Scottish Rural Development Programme 2014-2020: Evaluation of Capital Grant Schemes: Annex B - Survey data
This annex presents survey data from the independent evaluation of three capital grant schemes funded through the Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) 2014-2020. This is an annex to the main evaluation report.
5. Benefits
Almost all respondents (99%) reported at least one benefit as a direct result of the grant support.
| Benefit | Number | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Improved stock control | 156 | 83% |
| Improved hygiene conditions and animal welfare standards | 105 | 56% |
| Improved grassland management | 97 | 52% |
| Reduced production costs | 83 | 44% |
| Improved quality of production | 83 | 44% |
| Supported and improved wintering of livestock | 77 | 41% |
| Preserved and improved the natural environment | 61 | 33% |
| Business growth | 44 | 24% |
| Protected crops from damage | 43 | 23% |
| Enabled storing of winter fodder | 43 | 23% |
| Improved and redeployed production | 39 | 21% |
| Increased protection and enhancement of the natural environment and biodiversity | 38 | 20% |
| Introduced livestock | 36 | 19% |
| More adaptive and sustainable | 29 | 16% |
| Accessed new opportunities | 23 | 12% |
| Introduced specialist breeds | 17 | 9% |
| Supply chain improvement | 16 | 9% |
| Enabled regenerative agriculture | 15 | 8% |
| Diversified farm activities | 14 | 7% |
| Introduced new crops | 11 | 6% |
| Enabled the introduction of new methods of production (e.g. organic or horticulture) | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 4% |
N=187.
Multiple response question where respondents could select more than one option and all that applied. Percentages may total more than 100% as a result.
Note: Responses to ‘diversified farm activities’ include: bringing sheds/buildings back into productive use (for example, for storing things but also as a meeting place for sheepdog handler training courses, or holiday accommodation; horticulture; venison production; growing a wider variety of local fruit and vegetable produce; bee keeping; plant indigenous woodland; create an orchard; butchery/commercial kitchen.
Note: ‘Other’ responses include: maintain cross compliance; benefits arising from having a multi-purpose built shed; better access to reseeding areas for shareholders; better buying of inputs giving economies of scale; and biosecurity (prevents neighbouring stock with poor animal welfare management from entering)
Note: ‘No benefits’ response – the respondent did not provide further explanation.
| Response option | Number | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| No | 148 | 80% |
| Don’t know/unsure | 20 | 11% |
| Yes | 18 | 10% |
N=187. Percentages may total more than 100% due to rounding.
Question 17b - Why do you say this?
Most grant recipients answered ‘No’ at Question 17a. The main points raised include that:
- farmers and crofters said that all expected benefits were realised.
- the work completed addressed the aims of the project – expectations were met.
- the grant delivered the desired results and outcomes that farmers and crofters anticipated at the outset.
Where respondents answered ‘Yes’ at Question 17a, no common themes emerged from the qualitative responses. Some examples of responses provided include:
- it helped a lot with stock control.
- time was saved through having a better handling system.
- the crofter would not have got cattle without the NoFence Collar support.
- the farmer did the work himself and this saved time securing a contractor.
- the building was ultimately not big enough for my needs.
- ear tag number readings were not always reliable - the electronic weigh head could not be used to its full capability.
Contact
Email: socialresearch@gov.scot
There is a problem
Thanks for your feedback