Scottish climate action hubs: models research

5. Key Insights

5.1. Challenges

“Preaching to the converted”

Lewes Climate Hub, Zero Carbon Guildford, Climate Connect and the Community Climate Hubs programme all noted that most individuals who engage with the hubs are already fairly engaged with climate action already. Hubs struggle to engage people outside of the “climate bubble”. This is because climate action is not a priority for the majority of people, particularly at the moment during the cost-of-living crisis. One solution discussed was diversifying the activities delivered through the hubs to encourage wider participation (Section 4.2).

Both Lewes Climate Hub and Climate Action Leeds discussed the challenges that they face trying to engage local people with the climate emergency, due to the scale and challenge of the issues. Instead, their community-led approach serves to encourage greater participation, but as a result the activities are less aligned with the overarching goals of the hub. Stakeholders reported that hub activity tends to be focussed on more accessible climate action and did not focus on the extent of the climate emergency, which is seen as too daunting for successful engagement.

Meeting net zero targets

All stakeholders expressed that they would like to do more activity to reach national net zero targets. The Community Climate Hubs programme (Canada) see their role as an independent organisation that can use its power to hold local and national Government to account for their action in the climate crisis. They would like to predominantly deliver advocacy and activism work, using the community-driven movements to encourage local and national governments to engage more with the net zero agenda by evidencing the demand from residents. However, currently the Community Climate Hubs programme struggles to get the hubs to engage in these sorts of activities.

Despite activity not contributing significantly to the fundamental aims of the hubs, stakeholders were reluctant to draw a harder line on the types of projects being delivered as this would risk turning people away. The intention is to be community-led and so there is a balance to be drawn between steering activity and encouraging participation.

Measuring impact

Hubs collect data that is aligned to their aims. For example, Lewes Climate Hub aims ‘to encourage local action to tackle the global climate and ecological emergency’, whilst Cool Wirral aims to support residents to ‘play their part’ to achieve carbon neutrality locally. As such, both Lewes Climate Hub and Cool Wirral conduct surveys to assess behaviour change resulting from their projects. The Community Climate Hub goal is to influence local policy in Canada. Their evaluation involves tracking meetings with local elected officials, numbers of campaigns run and numbers of media hits.

Many of the hubs have an overarching aim of achieving net zero. However, most hubs do not measure the carbon impact of their activities. For example, a key goal of Climate Action Leeds is ‘to create a zero carbon Leeds by 2030’, but their evaluation consultant focuses on details of delivery, rather than carbon savings through projects. The other hubs interviewed also decided not to use carbon savings as a core metric. Reviews of the Climate Challenge Fund suggest this is because measuring carbon can be a burden and disproportionate for hubs to undertake. A 2019 review of the fund^[3] found it can be “challenging, complex and confusing” for hubs. Substantial effort and resource had to be allocated by hubs to meet this requirement, and many hubs reported a negative impact. This included preventing more progressive projects, and an inability to capture the range of impacts the projects had due to the limit of carbon metrics. A Scottish Government commissioned review^[4] also identified that measuring carbon savings involved significant input from participants.

The Scottish Government commissioned review^[5] suggests “the most effective evaluation approaches balanced robustness and simplicity.” They provide an example of recording energy efficiency measures adopted as the result of a project, and then estimating carbon savings using that data. Similarly, some hubs took this approach, estimating carbon savings as a secondary measure. For example, Zero Carbon Guildford collects data on the food distributed by their community fridge and estimates the carbon savings of this. The participants are not asked to contribute to the evaluation process. Equally, carbon savings are not the only measure used to evaluate success. This is a simple way to estimate carbon savings without limiting the success of projects to this metric.

The use of carbon metrics can be challenging^[6]. Carbon metrics can add value in giving a greater understanding of the impact of a project and how this can be improved. However, the method applied should be proportionate to the scale of the project and not impede delivery. In addition, the carbon metrics used need to be from a reputable source and standardised to enable comparison between projects. Scottish Government could look to support the delivery of this by providing a consistent set of metrics. It is also important to capture the nature of the activity that leads to these carbon savings such as delivery of events and campaigns, as many of the hubs are doing.

Project-based funding

Project-based funding was found to be limiting the success of the hubs. Stakeholders reported that the short-term nature of the current funding landscape means that it is challenging to create lasting programmes.

When delivering local activities, Climate Action Leeds noted that they want to encourage lasting behaviour change and ‘create a movement’, which is challenging to achieve with short-term funding. Climate Connect (Germany) found project-based funding to be a “waste of money”, where valuable skills and resources which have been developed through a specific project are lost once funding runs out.

A number of stakeholders (Climate Action Leeds, Climate Connect and Lewes Climate Hub) voiced that continuation funding is necessary to deliver longer term projects which will facilitate lasting behaviour change and embed decarbonisation values within local communities. Cool Wirral Partnership suggested that partnerships with the private sector could provide stable and consistent funding for hubs, with the mutual benefit that they can support these local businesses to decarbonise. However, we found no examples of such a partnership arrangement during our desk-based research.

Conflict between stakeholders

Two of the hub network examples (the Community Climate Hubs programme and Climate Action Leeds) highlighted that conflict between partners was more of a challenge than anticipated. Both groups discussed that some conflict should be expected when attempting to collaborate with a wide range of organisations. Supporting the wellbeing of individuals was seen as crucial during times of conflict and it was recommended that systems should be in place to ensure the wellbeing of both paid staff and volunteers.

Furthermore, interviewees from the Community Climate Hubs programme noted that it was important that core staff have strong interpersonal and social skills to help mediate conflicts and manage relationships between partners. They recommended that anyone in a management position should have skills in conflict management and mediation.

Learnings that can be applied to the development of the Climate Action Hub Programme in Scotland:

• Hubs are likely to struggle to engage people outside of the “climate bubble”. A diverse range of activities driven by local communities’ needs and preferences will help to widen engagement.
• Hubs could play a role holding local and national government to account for their action in the climate crisis, however it is not clear if there is currently much demand for this type of advocacy.
• Data collection for measuring the impact of hubs should be proportionate to the scale of the project and not impede delivery.
• Project-based funding is challenging and can result in a loss of knowledge and skills at the end of each project. Exploring partnerships with businesses could overcome short-term funding challenges, however we found no existing examples of this.
• Conflicting priorities from partners within the hub is likely to be a challenge, and skills in conflict management and mediation would be useful for hub staff.

5.2. Successes

Early engagement with communities

One of the fundamental aspects of community climate hubs is that they are community-led and collaborative. A number of stakeholders noted that early community and stakeholder engagement was pivotal to the ongoing success of their hubs.

Zero Carbon Guildford delivered a series of community engagement events prior to the implementation of the hub. The intention of these events was to encourage input from their local community to shape the ongoing priorities of the hub and to ensure that their work aligned with local priorities for lasting engagement.

Lewes Climate Hub also engaged in outreach activities at early stages, reaching out to existing organisations who were already involved with climate activity. The aim of this engagement was to avoid any repetition of work already being undertaken and to increase collaboration and pooling of resources. Climate Action Leeds also undertook similar scoping and engagement activity to avoid duplication of work in their eight target areas.

Physical hub space

Hubs associated physical premises with increased engagement. Zero Carbon Guildford reported that shortly after their hub space opened in the centre of Guildford, they had a number of individuals come to the hub to ask how they could get involved. Furthermore, Lewes Climate Hub noted that it has been important to have a space for partnership groups to come together to collaborate on projects. Stakeholders from the Community Climate Hubs programme voiced that having a physical hub space was key for successful engagement, however, the majority of the hubs in their network operate virtually at present. They believe there is a lot of value in having a dedicated space as a consistent resource which individuals and local groups can utilise.

Hubs often struggle to secure premises in the areas they want to work in, and partnering with local authorities was suggested as a possible solution to this.. Lewes Climate Hub and Zero Carbon Guildford noted that it was challenging to find spaces with a central location (and therefore well suited for public engagement) where long-term rental agreements could be made, as most are retail spaces which operate under short-term lease agreements. Lewes Climate Hub were provided a space through the District Council. This was seen as an advantage and a beneficial way that local government could support their hubs. The Community Climate Hubs programme suggested that a space provided through the local council would be the ideal scenario to keep costs down.

‘Pop-up’ engagement is sometimes used by hubs to overcome the lack of a dedicated venue. None of the hubs supported through Climate Connect in Germany have dedicated hub spaces. However, some Climate Ambassadors will have regular ‘office hours’ in a local library or community building. Client Ambassadors also engage in outreach activities and will travel to project areas to provide support. This is similar for Climate Action Leeds, where Development Officers will pop-up in existing community spaces. Both Climate Action Leeds and Climate Connect have found that the combination of regular office hours and outreach activity works well, but recognise that hub spaces would prove more efficient if they had the financial capacity to provide one.

Further research is needed to understand the impact of physical and virtual hubs on accessibility and inclusion. Some hubs indicated that physical hub spaces support inclusion. For example, Zero Carbon Guildford run a community fridge in the town centre. This has engaged members of the community who may not otherwise engage with climate action and who do not have access to other forms of social support. Their climate café is also used as a social space in the community and provides visitors access to information, even if they would not have looked this up online. This suggests that delivering accessible, in-person services that appeal to residents for reasons other than climate action can help engage a wider range of people with the hub’s activity.

Hub spaces explored as part of this research were all located centrally in urban areas as it was felt that these areas are the most accessible and this would help with public engagement. Zero Carbon Guildford felt it was important to have a premises located as close to the town centre as possible to maintain a visible presence within the town and create exposure for the hub. However, this approach runs the risk of excluding remote and rural communities where populations are dispersed and access to urban centres is limited. In these areas, there may also be a requirement for outreach work or increased virtual activity to ensure hub services are accessible for all. This will be important to consider within the Scottish context.

Regular meetings and gatherings

Interviewees from network organisations noted the benefits of having regularly scheduled meetings both in-person and over conference calls. For example, the Community Climate Hubs programme have quarterly networking calls between Regional Engagement Coordinators and Regional Officers, and also have a scheduled drop-in call every two weeks for hubs or project managers to share challenges and successes with their projects.

Climate Connect hold an annual “Climate Day” where everyone across the network meets in one place. Originally, this was called the “Climate Conference” though residents thought this was only for experts or professionals and did not attend. The name was changed to be more inclusive and encourage attendance from everyone. On the day there are a few different topics, and local volunteers attend as moderators to help develop ideas. These ideas frequently form the projects that are taken forward throughout the year.

Learnings that can be applied to the development of the Climate Action Hub Programme in Scotland:

• Early engagement with local stakeholders and communities was seen as beneficial, to ensure that hub activity is aligned with local priorities and therefore encourages interaction with the hubs.
• Physical hub spaces provide a consistent space for local people to access information and hold events, and to attract interest in the hub. If this is not available or practical (for example in remote rural areas), regular physical presence in existing community buildings such as libraries is a good alternative.
• Further research is needed to understand the impact of physical and virtual hubs on accessibility and inclusion.
• Annual flagship events can boost engagement and be used to outline a programme of community-led ideas for the hubs.