadvantaged group (SIMD bottom 30%); new group to CCF			Medium
CS17	Energy; building	Highland		Mature group		Medium
CS18	Energy; transport; waste	Moray	Junior CCF	Mature group	Revenue raising	Low
CS20	Energy; transport; waste	Highland		Mature group	Revenue raising	High
CS21	Energy; transport; food; waste; building	Dundee City	New group and innovation			Low
CS22	Building; food; waste	East Ayrshire	Disadvantaged group (SIMD bottom 30%; older people; people with disabilities); new group to CCF			Low
CS23	Food	North Lanarkshire	Disadvantaged group (people with disabilities); new group to CCF; junior CCF		Revenue raising	Low
CS24	Development grant only	Glasgow City	Development grant only			Low
CS25	Development grant only	Glasgow City	Development grant only			Low
CS39	Transport	Dumfries and Galloway		Mature group	Revenue raising	Low
CS42	Building; food; waste	East Dunbartonshire	Disadvantaged group (SIMD bottom 30%)	Mature group	Revenue raising and adaptation projects	Medium

*Based on splitting full range of grants allocated into tertiles: Low = £0 - £65,689; Medium= £65,689 - £130,295; High=£130,295 - £450,000

1. Sampling frame: Stakeholder respondents

Respondents from the following Scottish Government policy areas and external organisations were interviewed as part of this research. In order to protect the confidentiality of respondents we have not added any further details to this list:

Scottish Government Stakeholders

• CCF
• Home Energy Efficiency (HES)
• Transport
• Food
• Community And Renewable Energy Scheme (CARES) loan scheme
• Low Carbon Infrastructure Transition Programme (LCITP)
• People and Communities Fund
• Domestic Renewables

External Stakeholders

• Scottish Communities Climate Action Network (SCCAN)
• Council for Ethnic Minority Voluntary Organisations (CEMVO) Scotland
• Young Scot
• Zero Waste Scotland
• Home Energy Scotland (HES)
• Keep Scotland Beautiful (KSB)
• Local Energy Scotland
• Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO)
• Development Trust Association Scotland (DTAS)
• Sustrans