Agric

ultu

re,F

ishe

ries

and

Rura

lAffa

irsChanging Land Use in Rural

Scotland – Drivers andDecision-Making

Rural Land Use Study Project 1

CHANGING LAND USE IN RURAL SCOTLAND – DRIVERS AND DECISION-MAKING.

RURAL LAND USE STUDY PROJECT 1

The Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Forest Research, Humboldt University of Berlin, Scottish Agricultural College, and

Scottish Crop Research Institute

D. Miller, G. Schwarz, L-A. Sutherland, J. Morrice, R. Aspinall, A. Barnes, K. Blackstock, K. Buchan, D. Donnelly, C. Hawes, G. McCrum, B. McKenzie, K.

Matthews, Dave Miller, A. Renwick, M. Smith, G. Squire, L. Toma

Scottish Government 2009

The views expressed in this report are those of the researcher and do not necessarily represent those of the Scottish Government or

Scottish Ministers.

© Crown Copyright 2009 Limited extracts from the text may be produced provided the source

is acknowledged. For more extensive reproduction, please contact the Queens Printers of Scotland, Admail, ADM 4058,

Edinburgh EH1 1NG. Email: licensing@oqps.gov.uk

This report is available on the Scottish Government Social Research website only www.scotland.gov.uk/socialresearch.

Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I ACRONYMS II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY III 1 INTRODUCTION 1

Aims and Objectives 1 Report Structure 2 Background 2

2 DRIVERS 13 Structure 13 Summary of Drivers 13 Environmental Drivers 25 Demographic factors 29 Economic Factors 31 Technological Factors 36 Policy and Institutional Factors 40 Cultural and Social Factors 54 Discussion of Drivers with Respect to Decision-Making 60

3 DECISION-MAKING 63 Land Use Decision-Making Processes 63 Attitudes and Priorities 65 Types of Land Use Decision-maker 68 Key Actors, Influences and Constraints 76 Role of Rural Communities 81

4 GENERAL DISCUSSION 84 Drivers 84 Decision-making 87 Framework for Drivers and Decision-Making 90

REFERENCES 93

APPENDICES 106

1 Typology of Decision-makers 2 Telephone questionnaire 3 Summary of Drivers 4 Post-war Trends in Selected Indicators of Agricultural Land Use in Scotland 5 Forest Management Alternatives 6 Supporting Demographic Information for Scotland 7 Look-up link between Drivers, IACS Land Use Classes and ‘RLUS’ land use classes 8 Structural Equation Modelling of Telephone Questionnaire 9 Maps of Owned and Rented Crofts 10 Land use and cover mapping in Scotland

I

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The project team would like to thank the members of the Stakeholder Advisory Group: Andy Robb (Chair), Mike Daniels, Jo Ellis, David Gwyther, Jonathan Hall, Roger Kelly, Helen McDade, Polly McPherson, Peter Pitkin, Caspian Richards and Ron Vass for their input over the duration of this study. Thanks also to the members of the expert review panel for their comments and suggestions. Thanks in particular to Fiona MacDonald (RERAD) for her guidance and readiness to confer on details through the project. Acknowledgment is also due to staff at General Register Office Scotland, Scottish Government IACS team and Scottish Natural Heritage for the provision of data, and Ordnance Survey for data under licence, and for access to summaries of Countryside Survey data owned by NERC – Centre for Ecology & Hydrology. Finally, thanks to the participants in the qualitative and quantitative surveys for their very valuable information and time.

II

ACRONYMS ACCSG Agriculture and Climate Change Stakeholder Group AEM Agri-Environment Measure CAP Common Agriculture Policy ESC Ecological Site Classification EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation FCS Forestry Commission Scotland FMA Forest Management Alternatives GAEC Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition GATT General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs GIS Geographic Information System GM Genetically Modified GMHT Genetically Modified Herbicide Tolerant GROD General Register Office for Scotland IACS Integrated Agricultural Control System JAC June Agricultural Census LCA Land Capability for Agriculture LFASS Less Favoured Areas Support Scheme MEA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment MFC Main Farm Code NGO Non-Government Organisations NUTS Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics NVZ Nitrate Vulnerable Zone OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PCA Principal Components Analysis RCAHMS Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historic Monuments of

Scotland RERAD Rural Environment Research Analysis Directorate SAF Single Application Form SAG Stakeholder Advisory Group SAMs Scheduled Ancient Monuments SNH Scottish Natural Heritage SEBG Scottish Estates and Business Group SFP Single Farm Payment SG Scottish Government SRC Short Rotation Coppice SRDP Scottish Rural Development Programme SRF Short Rotation Forestry SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest WFD Water Framework Directive WTO World Trade Organisation

III

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This research was commissioned as part of the Scottish Government’s Rural Land Use Study, its aims being to explore the drivers and factors that are involved in making decisions about the use of rural land, and issues which determine present and future drivers and decision-making. It combined analysis of existing evidence, including literature and policy reviews, with primary research with land use decision-makers and sectoral representatives.

For this project, land use was defined as the social and economic purpose to which humans put the earth's surface. Rural land use is influenced by diverse, interacting drivers which operate at global, European, national, regional and local levels, and over different timescales. The project defined six types of driver - environmental, demographic, economic, technological, policy and institutional, and socio-cultural - each with elements which can direct, enable, constrain, or are proximate causes of, change.

The main drivers identified were: climate change and associated adaptation and mitigation strategies; population growth and migration; input and output prices; technological changes in land-use sectors; energy and food security; policy and institutional targets, objectives and regulations; public and land manager attitudes.

Understanding the generic implications of drivers can inform, but cannot determine, planning and choices for and changes in land use due to the complexity of the extent, magnitude, and scheduling of the influences the underlying drivers exert over each other. Some interactions may be anticipated (e.g. grants for generating renewable energy, leading to wind turbine development, and impacts no natural heritage and landscape). Other interactions are due to previously unexpected links (e.g. the impact of disease outbreaks, like Foot and Mouth, on the rural economy due to reduced visitor access).

Through time, a response to one driver may itself become a driver, such as changes in public attitudes (e.g. lifestyle) may encourage the uptake of technological opportunities (e.g. internet-working), in turn leading to different pressures on land uses, at least at a local or regional scale (e.g. changes in transport infrastructure from road to rail). The direction of change may be driven by environmental socio-economic, political and cultural issues (e.g. increased woodland), but the bio-physical characteristics of land may limit actual changes in land use (e.g. agricultural capability). If a driver is sufficiently powerful (e.g. changes in biophysical conditions due to climate change), new opportunities may arise and others cease (e.g. changes in scope for the production of certain crops).

The significance of the timescales and magnitude of driver influences vary across Scotland. Examples of short-term factors include fluctuations in market prices and changes in national fiscal policy which could follow United Kingdom or Scottish Government elections in 2010 and 2011. Measures to meet the targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and 2050 are likely to have an impact in the short- to medium-term. In the medium-term, examples include prospective changes in European agriculture and environmental policies, between 2013 and 2019, which in the long term may lead to incremental changes in land use.

IV

In the longer term, adaptation to the physical impacts of climate change is expected to become increasingly important for Scotland. Other longer-term policies have uncertainties associated with land availability, opportunity and uptake. Woodland and forestry expansion is an example where the biophysical limits are known, but economic and social factors are likely to be significant in achieving the policy aims. Important factors may also include distinctions between the objectives and capabilities of private and public land owners.

Parts of Scotland with high single farm payments (SFP), and greatest biophysical flexibility to grow a wide range of crops, such as the Borders, the Lothians, Fife and Perthshire, Angus and Aberdeenshire, are also those for which the increase in household numbers is projected to be greatest. This will increase demand for associated infrastructure in transport, employment and services. In such areas there may also be competition for land due to woodlands on non-prime land, supporting biodiversity, climate change mitigation, and human health and well-being. However, competition for agricultural land between energy and food production will probably not be a major long-term issue for Scotland, with bioenergy production more likely to focus on existing woodland, farm waste and low-grade land.

Demand for specific types of social services can also be expected to rise due to the projected increases in population age for many rural areas, especially those with disproportionately high proportions of rented land, crofting, and small holdings (e.g. western and northern Scotland).

Land managers translate the potential drivers of land use into actual changes. The academic literature revealed little information about land use decision-making by public and charitable land holders, and by individuals who are not farmers. This may reflect the difficulty in accessing these populations, and in combining findings from respondents from across such ownership structures. Research was undertaken to investigate the decision-making processes of land managers, using qualitative interviews with 23 key informants, and a quantitative telephone survey of 600 land use decision-makers (farmers, public and private foresters, crofters, hobby farmers and horticulturalists) from across Scotland.

The research findings demonstrated that there are different processes of land use decision-making in Scotland, which depend on whether the decision is made by an individual, a household, or a larger group with more formalised procedures. The diversity of these processes shapes the need for information and support: the increased need for expert advice on an ever-increasing range of issues (e.g. environmental programs, business plans, renewable energy, housing development, planning permission) has produced a growing polarisation between ‘professionalised’ and ‘non-professionalised’ land managers, and differences in the expertise or advice they can access easily. This in turn may impact on the uptake of opportunities. For example, the extent of owner-occupied farm businesses or crofts, where the decision-making process is the responsibility of the individual or family, suggests a need for wide and varied access to specialist advice on multiple issues, particularly those other than traditional production.

Based upon responses to a wide range of survey questions which elicited respondents’ attitudes and priorities for land use, five types of land use decision-maker were identified: Ecological Land Stewards (ecology and environmental

V

priorities); Economic Land Stewards (high income and environmental priorities); Multi-functionalists (economic, environmental and community priorities); Community Stewards (strong community/social priorities); and Other (Notionally Passive) (no strong attitudinal response). It was well established from the literature, and apparent in the new research findings, that typically land managers do not seek to fulfil optimally any one goal, but trade-off multiple goals in different circumstances. The primary research findings suggest that most managers seek some economic success before acting on other motivations or goals, although no type of decision-maker emphasised economic priorities in isolation from environmental or social attitudes. Responsibility for the environment was very important, as strong as economics in respondents’ priorities; the significance of community or social priorities also emerged as particularly strong (more so than anticipated).

There was no evidence of regional differences for the five attitudinal types. However, land-use decisions may differ due to variations in land capability and consequent differences in the geographic distribution of land uses and policy constraints. Decision-maker types were spread across all land-use sectors studied, with some more prevalent in specific sectors.

There was a significant indication of the importance of communities on decisions regarding land use, through direct management (e.g. community buy-out of estates), consultations on local planning and site-specific issues, and incentives for collaboration in managing land. This is facilitated by drivers such as the Land Reform Act and the Scottish Planning Bill, and menu options within the Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP). Key informants also indicated that private land owners increasingly involve communities in decision-making. Such community or social concerns had not been previously identified as important values for a large proportion of land managers, and are consistent with wider increases in community involvement and localised decision-making. Grants, such as the SFP, have enabled (but not driven) changes in use or management of land, although difficulty in accessing appropriate support mechanisms can act as a constraint on future options open to managers For example, patterns of uptake of the SRDP may differ between central and remote regions due to differential access to skills and expertise, resulting in lower diversity in land use in some areas. Analysis of survey data showed that for land managers interested in increasing holding size, banks have the strongest influence of the external factors studied. However, once land was acquired, the influence of banks over its use, or change in use, was minimal. Decision-makers in all sectors reported constraints due to regulations, and uncertainty over future conditions. Dealing with the physical effects of climate change in Scotland was recognised as an issue which would become increasingly important. However, respondents anticipated that future impacts would more strongly result from policies intended to address climate change, whether for mitigation or to support adaptation, globally and in Scotland, rather from changes in ecological status or systems of land management. The importance of ‘trigger events’

VI

cannot be understated, however, whether they are short-term shocks, or key moments of changes in direction are unlikely to be known in advance.

Cross-sectoral approaches to the use of land could better reflect the complexity of interactions between drivers (e.g. woodlands and trees providing timber products, a sink for carbon, biodiversity, and places for recreation), and land use decision-making. Exploitation of the national planning framework and a range of spatial plans will enable appropriate national and local responses to drivers which balance opportunity with the positive and negative economic, social and environmental impacts of prospective changes in land use. The role of designations and planning regulations continues to evolve towards increased community inputs which better reflect localised attitudes and traditions (e.g. in the National Parks), and in turn have an impact on the mix and distribution of land uses in Scotland.

1

1 INTRODUCTION Aims and Objectives

1.1 This research explored the drivers and factors involved in making decisions about the use of rural land, and those issues which relate to present and future drivers and decision-making. It is part of a wider Scottish Government Rural Land Use Study which aims to:

• provide an integrated evidence base on the potential contributions of Scotland's rural land to delivering on the Scottish Government's purpose of sustainable economic growth;

• help address major policy challenges across government and the wider public sector, such as climate change, ensuring food and energy security, and meeting housing and infrastructure needs in response to changing demographics.

1.2 The project considered evidence of these issues at a strategic level, as well as

quantitative measures of actual change, exploited existing geographic databases, and generated and analysed primary data relating to decision-making. Its objectives were to: • synthesise evidence on actual and potential changes in land use in rural

Scotland, and the factors driving change, to inform decisions affecting land use and land management;

• inform debate on the implications of those changes for a variety of different actors, including land managers, government, the wider public sector, rural communities, and wider society;

• provide evidence for who makes decisions about how land is used in rural Scotland, and how and why they make these decisions.

1.3 The project did not include development of scenarios of future land use and

change. A complementary study is being run by Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS) under the Foresight Programme on ‘Land Use Futures’. This will provide scenarios to act as a context for decisions about changing land use. Two concurrent projects to the research reported here, that were also part of the Scottish Government Rural Land Use Study are concerned with:

(i) realising the potential contributions of Scotland's rural land to delivering

sustainable economic growth (Slee, et al., 2009), and (ii) the role of the public sector in realising the benefits that may be

derived form Scotland’s rural land (Moxey, et al., 2009). 1.4 Definitions used in this report have been taken from (Lambin and Geist, 2006): Land cover: biophysical attributes of the earth's surface. Land use: human purpose or intent applied to these attributes. 1.5 Based on these definitions, the understanding of land use adopted is ‘the social

and economic purpose to which humans put the earth's surface’.

2

1.6 Foley et al. (2005) report on the global consequences of land use, and that

changes to land uses are being driven by a need to provide food, fibre, water and shelter for the world’s population. They note that transformation of the earth surface is by the conversion of natural resources for human use, or the change in management practices on human-dominated land. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2003) proposes that drivers of change in ecosystems can be both anthropogenic and natural factors, and the Global Land Project (2005) note the importance of both exogenous and endogenous influences on systems. In summary, authors suggest that ‘driving forces on land use change are those factors which influence human activity.’

1.7 For this study, the understanding of a driver of land use change was taken as

‘those internal and external, anthropogenic and natural factors which influence change in the economic purpose to which humans put the earth's surface’.

Report Structure 1.8 After describing the background to this particular project in the Rural Land Use

Study and methods and approach adopted to meet the aims and objectives, the remaining chapters of this report present: • identification and discussion of the principal drivers of land-use change,

considering issues such as their scale and timescales, potential interactions between drivers, and the impacts on land use;

• the findings of primary research on decision-making with a sample of key stakeholder informants (qualitative interviews), and with 600 diverse land managers and land use decision-makers from across Scotland (a quantitative questionnaire-based telephone survey);

• a discussion synthesising findings from across the project. Background 1.8 In launching the Rural Land Use Study, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs

(Richard Lochhead, September 2008) noted that, ‘Our land is our greatest natural asset, but it is also one upon which there are increasing and ever-changing demands.’ In Scotland, such demands include the need to meet current and future requirements for housing, and food and energy security, all linked to demographic change. These are set in the context of biophysical constraints and potential, which are in turn subject to changes such as those linked to climate. In the scientific literature, Antrop (2003) notes the importance of considering what land uses are changing and how quickly, by how much and over what period, recognising that different elements of the landscape have their own dynamics and are sensitive to different pressures and time periods over which change may take place. The significance of understanding these differences with respect to time, and linking the drivers (or factors) of change to processes, is illustrated by Aspinall (2009) in untangling sub-types of change (e.g. in relation to agricultural land uses). Halfacree (2006) observes that “…rural change has always been with us but it now seems more intensified in terms of pace and persistence”. These authors highlight that many changes are interlinked, with changes in the

3

presence of features operating on one timeframe, and the structure, quality or sub-types of land cover and uses developing or changing in different timeframes.

1.9 There has been no single study into the changes in land use for Scotland. Bakker and Veldkamp (2008) note that land use data are often commodity based, derived from census means (e.g. the June Agricultural Census, inventory of forests and trees). To this one can add topographic mapping from national mapping agencies (e.g. Ordnance Survey) for the recording of housing, industrial areas (built or unbuilt), transport infrastructure, and other public space not otherwise included within sectoral surveys (e.g. greenspace and vacant land).

1.10 However, reference to recent inventories and a range of statutory reporting mechanisms show changes in woodland cover and types (e.g. annual statistics on woodlands areas, Forestry Commission, 2007), habitats (e.g. the Countryside Survey 2007, Norton et al., 2009), and other changes as summarised by the Scottish Government (2008a).

1.11 For example, Forestry Commission (2007) report woodland cover in Scotland,

in 2007, to be 13,420 km2 (17.2% of Scotland’s land area), representing an increase from 11.7% of Scotland in 1980. In 2007, the dominant woodland type was coniferous woodland (78.1% of all woodland). Over a similar period (1982 to 2007), Scottish Government report that the area of agricultural land (comprising rough grazing, grass, crops, fallow and set-aside, and farm woodland) has reduced from 63,920 km2 (81.1% of Scotland) to 61,920 km2 (78.6%).

1.12 The area of land which has been protected for purposes of conservation has

also increased over recent years. By 2008 (Scottish Government 2008a), the extent of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) in Scotland was 10,380 km2 (13.2% of Scotland’s land), an increase from 8,040 km2 in 1991. The area of Scotland protected by other designations has also increased, many of which overlap each other reflecting differing purposes for such designations.

1.13 Bakker and Veldkamp (2008) note that changes in land use are often

proximate causes of changes in land cover. However, the opposite is not necessarily true, and in general (depending upon scale and classification scheme), the land cover at any one location may allow for multiple land uses.

1.14 Recognising and understanding interactions between changes, driven by

social, economic and physical factors, can enable opportunities to be taken and strategic choices made with respect to multiple objectives of land use. Amongst those identified by Scottish Government are: a) projected population growth into areas of high agricultural potential, the soils of which b) may in turn be subject to change in biophysical make-up (Scottish Executive, 2006), and c) systems of land management due to climate change (e.g. adaptation to climate change, Scottish Government, 2009a).

4

1.15 At a strategic level there is a need to identify prospective conflicts between visions for land use (e.g. woodland expansion, Forestry Commission Scotland, 2008), biophysical constraints now and consequent on climate change (e.g. Land Capability for Agriculture, Bibby et al., 1991; Brown et al., 2008), protecting and enhancing habitats and landscapes (e.g. National Parks, and natural heritage designations), whilst also planning for demographic change of increasing population and numbers of households (General Registrar Office for Scotland, 2005), and changes in land use towards renewable energy production (e.g. Scottish Government, 2007).

1.16 The different spatial and temporal scales of drivers and responses to change

mean that their relative significance may vary across Scotland. They may be significant locally, such as biophysical constraints on land management systems due to climate change, or equally applicable at a regional or national level, such as regulatory constraints (e.g. EU Water Framework Directive). However, the extent to which they can direct changes in land use depends on a number of factors including the scheduling of policy and institutional issues (e.g. targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, GHG), compatibility with existing or adjacent uses (e.g. housing development relating to prospective flood risk), and the circumstances of individual decision-makers (e.g. age, business access to capital).

1.17 Understanding the potential implications of drivers of land-use change for the

future in Scotland is complicated by the diversity of decision-makers with ultimate authority and responsibility for selecting and implementing change, their circumstances and knowledge, and the physical and social constraints for different types of land uses (Mather et al., 2006; Burton and Wilson, 2000; Parker et al., in press). Such decision-makers may be public bodies with extensive land holdings (e.g. Forestry Commission Scotland), non-governmental organisations (NGOs, e.g. National Trust for Scotland, and the Church of Scotland), or private business (e.g. building and development companies, estate and farm owners), all with different remits and forms of ownership and governance. Some stakeholders are involved in both the supply and demand of goods from land use, raising potential issues about conflicts, such as the potential provision of multi-functional use of the land.

1.18 Methods for modelling prospective changes in land use have highlighted the

need for information on decision-making (Briassoulis, 1999) and a role for empirical evidence of factors which influence the choices made (e.g. Berger and Schreinemachers, 2006). However, these should be understood in the context of external influences, such as trigger events, which may be significant in determining the direction and rate of change (Birnie and Mather, 2006). In Scotland, Aalders and Williams (2008) considered the pressures for change within the farming communities, studying factors that influence transactions of farmland, including urban and rural relationships in relation to changes in land tenure. They modelled a process of land transactions and rural change using survey data for Scotland, illustrating the significance of information on business structure, succession, age and their interactions on planning for future land uses (Williams, 2006).

5

1.19 Understanding the potential compatibility or incompatibility of future land uses requires an appreciation of interactions between drivers (e.g. environmental and social); of the actors and processes involved in influencing and making decisions, and the wider societal expectations from limited land resources. Several methods were adopted to meet the aims and objectives of this project, through a number of discrete, but inter-related, research tasks, drawing heavily on, and reinterpreting, a wide variety of existing evidence; gathering new primary data, qualitative and quantitative; and using extensive stakeholder engagement.

Review, interpretation and mapping of drivers of land-use change 1.20 The synthesis and interpretation of information about drivers of land-use

change in Scotland involved a review of the scientific, policy and technical literature, discussions with a Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG),1 and drew on the networks of the research team and the SAG. These sources enabled access to public and private sector environmental, social and economic expertise,2 literature on the mapping and modelling of land-use change, particularly in Scotland, and ongoing work in Scottish Government-funded science research programmes (e.g. www.programme3.net). These sources combined supported interpretation of the influence of past policy decisions on land-use changes, and their impact on rural land use.

1.21 The review, interpretation and mapping of present and future drivers of land

use was divided into three main tasks: • the significance and timeframes of drivers • an assessment of the relationships between the most important drivers • mapping of national and regional impacts of drivers on current land use.

1.22 Figure 1.1 (below) offers an overview of the methodological steps. 1.23 It is recognised that it can be problematic to separate rural and urban

Scotland in terms of discrete boundaries for purposes of defining uses of land, and changes therein. However, for the purpose of this study, the geographic definition of urban and rural areas is that provided by the Scottish Government in its 6-fold urban-rural classification of June 2008 (see Appendix 4).

1.24 The basis of selecting drivers for further interpretation for Scotland was a

review of literature into changes in land cover and use, prioritised in discussion with the Stakeholder Advisory Group. The reviews of the drivers and their relationships were based on available peer-reviewed literature at

1 Membership represented the agriculture, forestry, management, NGO, natural heritage and planning sectors, and Scottish Government. The group met at key points, reviewed documents, fed into the conceptualising of drivers and decision-makers, the development of surveys, relevance and provision of data, interpretation of findings, and reviewing of report outputs. They also acted as a sounding board for ideas on options for the content of the project. 2 Inputs to reviews of separate drivers were provided by the partner institutes in the consortium, as well as the Forestry Commission Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage, local authorities, private business in agricultural land management, energy, housing, planning, and departments of the Scottish Government.

6

national and international levels, building on previous and current studies carried out by the project partnership, and other studies on drivers of land-use change at an international level (e.g. Geist and Lambin, 2002; Geist et al., 2006).

1.25 Some of these reviews have undertaken meta-analysis of causes of land

cover or land use change (e.g. McConnell and Keys 2005), identifying the changes considered of greatest importance in case study areas in different areas of the world. Geist et al. (2006) summarise the basis of a synthesis of such literature, drawing in particular on meta-analysis of peer-reviewed literature.

1.26 The review provided information on past impacts of drivers on land use and

the basis for exploring potential land-use changes in the future. Common factors were identified in the meta-analysis, augmented by a limited number of studies which have expanded on causes of change in land cover or use for Scotland (e.g. Birnie et al., 2002). Recurring themes were allocated into two broad groups of high-level drivers and personal drivers (e.g. Crosthwaite et al., 2004). High level drivers (referred to as ‘Mega drivers’ by Crosthwaite et al., 2004) included factors such as changing population and demographic profiles, economic and technological developments, market prices (e.g. agricultural, forest and mineral commodities), regional and local planning and policies, and culture and institutional factors. Personal drivers are broadly described as the motivations of decision-makers. Sub-project one focused on the high-level drivers and sub-project 2 looked into the relationships between these and personal drivers.

1.27 Amongst the issues also identified is that through time, a response to one

driver may itself become a driver, such as changes in public attitudes encouraging uptake of technological capability, and in turn leading to different pressures on land use, at least at a local or regional scale.

1.28 The studies reviewed recent primary research on factors influencing land

manager decision-making (e.g. Burton, 2004; Sutherland, 2009; Williams, 2006), and public preferences and multiple functions of landscapes (Nijnik and Mather, 2008). However, the gaps in primary research into such motivations across a range of different types of decision-maker in Scotland were a rationale for the two pieces of primary research into land use decision-making carried out in this project (see Chapter 3).

1.29 The initial selection of drivers presented to the SAG was based on a typology

used by Birnie et al. (2002) and Geist and Lambin (2002; 2004), modified to fit the project objectives. Six headline driver-types were identified (step 1): • environmental (e.g. climate-change adaptation and mitigation, extreme

weather events, natural catastrophes) • demographic (e.g. migration, population density) • economic (e.g. market growth, price changes) • technological (e.g. technical advances in agricultural practice) • policy and institutional, split into

o objectives (e.g. sustainable economic growth)

7

o frameworks (e.g. Scottish Forestry Strategy) o instruments (e.g. SRDP, and property rights)

• cultural and social (e.g. public and individual attitudes and beliefs, land-manager behaviour).

Figure 1.1 Outline of steps in reviewing and assessing drivers and their inter-relationships, and those selected for mapping. 1.30 The outcome of the review was reported for each driver using a common

template in MS Excel (step 2), applying an adapted version of the Driving force-Pressure-State-Impact-Response model (European Commission, 2000). The spreadsheet used fields for each driver on: its broad grouping, a brief description, the geographic and institutional scale of drivers and associated pressures on land use; scale, timeframe and description of land-use changes; affected land-use sectors; the environmental, social and economic implications of land-use changes; potential policy responses; and sources of

Step 1: Identification of drivers – development of typology and groups

Step 2: Creation of database for review

Step 3: Comparative analysis of drivers, with respect to:

Step 3a: General land use

changes

Step 3b: Economic, social

and environmental implications

Step 3c: Scale and

significance

Step 3d: Timeframe of

drivers

Step 4: Analysis of synergies and conflicts between drivers

Step 5: Development of conceptual framework of drivers

Step 6: Results incorporated from quantitative and qualitative research

Step 7: Mapping selected drivers and interactions

8

information used. The spreadsheets also defined policy drivers in terms of whether these were policy objectives, frameworks or instruments.

1.31 The resultant database was used for an analysis of drivers and their land-use

implications (step 3), considering identified and expected land-use changes (step 3a), economic, social and environmental implications of the land-use changes (step 3b), and the scale and significance of drivers (steps 3c). Interpretation of the policy documents and associated literature provided guidance on timescales for policy targets (e.g. 2050 for renewables), payment mechanisms (e.g. 2013 for the LFASS), and other commitments which are open-ended (e.g. incorporating biodiversity across all relevant activities) (step 3d). This information was used to populate a Gantt chart for the period 2009 to 2050, summarising the timescales of rural land-use drivers and identifying changes in context for land use decision-making.

1.32 From the comparative analysis (step 3), the principal relationships and

interdependencies were analysed (step 4). Synergies and conflicts were assessed between drivers, taking into account multi-sectoral implications. Key drivers were identified for mapping at a Scottish level (step 7), and a conceptual model developed to offer an overview of the complexity of drivers of land-use change (step 5).

1.33 The findings were synthesised in summary tables focusing on key drivers and

land-use sectors. However, the comparative analysis is based on the literature review and, with respect to potential land-use changes, is exploratory in nature. The most significant factors with respect to decision-making were tested in the informant interviews and telephone questionnaires (step 6, and Chapter 3), and informed the selection of factors to map for interpretation of national and regional impacts (step 7).

1.34 Some drivers cannot be represented explicitly in a spatial manner (e.g. fiscal

drivers such as inheritance tax), but others have attributes (e.g. farm payments, distribution of windfarms) which can be mapped. This enables the interpretation of possible geographic patterns associated with a driver, spatial relationships between drivers or the interpretation of effects or impacts. For these drivers, sources of spatial data were identified, accessed (e.g. natural heritage designations, projections of population change in rural areas, carbon stocks in soil, windfarm developments), and compiled in a Geographic Information System (GIS). These were used to support the descriptions of drivers in Chapter 2, informed by the results from the informant interviews and telephone questionnaires (Chapter 3).

1.35 Two main data sources were used to characterise Scotland’s land-use

systems, information from the Single Application Form (SAF) stored in the Scottish Government’s Integrated Accounting and Control System (IACS) database; and its June Agricultural Census (JAC) and December Agricultural Survey. Three organisational levels are represented in these datasets: Field, Holding and Business. One of the holdings assigned to a business is designated as the main farm code (MFC).

9

1.36 The field-level data in the GIS cover 57,900 km2 (72%) of Scotland. The land-use data from IACS allows reporting for 52,100 km2 (65%) of Scotland, with the emphasis on the more productive land for which the individual field boundaries are also mapped. Some difficulties arise, such as those fields for which multiple land uses are defined (15% of fields); however, for analysis at a national scale, the predominant land use per field was used. The holding level is one which equates most closely to a lay-person’s view of a farm – typically a contiguous set of fields managed for a particular purpose. This level gives insights to the land management regimen (e.g. tenure, labour, machinery, etc.), and is valuable as a consistent and detailed source of information on livestock numbers.

1.37 Businesses are the legal entities to which government payments are made,

and comprise one or more holdings (average = 1.19, max = 18). The linkage from field to business can be made as follows: from field to holding (100%), holding to MFC (94%), and MFC to business (100%), assuming the accurate mapping of holding and business attributes. Both datasets were available to the research team as annual time series from 2000 to 2007 (from 1999 to 1994 IACS data were increasingly sparse and no field boundaries were available). Some care is needed in interpreting the IACS land-use data since the classification changed in 2005 (from approximately 40 claimed classes rising to approximately 80).

1.38 The period of coverage of other geographic data (e.g. changes in agricultural

crops, population) reflected the availability of the data in a suitable form, or sufficient to illustrate the rate or distribution of the change. The most recent data available were used for features such as windfarms and transport infrastructure, and for the forward projections (e.g. population). The mapping of the drivers used geographic units appropriate for the interpretation of the data (e.g. individual holdings), or the smallest unit for which the data are available (e.g. local authority for population projections).

Exploring decision-making 1.39 An initial literature review of decision-making processes in relation to land use

provided a basis for qualitative interviews with stakeholder informants and a larger scale survey of land managers across Scotland. Results from these different activities were used to develop a typology of decision-makers. The primary research exploring decision-making and decision-makers is reported in Chapter 3 under six headings: (i) land-use decision-making processes; (ii) attitudes and priorities; (iii) types of land use decision-maker; (iv) sources of information; (v) key actors, influences and constraints; (vi) and the role of rural communities.

1.40 The literature review did not identify any existing typology of decision-makers

which sought to bridge multiple land-use sectors, although there are numerous typologies for farmers, and several deal with forestry and sporting estates. Four key ‘filters’ identified to structure the typology are explained below. These were used to structure a draft typology diagram which was discussed with key informants during the qualitative interviews; it was also

10

used to develop questions for use in the quantitative survey. Data from the qualitative interviews and quantitative survey were then ‘mapped on’ to this idealised typology to demonstrate fit with the idealised structure (see Appendix 1).

1.41 The first distinction made in the draft typology was between individual or

household and ‘group’ decision-makers. Much of the literature emphasises individual decision-makers (or individuals within the context of households), which reflects common situations in farming. However, there is limited literature on group decision-making in the rural land-use sector, reflecting a lack of research on processes in public bodies, charities and estates. Given the formal characteristics of these processes, this formed the first distinction of types.

1.42 The remainder of the typology focuses on the attitudes and priorities of the

decision-makers. Although drivers and constraints also impact on decision-making processes, attitudes were focused upon as a means of interpreting responses to different drivers and the constraints within which the decision-maker worked, including current land use.

1.43 The second ‘filter’ was economic: the literature reports widely that, while some

farmers and foresters seek to optimise profits, others are concerned primarily with ‘breaking even’ or satisfying household need, in combination with other goals. An assumption was that ‘hobby farmers’ and charitable bodies are not primarily interested in generating profit. The second set originally comprised profit maximisation, break-even, and not for profit; for both individual and group decision-makers; due to responses from key informants, the final typology a further economic type (group for profit) was added to distinguish between land managers who seek to make a profit, but do not seek to maximise this.

1.44 The third ‘filter’ was lifestyle and environment, giving the option of adding

either, both or neither to existing economic and individual/group distinctions. The importance of lifestyle considerations for land use is well established (see Gasson and Errington, 1993). Environmental considerations have appeared more recently in the literature, particularly in reference to responses to policy initiatives. However, although findings from the quantitative survey supported the importance of environmental issues to respondents, it also found a higher level of concern for social and community issues among land managers than for lifestyle. Lifestyle was therefore changed to ‘social’ in the final survey configuration. Social and environmental considerations comprised the third level filter. The final result was a grid of 20 types (see Appendix 1).

1.45 Twenty-three qualitative ‘informant interviews’ were conducted by telephone

using a question guide, developed with the SAG, with participants also asked for feedback on the draft actor typology3 (see Appendix 1 for interview guide).

3 The researchers and the SAG identified 28 potential interviewees, representing a broad range of public, private and NGO sectors with a role or interest in the use and management of rural land. Three pilot interviews were held to test the draft topic guide.

11

Ten respondents were from publicly funded organisations (including one local authority); four represented social or environmental charities; six represented industry organisations; and three were members of a private organisation.

1.46 These qualitative interviews, drawing on people’s professional expertise and

knowledge of their sector, were transcribed and entered into the NVIVO qualitative data analysis software, with responses coded into categories reflecting the research objectives. These were analysed for breadth of response, sectoral issues, reflections on the typology, and consistency with the literature. A very wide range of opinions was gathered and analysed. However, due to the breadth of the field of study, new information emerged from each interview on some topics, so the typical stopping point for qualitative research (referred to as ‘theoretical saturation’) was not reached.

1.47 Standardised telephone surveys were then conducted with 600 land use

decision-makers in summer 2009. Contact details were provided by SG from its IACS and JAC, and by the Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS). The sample was based on a division of Scotland into four regions, by two levels of intensity, size of the business operation and different land-use activities. Responses by land use sector are listed in Table 1.3

Table 1.3 Responses by land use sector, number and percentage

Sector Responses (No.) Response Rate (%)

Crofters 45 35% Hobbyists 20 20% Horticulturalists 30 20% Non-commercial 15 27% Farmers, including energy cropping

290 29%

Foresters 200 39% 1.48 IACS provides information on producers receiving a Single Farm Payment,

covers activities such as forestry and energy cropping, and includes public and NGO-run estates (e.g. the National Trust, RSPB). FCS provided contacts for publicly run forests. The overall response rate for the survey was 31%.

1.49 The telephone questionnaire (Appendix 2) was developed with input from the

SAG and was tailored to minimise the burden on respondents. It consisted of closed questions with either a binary or Likert-scale response.

1.50 Preliminary analysis of the dataset included descriptive statistics of

responses, co-related to the sectoral categories listed above. To derive a typology of land-use decision-makers, a principal components analysis (PCA) was conducted on the responses related to priorities and attitudes, to reduce the large number of responses to a smaller set of themes. Factor scores were used as the basis for identifying clusters of types of respondent as this provides a more accurate estimate of the type of cluster than using the respondent answers directly.

12

1.51 Due to the size of the dataset (n = 600), the approach was to identify two major clusters of respondent operating within the land-use sector, and remove outlier observations. Separate analyses were then conducted on the two major clusters to provide sub-groups4 operating within the land-use sector in Scotland.

1.52 The data from the telephone survey were used to develop a set of structural

equation models (SEM). SEM is a statistical technique for testing and estimating relationships amongst variables, using a combination of statistical data and qualitative causal assumptions. It is used to assess the soundness of causal relationships and not to discover causes themselves.5 The resultant model reveals the determinants (motivators or barriers)6 significantly influencing the intentions of land use decision-makers to change the size of the business/holding.

1.53 The results of the informant interviews and telephone questionnaires were

analysed by the research teams to: • compare the qualitative stakeholder perceptions with the survey results

from actual land owners and managers (e.g. about investment, education qualifications);

• determine whether the quantitative questionnaire results were consistent with the qualitative trends identified in informant interviews (and vice versa);

• explore interview results to explain unexpected patterns in the telephone questionnaire responses;

• use the qualitative interviews to throw light on areas that were not covered by the questionnaire survey due to sampling limitations (e.g. NGO land ownership; views of policy implementers).

1.54 The actor typology was revised as part of this process, including the addition

of a fourth economic distinction, that of profit maximisation to the exclusion of all other considerations. The typology developed from the interviews and questionnaire responses was mapped onto the original typology, to demonstrate how closely the two fit together. The revised typology included headings indicating how drivers and constraints would also fit into the decision-making process. This was then circulated around the original informants and the SAG for comment and refinement.

1.55 The findings from the work on decision-making informed the selection of

factors to be mapped from the drivers. Issues relating to drivers were covered in both the informant interviews and the telephone survey, and findings from this appear in Chapter 2 as supporting evidence.

4 The analysis used both hierarchical and k-means cluster analysis. 5 The SEM method has been used frequently for studying land use decision-making (see Bayard and Jolly, 2007). In this, the variables are selected for inclusion in the model, and relationships tested until the strongest set of relationships are identified. 6 These are: attitudes towards changing size of business, discussion with banks, succession planning, gender, age, land size, business inherited from previous generation, changes in government funding, intention to pass on the business, past land availability issues, income from government support, attitudes towards business.

13

2 DRIVERS

Structure

2.1 This chapter reports on the review, interpretation and mapping of drivers of land-use change, and discussion of their potential impacts. From the groups of drivers, Individual drivers are described in some more detail with respect to their scale, timescale, and interpretation of recent or projected change.

2.2 The objectives are presented as follows:

• Summary of types of drivers, drivers (or factors) • Complementarities and tensions between drivers • Timescales of drivers • Example key themes relating to headline drivers

o Environmental – climate change mitigation and adaptation for woodland and forestry

o Demographic – population change o Economic factors – housing and labour market

Road infrastructure Input and output prices Technological factors Biotechnology crops Winter cereals New tree varieties

o Policy and Institutional factors Policy drivers Grant and farm payments Designations Targets – Scottish Forestry Strategy

o Cultural and social factors Land manager – attitudes (business development) Land manager – ownership Heritage

• Discussion of drivers with respect to decision-making Summary of Drivers

2.3 Rural land use is driven by a diverse framework of environmental, economic, political and institutional, technological and social and cultural drivers which operate at global, European, national, regional and local levels. Global drivers are translated into international policy frameworks, drive technological development and affect international prices (e.g. oil prices). International policy frameworks are implemented at national and regional level through action plans, strategies and a wide range of policy measures, which also aim to address additional regional and local drivers such as in- and out-migration. It is the responses of land managers to the resulting opportunities and constraints, as mediated by policy and institutional, market and technological developments, and their socio-cultural background, which impact on land use change (Lambin et al., 2001).

14

2.4 As noted in Chapter 1, the process of selection of the drivers for further

interpretation with respect to rural land use in Scotland was to draw on the outputs of previous literature reviews, update these with new materials where available, structure the groupings of drivers in discussion with the SAG, and add details of those of greatest relevance. Together, the research team and the SAG completed the final summary of headline drivers, and their component elements.

2.5 A comprehensive review of all evidence across the drivers was not possible

within this study. Detailed work has been published on interactions between drivers, drawing on the meta-analysis of peer-reviewed publications reported by Geist et al., (2006). However, there appeared to be a lack of good quality evidence for some of the effects of factors specifically as they apply to Scotland. Examples include the linkages between greenspace and changes in mental health. Other identified drivers (e.g. food and energy security) have only recently gained importance in land use discussions in Scotland, which limits the amount of available evidence on related land use changes.

2.6 The Global Land Project team (2005) note that there are significant

uncertainties with respect to different stressors and their interactions with ecosystem processes (e.g. levels of biodiversity). At the time they identified the need for research to explain changes across impact mechanisms, at regional and global levels, and to include natural variability and direct and indirect human influences.

2.7 More recently, Haberl et al. (2008) also discuss the need for policies relating

to biodiversity to take greater account of direct or underlying socio-economic pressures. For example, mitigation of pressures on biodiversity through modification of their underlying socio-economic drivers is thought to be the most effective and durable option to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss. The underpinning of such by research approaches which integrate social sciences and economics with biodiversity research is becoming more widely available (e.g. White et al., 2009). However, as with the Global Land Project team, Haberl et al. (2009) argue that there are few peer-reviewed indicators or models for understanding links between socio-economic drivers of biodiversity, and biodiversity patterns and change.

2.8 The interpretations of the effects and interactions between drivers have

uncertainty associated with the underlying case studies, empirical data or modelling used in that study, much of which is not possible to quantify. The aims of this research did not include a quantified model of potential change, so quantification of the impact of drivers, or their interactions, was beyond its scope. Therefore, gaps in the published empirical evidence mean that interpretations of effects and interactions between drivers have been based on the understanding of the research team, and the SAG, of potential implications on land use in Scotland. However, the breadth of disciplines and sectors covered by the SAG (e.g. forestry, agriculture, estate management, natural resource management and protection, agricultural support mechanisms, planning, and social science) provided additional expert

15

interpretation on the potential significance of some drivers directly on land use, or on each other.

2.9 Research being undertaken in the RERAD programme on Environment, Land

Use and Rural Stewardship, and related projects, has provided some supporting evidence (e.g. social drivers of agricultural land management and biodiversity, Burton et al., 2008), or related work on state and threats to Scotland’s natural resources (e.g. Towers et al., 2006, Schwarz et al., 2006). Ongoing research within that Programme will further increase the evidence base for understanding of the range of drivers of land use discussed here.

Table 2.1 Summary of drivers Driver Elements

Climate change: mitigation strategies Climate change: adaptation strategies Extreme weather events and other natural catastrophes Biodiversity change Water quality Soil quality

Environmental

Landscape enhancement and protection, habitat networks Population growth In- and out-migration Age of rural population

Demographic

Consumer preferences Economic growth Input and output prices Labour market Energy security Transport Housing Food security

Economic

Exchange rates Technological changes in land-use sectors Other technological changes Bio-tech crops Winter cereals

Technological factors

Improved tree varieties Living standards in rural areas Sustainable rural economy Water quality Biodiversity

Policy and institutional: Objectives

Climate change International obligations and agreements Policy and

institutional: Frameworks

Policy targets and timetables

Grants/subsidies Quantity measures

Policy and institutional: Instruments

Regulations and designations Public Land manager Health and well-being

Cultural & social

Heritage 2.10 Some of the results from the primary research provided critical new insights to

the comparative importance of some drivers, and factors associated with

16

decision-making. The results from the analysis of the new primary data fed back into the choice of some factors discussed in this chapter.

2.11 The description and discussion of drivers, and impacts are presented in a

summary followed by a more detailed description of significant factors. These are presented at a Scottish, regional or sub-regional level as appropriate. The individual drivers are grouped into six types of driver (Table 2.1).

2.12 Elements of these drivers are listed in an expanded table in Appendix 3, such

as specific policy objectives, frameworks and instruments. Some of the individual elements could be included under more than one headline driver, but in discussion with the SAG, these groupings of drivers have been selected. The principal focus was on those which the research team and the SAG considered would be most likely to have the greatest direct impacts on land use in Scotland.

2.13 The environmental drivers discussion highlights the interactions between

drivers in relation to one sector (woodland and forestry), for which there are plans for a significant increase in area in line with the Scottish Forestry Strategy, and its contribution to mitigation and adaptation within the Scottish Climate Change Delivery Plan (Scottish Government, 2009a). The management of woodlands and trees interacts with issues of soil quality and the carbon sink provided by soils in Scotland (Scottish Executive, 2006). The expansion of forestry also contributes to objectives of biodiversity as envisaged in the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy (Scottish Executive, 2004b) (e.g. the Glasgow and Clyde Valley integrated habitat network) and landscape enhancement through woodland management and design.

2.14 Environmental drivers also include extreme weather events and natural

catastrophes, such as regional flood events (e.g. central Scotland, August 2008), which will have shorter term impacts on land-use, and longer term impacts through flood alleviation strategies (e.g. the Elgin Flood Alleviation Scheme).

2.15 The discussion of demographic drivers focuses on population change in

rural Scotland, illustrating patterns of change from the recent past, and future projections to 2031, and population profiles (e.g. age). This is a global driver, which has effects on Scotland in relation to in- and out-migration, as well as changing population profiles in rural areas. The data identify prospective hotspots for urban development and associated infrastructure. Consumer preferences are also associated with demographic change, but were not dealt with in this project.

2.16 Issues relating to housing and labour markets, and input and output prices are

presented in relation to economic factors, which are generally constant across Scotland. International commodity prices and national farm gate and timber prices are key drivers for agricultural and timber production. Their important role has also been highlighted in similar studies in other countries (e.g. Britton and Fenton, 2007). Other studies emphasise the critical role of levels of energy prices and biofuel demand for future agricultural and forestry

17

land use changes (e.g. Trostle, 2008; De Gorter, 2008; OECD, 2008). In this context, issues of energy security, food security and transport are pertinent (OECD-FAO, 2009), and interact with policy and institutional factors such as objectives relating to climate change, and frameworks such as the Food and Drink Strategy (Scottish Government, 2009b). Following discussions with the SAG, factors such as exchange rates were not explicitly considered.

2.17 Technological factors focus on those relating to agriculture and forestry,

through biotechology crops, winter cereals and new tree varieties, the uptake and distribution of which will be influenced by biophysical constraints, and some social issues. Other technological changes, such as communications and digital technology, have been noted for their potential for secondary influences on land use (e.g. reduced demand for transport).

2.18 Policy and institutional drivers distinguish between objectives, frameworks

and instruments. Most objectives lead to some levels of interaction between drivers (e.g. increased development of energy from renewable sources interacting with needs to avoid disturbance of carbon stocks in Scottish soils). The focus was on the most direct impacts on land use, which is principally through delivery of policy targets, grants, regulations and designations. Therefore, different forms of grants and farm payments support different types of land use, the geographic distribution of which will reflect biophysical differences across the country, and influence eligibility. Uptake may reflect wider economic and social influences, such as information provision. The distribution and extent of natural heritage designations provide an example of policy and institutional instruments which promote protection and enhancement of the environment, and can be constraints on some types of land use.

2.19 Business development factors amongst land managers, ownership and issues

of landscape heritage are summarised under cultural and social drivers. Other factors such as tradition, cooperation, education, skills and attitudes and beliefs are amongst those considered with respect to decision-making and decision-makers in Chapter 3.

18

Complementarities and tensions between drivers 2.20 Some interactions between drivers have direct implications for land use and

land use change in Scotland, but others are indirect, particularly at the global and European levels. Before considering some detailed aspects of drivers at the regional and local level in Scotland, some of the complexity of interactions with respect to prospective land uses are discussed. This is intended to provide an understanding of issues of interdependence between drivers.

2.21 Global drivers exert pressure on land-use in different directions. Climate

change is the main environmental driver of land-use change leading to the development and integration of adaptation and mitigation strategies in land-use policies. Broader impacts of climate change include shifts in production frontiers and land-use extensification, as a response to mitigation strategies aimed at reducing GHG emissions (OECD-FAO, 2009). In addition, the reduction of fossil-fuel energy reservoirs becomes important for agriculture, and is expected to result in lower input and output of (energy-intensive) agricultural production systems. The value of maintaining and enhancing carbon stocks in agricultural soils (as well as forestry) may also lead to different methods of cultivation and eventually to new incentives.

2.22 Higher energy prices as a consequence of scarcer fossil fuels will correlate

with higher market prices and lead to higher demand for food crops as feedstocks for biofuels, which in turn will add further upward pressure on crop prices (Schwarz et al., 2009; OECD-FAO, 2009). For the period from 1986 to 1999 the relative prices of wheat, barley and oil appear to be reasonably stable (apart from the brief increase in oil price in late 1990). However, the correlation of oil prices and agricultural commodity prices was particularly evident during the extreme price peaks in 2007/2008 (see Appendix 4, Figure

Key messages: Global drivers often affect land use through related policy, market and technological developments at international and national level, which either lead to a direct response from land managers or lead to the introduction of a set of different policy instruments which provoke a response from land managers. Most drivers will interact with each other, with both complementarities and tensions in terms of scale, intensity and time sequence. Some interactions can be anticipated (e.g. payment schemes for renewable energy, increasing windfarm development causing tensions with environmental landscape enhancement and protection, and interests of National Parks). Others are due to previously unexpected links (e.g. outbreaks of disease such as Foot and Mouth, on the rural economy due to the significance of tourist access). An environmental driver, such as climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies, may interact across all or some other drivers, including processes which influence environmental characteristics (e.g. soil quality and biodiversity), some economic factors (e.g. energy and food security), policy and institutional frameworks (e.g. targets and timetables), and social factors (e.g. public attitudes).

19

A4.1). While the increase in cereal prices (and rapid increase in oil price) from 2007 is an example of a short-term shock, the broad consensus is that agricultural commodity and oil prices will tend to increase in the decades to come (e.g. OECD-FAO, 2009, de Gorter, 2008). However, high production costs of biofuels from food crops in the EU imply that increased conversion of land to biofuel production will mainly take place outside the EU (e.g. Brazil), increasing the pressure on pristine and nature conservation areas as well as on land used for food production in those countries (Bringezu et al., 2009).

2.23 The recent food crisis together with the expected long-term trend of rising

market prices, higher land demand for energy production, continued population growth (although at a decreasing rate), and growing consumption of animal products has brought food security concerns back on the agenda of global agricultural policy discussions which shifted the emphasis onto ensuring the production of sufficient food for the current and future world population (OECD-FAO, 2009). A growing consumption of animal products implies a significant increase in the demand for feed grains and protein feed (von Braun, 2007). Runge et al. (2003) expect an increase in grain consumption by more than 42% between 1997 and 2025.

2.24 In Scotland, the total area planted with oats, barley and wheat has fluctuated

between over 500,000 ha and 400,000 ha over the last 60 years, and is currently about 400,000 to 450,000 ha. From the Second World War until the mid-1950s, about 75% to 80% of the area planted was to oats, barley being about 15% and wheat about 5%. By the late 1970s/early 1980s the area planted for oats had declined to less than 10% of the area planted, while barley area increased to about 80 to 85% of the area planted for these three crops. Since the early 1980s, the area of wheat has increased to about 25% of the area planted, with that for barley declining to about 70% (see Appendix 4, Figure A4.2). There was also the introduction of oilseed rape in the early 1980s and the increase in the use of polytunnels in soft fruit production.

2.25 The importance of a better understanding of global drivers affecting food

supply and demand has recently been highlighted in the National Food and Drink Policy for Scotland as a key factor for maintaining national food security in terms of sufficient capacity of domestic food and drink production and the provision of affordable food (Scottish Government, 2009b).

2.26 The different global drivers are reflected in a wide range of synergies and

conflicts between international and national policy drivers, both within agricultural policies and between agricultural and other land-use policies. An often discussed example of the relationships between different land-use policies is the potential conflict between biofuels and agriculture as the result of the growing policy emphasis on both energy and food security. On the one hand, biofuel policies provide incentives (e.g. bioenergy consumption quotas, tax reductions) for the conversion of agricultural land from food to bioenergy production. On the other hand, recent changes in agricultural policies, such as the abolition of set-aside, aim at increasing the available land for food production, increasing the potential for land use competition between energy and food production.

20

2.27 Conversion of arable land for biomass cropping, and the conversion to biofuel

crops, would have a significant impact on food security, taking more land out of food production at a time when the demand for locally grown food is increasingly important for the environment and rural economy. The Scottish Food and Drink Policy (Scottish Government, 2009b) sets a target of £10 billion sales for the whole food and drink industry in Scotland by 2017, up from £7.5 billion in 2007.

2.28 However, if all land currently devoted to food production in the UK (about 75%

of the land surface) was converted to biofuel production, it would still only be possible to produce approximately 30% of the energy currently required by the UK just for transport (Mackay, 2009). Therefore, energy crops do not appear a realistic long-term prospect, with energy from arable land more likely to come from existing woodland, farm waste and low-grade land rather than wholesale conversion of the rural landscape to new bioenergy crops.

2.29 Conflicts exist between agricultural policies between the abolition of set-aside

and desired land use impacts of agri-environmental policies. Set-aside land has gained high significance as ‘ecological compensation areas’ within agricultural landscapes (European Environment Agency, 2006). It can provide important habitats for (also protected) birds, insects, amphibians and small mammals and, often represent ecological stepping stones, that can contribute significantly to the habitat network NATURA 2000.

2.30 The abolition of set-aside in the recent “health check” of the CAP increases

the competition for land-use on set-aside land. In particular, increasing use of long-term set-aside land for cultivation of food and energy crops can lead to the loss of valuable habitats and threaten endangered species (Dworak et al., 2008) and thus create conflicts with the objectives and intended land use changes of agri-environmental measures. However, more data on the significance of set-aside land for biodiversity and the actual land use change on set-aside land is needed to evaluate in more detail if this is, or could become, an issue in Scotland.

2.31 Environmental regulations (e.g. cross compliance), and designations of

protected land (e.g. national parks), are increasingly implemented as land use drivers. This is to guarantee a standard level of environmentally friendly uses of land, and to identify areas which are protected for their natural heritage and landscape importance (see also, Moxey et al., 2009, Chapter 7). For example, the European Landscape Convention (Council of Europe, 2003) stresses the need to promote landscape within legal frameworks and its consideration in policy formulation and planning, with the adoption of a holistic view of the landscape and recognition of the multi-functional roles demanded of it. Therefore, the ratification of the Convention by European countries, and its coming into law, influences delivery mechanisms such as details of payment schemes (e.g. Scottish Rural Development Programme, Scottish Government, 2009c). See Slee et al. (2009) for discussion of interactions between policy mechanisms.

21

2.32 The application of targeted agri-environmental payments “on-top” of the regulative baseline, and in specific designated and protected areas, creates synergies in terms of higher environmental benefits. There is, however, evidence from studies based on farmer surveys in Scotland and Germany that an increasing implementation of environmental regulations and prescription-based measures inhibits the development of embodied cultural capital in farming and thus causes conflicts with farmers’ attitudes and beliefs (e.g. Burton et al., 2008).

2.33 Looking at examples beyond policy drivers, synergies, for example, exist

between economic and technological drivers. These include technological developments of new forms and solutions to generate renewable energy to support the economic goal of energy security and support economic growth in rural areas. This can include small-scale farm-based biogas production for heat and energy generation, and small-scale wind turbine developments. In each case they contribute to rural diversification, broadening the base of energy production local to its use, and associated economic benefits to the land manager, or local community (e.g. community windfarm developments in Eigg and Buchan). However, both can have negative implications, such as the potential of significant cumulative visual impacts of small-scale wind turbine development in agricultural areas of Scotland.

2.34 Larger scale renewable energy developments can also lead to tensions

between drivers. For example, Figure 2.1 shows the distribution of medium and large scale windfarm developments in scoping, proposed or installed as of June 2009. Most sites identified are on land with suitable wind climates, but also on topsoil with organic carbon content of greater than 35%. However, there is a risk of loss of terrestrial carbon through removal, increased rate of decomposition, erosion or landslides. Therefore, the design and management of such sites must adhere to appropriate good practice and guidelines (e.g. Nayak, et al., 2008) to provide a complementary land use (i.e. carbon payback times of less than the planned lifetime of the development).

2.35 Other technological developments, such as infrastructure for digital

communications through broadband internet access and switch-over to digital television, increase scope for economic growth in rural areas through small business development. Such infrastructure could decrease pressures on office space and building infrastructure in urban areas, and reduce intensity of rural/urban transport use. However, no quantitative estimates of such interactions between drivers were identified.

2.36 Natural processes associated with flora and fauna drive changes in options

for land use, which constraining or enabling change. For example, changes in grazing pressures and economic activity in rural areas have led to an increase in the extent of bracken in many marginal areas of western and southern Scotland. The increase in bracken can limit scope for grazing and access, harbour risks to animal health and impact on landscape (Birnie et al., 2000).

22

2.37 Further examples for complementarities and conflicts can be identified in relation to specific regional and local drivers which are not (directly) linked to global factors. In-migration has created localised high competition of housing with other rural land uses and reduced agricultural production. The negative impact of housing pressure on agricultural production creates synergies in terms of further land use extensification in areas where decoupling has already reduced livestock numbers (Burton et al., 2005). The loss of agricultural land to development is 1200 ha every seven years (Towers et al., 2006).

Figure 2.1 Distribution of windfarms (scoping, proposals and installed) with respect to topsoil organic carbon content

23

Timescales of drivers 2.38 The Gantt chart in Table 2.2 summarises the expected timeframes of land use

drivers. Elements of the environmental, demographic, economic, technological and social and cultural drivers will continue to influence changes in land use over time. The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 (Scottish Government, 2009d), and Scottish Climate Change Delivery Plan (Scottish Government, 2009b) use a time horizon of 2050 for the delivery of targets such as those on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This provides a context for related policies and strategies, including the Scottish Forestry Strategy and the Scottish Soil Framework, although these policy frameworks and instruments differ in their timeframes, between the relatively short term to 2013, to the longer term through to 2050 and beyond.

2.39 Those which impact most on land managers are the CAP-based policy

instruments, such as the Less Favoured Areas Support Scheme (LFASS), the Single Farm Payment (SFP) and Agri-Environment Measures (AEM). The Gantt chart reflects that the future of natural handicap payments beyond 2013 is uncertain. Although they can be expected to continue in some form after 2013, and to impact (in particular) on agricultural land uses, there may be different aims, levels of support, and eligibility management requirements through to 2019, which is the end of the next programming period. Further continuation of these grants would be too speculative at this point.

2.40 The EC Renewable Directive (European Parliament, 2009) and its bioenergy

consumption targets will affect the extent to which land is used for bioenergy production until 2020. Objectives and actions defined in the Forestry Strategy and the Water Framework Directive (European Commission, 2000b) are set until 2025 and 2027, respectively, and will exert influence on forestry and other rural land uses over this period. A continuation of both policy drivers beyond the current deadlines can be expected, and is highlighted in yellow in Table 2.2.

Key message: Most drivers will have ongoing influences on land use in the period through to 2050 (a timeframe in a number of policy targets). Some cumulative changes can be expected due to factors such as land reform measures. Changes in EU membership could lead to short term changes in demographics, but with a long lead time. The timeframe for policy instruments (e.g. LFASS) is known but successor arrangements are not, contributing to some uncertainty amongst land managers.

24

Table 2.2 Timeframes of policy and institutional land use drivers (columns represent alternate years from 2009 to 2050)

2.41 Although the timescales of the different policy targets do vary, the periods

around 2013, 2020 and 2025 to 2030 are those when there would either be a change in mechanism or updating of target. These dates ignore the lead time to any such changes, such as negotiations of new international agreements or instruments, the rigour of the schedule, and any transition arrangements between schemes. Therefore, the periods of relative uncertainty for some

Timeframe of land use drivers 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 WTO Water

Framework

Directive

EU

Renewables

Directive

Climate

Change

(Scotland) Act

2009

Scottish

Climate

Change

Adaptation

Strategy –

renewable

energy

NVZ Forestry

strategy

Soil

Framework

SFP LFASS Successor instruments? AEM Designations,

e.g. Scottish

Biodiversity

Strategy,

National

Parks

Scottish

Parliamentary

Elections

X X X X X X X X X X

UK

Parliamentary

Elections

(assuming full

5 year term)

X X X X X X X X

Compliance required, or aligned with wider target

Period of current regulation, target, plan or ongoing pressure

25

types of driver may be broadly 5 years. This corresponds with the planning horizon of land use decision-makers which emerged in the primary research.

2.42 The most significant exceptions to this, and those of greatest frequency, are

parliamentary elections in Scotland and the UK the outcome of which may lead to comparatively dramatic and quick changes in fiscal policy. For example, certainty over rates of taxation (e.g. inheritance, capital gains, corporation, income and sales taxes), as well as the absolute value of such rates, are also reported as being of significant to land use decision-makers. This is most likely to influence other drivers through economic factors, but it may also influence investments in technological factors and cultural and social issues of education and skills.

2.43 The following sections consider the nature and some of the potential

interactions and impacts of headline drivers on land use, and land use change. These are to indicate any specific aspects of scale, magnitude or geographic pattern of significance.

Environmental Drivers

Climate change mitigation and adaptation and forestry

2.44 As noted in Table 2.1, environmental drivers of land use and land-use change

include climate change, expressed through mitigation and adaptation strategies. The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 (Scottish Government, 2009d), sets out the underlying policy and institutional basis of a range of issues relating to the mitigation of, adaptation to, climate change. It provides a framework for the objective of moving to a low carbon economy, setting out policy targets and timetables, and places obligations on public bodies which in turn influence other strategies and instruments. Planning Advice Note 84 (Scottish Government, 2008b), on ‘Reducing Carbon Emissions in New Development’, describes how the planning system can support a move towards low and zero carbon development by use of energy efficient, micro-generating and decentralised renewable energy systems.

2.45 A key target is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050, with an

interim target of a 42% reduction by 2020. Currently, agriculture and forestry

Key messages: Climate change, mitigation and adaptation strategies are expected to be dominant drivers of change. The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 and associated Climate Change Delivery Plan, with the key target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050, provide an overarching context for the response to this driver, through a suite of measures to mitigate and adapt to climate change. The use of forestry measures to mitigate climate change requires a long-term perspective, spatial planning, and consideration of environmental, economic and social implications. Therefore, responses need coordination in space and time to ensure effectiveness, as there are complex interactions between individual drivers.

26

act as sources of greenhouse gas emissions and as sinks. They contribute about 31% of such emissions globally, but remove approximately 16%. In Scotland, land use is the second largest contributor to GHG emissions, with agriculture and land use change contributing 20%, compared with 37% from the energy production sector.

2.46 Climate change impacts on Scottish landscapes cannot be seen in isolation

from wider land-use changes, resulting from continued changes in agricultural and forest management, (EU) policy and globalisation. Instruments are being prepared for the delivery of these targets which will impact on land uses, including funds for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from land management practices, funding for encouraging investment in energy production from renewable sources, and a Climate Challenge Fund for supporting community initiatives.

2.47 Matthews et al. (2008) provide an overview of links between climate change

as a driver, both in terms of mitigation and adaptation, and other environmental drivers of biodiversity, soil and water quality, and discuss the implications with respect to integrated land uses, such as forestry. They note the importance of coupled human-environment systems as a framework for considering the influences of climate change. This is through ‘direct influence on ecosystem processes and services (impacts, e.g. as reported by Haines-Young et al., 2008 in their work for Defra on ecosystem services in England), and secondly on the way that actors within the system respond to it, causing change in behaviour, which in turn affects various ecosystem processes (mitigation/adaptation).’ The influence of different drivers on land use decision-making is discussed in Chapter 3.

2.48 The Scottish Climate Change Delivery Plan specifies actions which cover

electricity, heat, transport, waste and rural land use. In particular, the targets relating to rural land use include milestones for the rate of woodland to rise to 10-15 kha/year by 2020, and additional capacity for woodfuel from woodland expansion, with, an aspiration of the area of forest to approach 25% by 2050. The Delivery Plan also notes the provision of support, advice and appropriate incentives for land managers (Scottish Government, 2009c).

2.49 The Agriculture and Climate Change Stakeholder Group (ACCSG) (2008)

note in their recommendations that there is a need for, ‘better integration between currently separate policy themes such as agriculture, forestry, deer management, flooding and biodiversity – all of which are linked to land use and require some degree of spatial co-ordination and co-operation across different parcels of land and therefore different farms – must be pursued.’ Other social and biophysical factors relating to mitigation and adaptation to climate change also require consideration. These include the choices made by individuals and businesses on themes such as energy consumption, transport, and land use; and, the impacts of such choices on functional processes (e.g. of flora and fauna).

2.50 The Scottish Soil Framework provides an example of a mechanism for

enhanced policy co-ordination across the range of policy areas on which soil

27

impacts to some extent; soil is often protected, to an extent, by default through other policies such as natural heritage designations and greenbelts. A key component is the desire for greater connectivity between soil management and climate change mitigation strategies. Future developments may include enhanced financial incentives for ‘carbon farming’ and restrictions on specific land uses; for example livestock farming on wet soils is responsible for a large proportion of Scottish NO2 emissions. Soil compaction is also known to increase GHG emissions. The forestry sector has also agreed to a number of actions aimed at enhancing sequestration above and below ground.

2.51 The woodland and forestry land-use sector intersects with other land use

sectors, and groups of drivers, including biodiversity change, water and soils quality, and landscape enhancement and protection. The complexity of the interactions between drivers of land-use change with respect to climate change mitigation through forestry are shown in Figure 2.2. (Details of the Forest Management Alternatives, FMAs, are provided in Appendix 5).

2.52 Other drivers, listed in Table 2.1, are also identified in this figure to indicate

the international, European or local scale at which they operate, and an indication of which forest management alternatives they influence. These are then related to the land-use functions which they provide, as well as factors such as soil quality, water quality, biodiversity and the collective contribution to landscape character (Swanwick 2008).

2.53 With respect to the climate change driver, national programmes supporting

carbon sequestration forest-based activities in the UK focus principally on remote rural areas. These programmes (Defra, 2006) are embodied in regional policies (e.g. Scottish Forestry Strategy), and some of the available options provide multiple benefits. The effective measures aim for “win-win” situations to benefit rural development, people, the economy and the environment, both at a national level and internationally (Forestry Commission Scotland, 2006). The optimum policies, therefore, tend to link long-term carbon sequestration in forestry with the long-term substitution of wood in construction and in renewable energy projects (Cannell, 2003). However, forestry measures to mitigate climate change require a long-term perspective, spatial planning, and consideration of environmental, economic and social implications.

2.54 The expansion and restoration of woodlands within Forest Habitat Networks

allows for increased connectivity to allow for development of more resilient landscapes. The planning of land-use change to build in ecological networks is being advanced in Scotland, for example, the Glasgow and Clyde Valley integrated habitat network (www.Gcvgreennetwork.gov.uk). This network provides an ecosystem framework for forest-based activities. It is one component of the wider central Scotland green network, key policy objectives of which are access to greenspace, human health, and the development of ecological functions (linking with the Woods for Health Strategy of the Forestry Commission (2009)). Such objectives can be delivered through development of sustainable multifunctional woodlands at the landscape scale,

28

consisting of a functionally connected network of forest habitats that can contribute to the economic, environmental and social functions (ecosystem services). However, the design of such networks should proceed adaptively in light of accumulating experience and data on their effectiveness, and with clear objectives of purpose.

Figure 2.2 Interactions of woodlands and forest land uses with respect to other drivers, at international, national and local levels

29

Demographic factors

2.55 Between 1855 and 2002, Scotland’s population increased from around 3

million to almost 5.1 million people (Appendix 6, Figure A6.1). Since 2006, net migration has increased to approximately 27,000 per year, with natural change stable. Figure 2.3 summarises the percentage change reported by the General Register Office for Scotland (GROS) in population between 1997 and 2007, reporting changes with respect to the Scottish Government urban/rural classification (Figure A6.2).

2.56 There has been a 10% increase in the accessible rural population of Scotland

(i.e. less than 30 minute drive time to nearest settlement of 10,000) and 6% in remote rural areas (i.e. more than 30 minute drive time to nearest settlement of 10,000).

2.57 These increases in population and demand for housing have created

pressures for changes in land use, such as from agriculture to built environments (Scottish Executive, 2005; Scottish Natural Heritage, 2004). The expansion of the urban area is directed by the relevant Structure Plan and Local Plan, in the context of the National Planning Framework. Whilst the presumption is generally against built development in rural areas, some local authorities identify the development of housing in rural areas, generally in existing small settlements but sometimes in isolated sites, to combat depopulation.

% POPULATION CHANGE, 1997-2007

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

SCOTLAND Large urban Other urban Accessiblesmall town

Remotesmall town

Very remotesmall town

Accessiblerural

Remoterural

Very remoterural

% C

HA

NG

E

URBAN RURAL

Figure 2.3 Summary of Scotland’s population between 1997 and 2007

Key messages: Population increases to 2031 are projected to be most significant in rural areas of eastern Scotland, compared to static or reduced levels in the west, north-west and far north. The demographic profile of rural areas is also expected to change resulting in a new mix of requirements for services, skills and employment.

30

2.58 Between 2007 and 2017, the Scottish Government has set a target to match average European (EU15) population growth. By 2031, the estimate is for a rise of approximately 5% to 5.9 million for Scotland, the geographic distribution of which is shown in Figure 2.4. Of the four main cities, only Edinburgh is projected to increase in population. In the rural areas, changes of over 15% are projected in the east of Scotland, from the Borders, East and West Lothian, to Perthshire and Aberdeenshire. Other areas of eastern and central Scotland are forecast for increases of between 0.1% and 15%, except Midlothian. Highland and Orkney are projected to increase their population by between 5.1% and 15%, with change in Highland likely to be concentrated around Inverness and coastal Nairnshire. The majority of western Scotland is forecast to have static or reduced populations, from Dumfries and Galloway, Ayrshire and Argyll, to the Western Isles, and also Shetland.

2.59 Changes in the absolute population may hide significant details about

changes in its profile, such as a disproportionately high number of residents aged 60 and over in remote rural and very remote rural areas (as defined by the Scottish Government Urban Rural Classification, Figure A6.2). Between 1997 and 2007, there has been an increase of almost 20% in residents aged 60 and over in very remote rural areas, over 20% in remote rural, and over 25% in accessible rural areas, compared to under 10% for Scotland as a whole.

Figure 2.4 (a) Population change:1997 to 2007

Figure 2.4 (b) Projected percentage population change: 2006 - 2031

31

2.60 The proportion of people who are economically active in remote and accessible rural areas is 81% and 84% respectively, compared with 79% in the rest of Scotland (Figure A6.3). In general, the size of companies, as measured by the number of employees, decreases from urban to remote rural areas. Over 50% of people in employment in very remote rural areas are in companies of less than 10 people, and only 5% are in those with over 500 people. In accessible rural areas and remote small towns, the proportions in businesses of less than 10 people is approximately 35%, dropping to under 25% for large urban areas.

2.61 Project changes in demographic profiles will likely impact on availability of

labour, the skill base in rural areas, the mix of housing types, suitability of services (e.g. provision of education and health services), dependencies on public transport, and the demand and design of different types of resources for recreation, health and well-being. It may also lead to changes in the mix of attitudes and beliefs, and consumer preferences, in different areas causing secondary changes in demand for different types of goods and services.

Economic Factors

Output and input prices 2.62 There are two principle scenarios as a result of changing prices: a) increased

production in the cases of higher market prices and lower input prices, b) decreased production in cases of lower market prices and higher input prices. In the case of higher market prices and/or lower input prices: land use shifts towards production systems with favourable prices and more intensive production systems (e.g. towards arable land-use systems in case of a long-term trend of increasing cereal prices, or FMA4 in the forestry sector). Lower market prices and higher input prices will lead to extensification of agricultural land-use systems and a shift to extensive and natural forest systems (FMA1 and 2).

Key messages: Projections are for increases in energy prices and agricultural commodity prices, and resultant market prices. While higher energy prices suggest extensification of energy-intensive production systems due to higher production costs, resulting higher market prices provide incentives to expand the area under production and would lead to increased competition between environmental and productive land uses. In marginal areas with lower quality soils, higher input prices potentially increase reliance on grants with social and environmental objectives and could lead to a change from productive to environmental land use. Interdependency between population increases, housing, and transport infrastructure can be expected to increase further demand for land in certain areas, particularly in eastern Scotland. ‘Hotspots’ of competition for land may arise in the city regions around Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee, and Inverness.

32

2.63 Increased revenue for land managers (private and public) could lead to greater investment in land-use sectors. The turn of the millennium marked a reversal of the high-level trend of declining agricultural commodity prices. Many studies now predict that agricultural commodity prices will tend to increase in the decades to come (e.g. OECD-FAO, 2009, Schwarz et al., 2009, De Gorter, 2008).

2.64 A scenario of a long term trend of higher market prices would result in higher

food, fibre, energy and timber production. Higher market prices would provide incentives to intensify production on good quality land and take poorer quality land and previously set-aside land back into production. Such a scenario could increase the competition between environmental and productive land uses, and potential consequences for environmental land use objectives such as enhancing biodiversity and water quality would need to be reviewed. On the other hand, higher energy prices, expected to be one of the key factors contributing to higher market prices will substantially increase production costs of energy-intensive production systems. The combined impact of less fossil fuel and higher energy prices and higher market prices needs to be taken into account in the projection of future land use scenarios and further analysis differentiating between different farm types and production systems is required. However, higher input prices potentially increase reliance on grants with social and environmental objectives and could lead to a change from productive to environmental land use, in particular in marginal areas with lower quality soils.

2.65 However, rising market prices would not only affect the overall level of primary

production, but also alter the relative profitability of productions systems. A stronger increase of certain crop prices will increase the relative profitability of these crops and lead to an increase in the amount of land used for their production. A recent example for such a development is the jump in cereal prices in 2007 and 2008, which led to higher cereal production in Scotland and the EU (Scottish Government, 2009e, EUROSTAT, 2008). On the other hand, rising energy prices will not affect all agricultural production systems to the same extent. The relative profitability of particular energy intensive production systems will decline compared to less energy intensive productions systems. A study on the impacts of high oil prices on UK food supply showed that in particular intensive livestock systems would be affected by higher energy prices reflecting changes in the relative profitability of different crop and livestock production systems (ADAS, 2007).

2.66 Food production outwith Europe (e.g. from Asia) will maintain a competitive

advantage due to lower production cost and energy use, compared to more energy intensive European farming. Global economic shocks, such as rapid rises in energy prices as seen in 2007 (amongst other factors), reduce production and lead to extreme price peaks (Schwarz et al., 2009). Such rapid changes in prices can increase uncertainty amongst land managers, who may limit investment and cropping in any given year to reduce risk of low returns or losses.

33

2.67 However, in Scotland, in absolute terms, the value of output from agriculture has risen considerably since the 1950s. The increase began particularly in the first half of the 1970s, the UK joining the Common Market in 1973, and reached a maximum in the second half of the 1990s (Appendix 4, Figure A4.3). The current annual value of output is about £2 billion. Approximately 40% to 50% of output value is associated with livestock; livestock products and cereals add a further 20% each. The remaining 20% is from other crops and horticulture. Livestock and livestock products combined are now about 60% of output, down from a high of about 80% in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.

Transport infrastructure - roads 2.68 The total length of roads in Scotland increased from 52,346 km, in 1994 to

55,089 km by 2007 (Scottish Government, 2008c). This includes motorways, trunk roads, all local authority roads (A, B and C), and unclassified roads. Figure 2.6 shows the distribution of the density of the road network for rural areas with respect to landscape character assessment polygons. It shows that, outwith those areas identified as urban, the greatest concentration of roads is in the vicinity of the cities of Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen. The lowland agricultural landscapes of the Moray coast, Aberdeenshire, Angus, Fife and the Borders exhibit a high density of transport infrastructure.

2.69 Major transport projects lead to changes in land use due to associated

infrastructure, for example with land required for road intersections, cuttings and embankments. Proposed developments such as the Aberdeen Western Peripheral road, the dualling of the A9 from Perth to Inverness, extension of the M74 into Glasgow, and recent upgrades to the M9 and A8000 west of Edinburgh all fall within the same geographic areas as the areas of high density shown in Figure 2.6.

2.70 A comparison with the population projections suggests greater pressure on

transport infrastructure in Aberdeenshire, Perthshire and East and West Lothian, which ignores other pressures due to tourism and industrial development. For example, it does not take account of investment required to upgrade stretches of routes to ensure suitability for the movement of timber for use in wood burning plants, such as at Lockerbie.

2.71 Strategic plans for Aberdeen City and Shire indicate long-term options for

expansion of the rail network, with a programme of re-opening stations. The Waverley Railway Project will re-establish a rail link between Edinburgh to Tweedbank in the Scottish Borders. Interactions between transport, housing and economic growth are projected. For example, the project estimates that the new infrastructure will facilitate new housing (a new town of 4,000 homes at Shawfair, 700 houses in Midlothian and 1,100 in Scottish Borders), and assist with a projected labour shortfall of 18,500 people in the Lothians by 2015. Therefore, the expectation is for continued investment in transport, with interactions between economic, demographic drivers, and those of wider policy objectives (e.g. living standards in rural areas and sustainable rural economies), with have direct implications for land use.

34

2.72 The nature of changes in transport infrastructure may have other implications, including for GHG emissions (depending upon the mix of rail and road use).

Housing 2.73 The number of households in Scotland is projected to increase, from 2.3

million in 2008 to 2.7 million in 2031, an increase of 19% (General Register Office for Scotland, 2009). This suggests a pressure for increased building development over that time period, compared with the projected increase in population over the same period (Figure 2.5). This illustrates the relative pressure in the Lothians, Aberdeenshire, Perthshire and Orkney, with the lowest projected increases in households in Dumfries and Galloway, Ayrshire and Argyll.

Figure 2.5 Projected percentage change in households between 2006 and 2031, by local authority area

Figure 2.6 Distribution of the density non-urban roads by Landscape Character Assessment polygon

2.74 Such pressure is reflected in Scottish Planning Policy 13 (Scottish Executive,

2004a) which notes that “most new housing will be located in towns and villages, but given the major changes in farming and the rural economy, it is expected that new housing outwith existing settlements may have a greater part to play in economic regeneration in rural areas”. The distribution of such development of domestic properties between 2001 and 2005 is shown in Figure 2.7 (summarised by Landscape Character Assessment areas). It highlights the relative pressures on rural areas, with infill building in the hinterland of Aberdeen, the Clyde Valley, Tweed valley, the Inverness to Elgin corridor, and north Argyll. These changes reflect the building of new estates outwith existing urban areas, and isolated housing (either new build or restorations).

35

2.75 Apart from economic issues, consideration is required of potential impacts on the landscape and natural heritage. For example, Planning Advice Note 72 (Scottish Executive, 2005) highlights the importance of landscape considerations with respect to the location of new building, “the proposed location and the siting of new housing consider the impact on the landscape, in terms of both immediate and wider surroundings”. Specifically, it proposes siting with a backdrop of existing woodlands, in proximity to existing development, and the importance of maintaining consistency with landscape character.

2.76 An impression of the distribution of land currently offering the greatest

flexibility for crop types (i.e. Land Capability for Agriculture Classes 1 to 3.1; Bibby et al., 1991) which might be sought for development is shown in Figure 2.8. It should be noted that the illustration does not take account of current local plans or any other planning constraints. Nor does it consider how the capability of land for agriculture may change through time, due to climate change, as illustrated by Brown et al. (2008), in which a medium-high scenario of climate change could lead to an increase of over 300% in the area of best quality land by 2050. However, such a scenario does indicate where demand for urban land could have the biggest impact on natural capacity for crop production. Concentrations of such areas are towards the east of Scotland, mainly in the Lothians and Forth valley, but also in Angus and along the Ayrshire coast.

Figure 2.7 Actual housing development between 2001 and 2005 (500 m beyond urban and forestry land)

Figure 2.8 Potential hotspots of development in the vicinity of urban areas, and main roads, and on Land Capability for Agriculture class land 1 to 3.1 (shown in red)

36

Technological Factors

Biotechnology crops 2.77 Since the 1920s, agricultural intensification has caused a decline in the

diversity of arable plants and associated fauna (Marshall et al., 2003), and has had a detrimental impact particularly on non-target plant species that are present in moderate or low abundance (Brenchley and Warrington, 1933; Roberts, 1958). This loss of biodiversity has important implications for the diverse array of associated herbivores, predators and parasitoids that depend on them for food and shelter (Altierri, 1999; Haddad, 2001; Hawes et al., 2009). This may be exacerbated by the introduction of new biotech crops that allow ever more efficient weed control practices.

2.78 Farm-scale evaluations of GMHT crops have demonstrated a significant

reduction in arable biodiversity relative to conventional management for three of the four crops tested (Haughton et al., 2003; Heard et al., 2003; Brooks et al., 2003; Bohan et al., 2005; and Hawes et al., 2003). Unless appropriate restrictions are put in place, the introduction of herbicide-tolerant crops applied at a landscape scale could therefore change the management of large tracts of arable land, resulting in further fragmentation of arable plant and insect populations and loss of biodiversity.

2.79 Fragmentation of arable plant and insect populations is one of the main

effects of herbicide tolerant crops with which broad-spectrum herbicides, such as glyphosate or glufosinate ammonium, are used to reduce weeds late in the cropping season (i.e. late spring or early summer) that is, reaching weeds that no other weed management can reach. If the weed communities and their associated invertebrates have already been reduced by decades of intense agriculture, they tend to be fragmented to start with, in that most species and many functional groups occur in places where they can find places to grow and reproduce (i.e. not everywhere or in every field). With HT crops such as oilseed rape, weed management can get at these remaining populations and fragment them even further. In doing so, it may also reduce the associated invertebrate food webs.

2.80 May et al. (2005) and others have shown that it is possible to mitigate the

effects in the beet crop by altering the timing and location of herbicide application, but mitigation by these means is difficult in the use of HT varieties of oilseed rape break crops. The reduction of biomass and further fragmentation of species and functional groups was the main reason why the Farm Scale Evaluations found against GM herbicide tolerant spring and winter

Key messages: Biotechnology crops could play an important role in responding to challenges of climate change and food security, if public suspicion towards new technologies can be overcome. However, there are potentially negative impacts through fragmentation of arable plant and insect populations and loss of biodiversity and wider implications for environmental management.

37

oilseed rape - any benefits for yield were outweighed in the context of UK arable agriculture by this potential for continued reduction of food webs.

2.81 On the other hand, technological development has been a key driver of

productivity increases in agriculture during most of the last century and contributed significantly to the exploitation of new and higher income opportunities. Where weeds are already highly controlled, any further control by HT crops will not result in an increase of yield. But where there is a pest problem that cannot be solved by any other means, then GM pest-resistent varieties will increase yield and profit (see Messean et al., 2009 for Bt maize in southern Europe), by a degree depending on the specific context.

2.82 Although the productivity increase has slowed substantially, technological

development remains one of the key reasons as to why agriculture has been able to respond to future challenges, e.g. in relation to climate change and food security. Future generations of improved genetically modified (GM) crops could potentially play an important role in this context, if public suspicion towards new technologies can be overcome.

2.83 The FSEs were influential in showing the need to include ecosystem function

in any global assessment of biotechnology (Squire et al., 2005). Current EU guidelines on GM risk assessment require each new GM crop variety and its associated agronomy to be considered against many ecological criteria, including those for gene transmission, non-target organisms and biogeochemical cycles (EFSA, 2006). Recent integrative science programmes are taking an even broader approach by considering both ecological and economic effects of a GM crop (Bohanec et al., 2008). A scientific case is increasingly argued for flexible management that takes the local context into account. For example, a major, Europe-wide assessment (Messean et al., 2009) concludes that GM insect resistant (Bt) maize would be economically beneficial in those parts of southern Europe where the specific target pest reduced yield or prevented the crop being grown, would not be detrimental to ecological function and does not spread enough to cause major difficulties in growing GM and non-GM crops in the same landscape.

2.84 In contrast, GM herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape might marginally increase the

options available to farmers in some areas, but would rarely benefit economically, would further reduce already depleted food webs and be difficult to manage in a landscape of GM and non-GM farming because of its rapid and extensive spread and persistence (Messean et al., 2009). Even then, there may be a few instances where GMHT oilseed rape could fit beneficially into a system. The scientific argument is therefore weighted against inflexible legislation and recommendations for GM crops. Whether in time the European and national administrations come to base their policy on the scientific argument remains to be seen. Nevertheless, GM risk assessment has rapidly developed into an advanced and effective methodology in terms of basic measurement, models, integration and advisory tools that could be applied to the introduction of any new form of technology, or indeed any form of agricultural change.

38

2.85 For a fuller description of the issues, see the findings of the European

Commission co-funded project on the Co-existence with GM crops in European Agriculture (SIGMEA).7

Winter cereals 2.86 Arable intensification has been characterised by an increase in the use of

non-renewable resources for food production (herbicides, pesticides and inorganic fertiliser) and a switch from predominantly spring sown crops to autumn sowing (Squire et al., 2005). Autumn planted, higher yielding cereal crops came available from the 1970s onwards and replaced some of the area of spring-sown crops in Scotland and the rest of Europe.

2.87 In Scotland, winter crops were particularly adopted in Lothian, Tayside, Fife

and Scottish Borders. Arable land with winter cereals has increased. The transition to winter cereals means that crops are in the ground for longer periods through the year, overwintering fallow and stubble are reduced and more agronomic inputs are used compared to previously grown spring crops. The more intensive winter cereals systems generate higher yields and profits per hectare of arable systems in Scotland. On the other hand, the transition from spring-sown to autumn-sown (winter) cereals and the increased use of chemical herbicides since the 1960s has brought about large and widespread reductions in the weed flora (Marshall et al., 2003).

2.88 Relative to spring-sown break crops, autumn-sown crops shift the composition

of arable plants towards a monocot-dominated community with a greater proportion of the longer-lived, perennial functional types (Hawes et al., 2009). Invertebrate community composition is also affected, since winter crops tend to favour detritivorous species and autumn-breeding species and may provide suitable conditions for species that over-winter as adults or larvae rather than as eggs. At the landscape scale, replacement of over-wintered stubble fields with autumn sown cereals has had a significant impact on the survival of farmland birds (Wilson et al., 1996). This change in cropping pattern across the arable landscape is therefore a major driver affecting arable plant, invertebrate and bird biodiversity, the composition of these communities, and the functional role they play in rural ecosystems.

2.89 Figure 2.9 shows the extent of monoculture of any winter cereals (winter

barley, winter oats or winter wheat) were recorded in a field between 2000 and 2007, derived from IACS. These comprise 933 fields from a total of 414,510 fields.

7 www.scri.ac.uk/research/epi/agroecology/fieldandlandscape/ coexistencewithGMcropsinEuropeanagriculture

39

Figure 2.9 Fields in which any combination of winter barley, winter oats or winter wheat were recorded for the entire period between 2000 and 2007, derived from IACS New tree varieties 2.90 New commercial tree varieties with improved productivity and possible

resistance to a major plant disease or insect pest are being developed. Increased productivity allows for more of the National Forest Estate to become available for recreational and conservation forestry with increased biodiversity and societal benefits reduction in chemical inputs with added biodiversity benefits. Private Forestry may utilise other forestry grants for conservation objectives. This is likely to result in a concentration of productive forestry (FMA4) on most productive areas diversification of forest management on less productive areas (FMA1 to 3)

40

Policy and Institutional Factors

2.91 Complex combinations of policy drivers across different land use sectors

affect the decision making process of land managers. Generally, policy drivers can be divided into overarching policy objectives which are then translated into related policy frameworks and then implemented through specific policy instruments, as the most direct mechanism to affect land management and use.

2.92 Overarching key objectives for rural land use include the improvement of

living standards in rural areas, the promotion of a sustainable rural economy, the enhancement of biodiversity and water quality, tackling climate, and the increased role of the food and drink industry (Scottish Government, 2009b; Forestry Commission Scotland, 2006; European Commission, 2000b; Scottish Government 2009d). These are translated into policy frameworks for rural land use such as the GATT/WTO negotiations and agreements, the Common Agricultural Policy and the Water Framework Directive at international level and the Scottish Forestry Strategy at national level.

2.93 Policy frameworks affect rural land use in Scotland in terms of included

obligations and policy targets and the translation into national law and provide the formal basis for the implementation of policy instruments. Policy instruments such as grants/subsidies, market measures and regulations and designations are targeted at changing or maintaining specific activities and aspects of land use and management and are the most direct type of policy-based land-use drivers. Grants like the Single Farm Payment, Less Favoured Area Support Scheme, agri-environment and forestry payments as well as regulations and designations such as GAEC, national parks and designation

Key messages: Policy drivers are divided into overarching policy objectives, translated into related frameworks, and implemented through specific policy instruments. Frameworks such as the Scottish Forestry Strategy are significant drivers for land use change towards woodlands, delivering a range of ecosystem services. Policy instruments such as targets, grants and regulations are the most direct mechanism to affect land management and use, but the type and number of policy instruments varies between different land use sectors. Grant such as the SFP, LFASS and AEMs and environmental regulations are key policy drivers of agricultural land use and management. Policy targets in the Climate Change Delivery Action Plan and EC renewable energy directives are key drivers for the uptake of different approaches to the provision of renewable energy (e.g. biomass production and large and small scale wind energy). While traditional food crops are not expected to play a major role in future biomass production, short rotation forestry integrated in traditional forest management and on marginal agricultural land has currently the highest potential of providing biomass for renewable energy in Scotland.

41

of protected areas have (and continue to have) significant impacts on agriculture, forestry, nature conservation and tourism and recreation.

2.94 The policy frameworks, instruments and designations are those which most

directly impact on land use and land use change. The following sub-sections discusses some of these frameworks and instruments in more detail.

Policy frameworks - targets - Renewable Energy 2.95 As noted above, the Climate Change Delivery Action Plan current targets of

reducing emissions by 2050 by at least 80% from 1990 levels, an interim emissions reduction target of 34% by 2020, with 50% of gross electricity consumption to come from renewable sources by 2020. The main delivery mechanisms to de-carbonise the electricity generation sector by 2030, as identified in the Scottish Government Climate Change Delivery Plan, are: • Managing demand/changing behaviour • Renewable electricity • Micro- and small-scale production of electricity • Large-scale electricity generation.

2.96 The potential implications for land use include the development and uptake of different approaches to the provision of raw materials (e.g. energy crops), generation (e.g. medium scale hydropower, large and small scale wind energy, and biofuel conversion plants), and transmission (e.g. power lines and associated sub-stations) of electricity.

2.97 Bioenergy production is more likely to focus on existing woodland, farm waste

and low-grade land, with renewable energy increasingly seen as an important potential source of biomass for burning in heating and power installations. To support this, there is a need for a fast growing, dedicated, woody crops that can sustainably meet the biomass demand.

2.98 Short rotation forestry (SRF), i.e. growing trees on a short rotation specifically

to produce biomass, has the potential to make a useful contribution to renewable fuels. Species choice for SRF is driven by the need for fast, early growth of high-density timber. This tends to suggest that broadleaf species should be preferred to conifers. It should also be possible to contribute to biofuels within even-aged conifer management regimes with the removal of small dimension thinnings and woody residues as biomass for the woodfuel market. SRF is also suited for more marginal agricultural land and can be more easily integrated with traditional forest management.

2.99 Short rotation coppice (SRC) with willow is an example of a wood bioenergy

crop with the potential to produces high yields in Scotland (Andersen et al., 2005; Bell, 2007; Scottish Government, 2008b). They are viable for 15-30 years and are harvested on a 3 – 5 year rotation. When established the SRC crops may have a large visual impact forming a tall (up to 8m) dense canopy (Tubby and Armstrong, 2002). Previous experience within the Forestry Commission shows that SRC requires better quality land than SRF to grow effectively. Given the scarcity of such land in Scotland and high grain prices, it is unlikely that SRC will be extensively planted in the near future.

42

2.100 Energy grasses from the genus Miscanthus are currently being developed as

a source of non-woody bioenergy (Rowe et al., 2009). They are fast growing biomass crops that are cultivated on conventional farmland. Due to the shorter growing season and lower temperatures in Scotland the viability of Miscanthus is currently perceived as marginal (FREDS, 2005). However, when future climate change is taken into account Miscanthus may become viable in the Scottish lowlands (Tuck et al., 2006). Miscanthus is very efficient at converting energy from the sun to biomass and long term trials have shown its potential as a renewable energy

2.101 A systematic promotion of renewable energy highlighted in the EU Biomass

Action Plan (2005), followed-up with the EU strategy for biofuels (European Commission, 2006), offers opportunities for innovation, development of energy markets, with locally and regionally oriented value chains and thereby provides new employment opportunities (European Commission, 1997). An example of some of the potential implications of changing woodland cover (in line with the policy target of increasing cover to 25% of Scotland) is illustrated using output from the EU biodiversity project, ALARM (Assessing large scale risks for biodiversity; www.alarmproject.net). Figure 2.10 illustrates the distribution of predicated changes from agriculture to biofuels (Miscanthus and short rotation coppice) for the Grangemouth area, based on a business as usual scenario for the next 50 years, and how these impact on Forest Habitat Networks, using scenarios constructed with approaches developed by Ewert et al. (2005), Rounsevell et al. (2005, 2006).

Figure 2.10 Downscaled ALARM biofuel scenarios and their impact on Forest Habitats Networks for 2050

43

2.102 Other biomass crops can play an important role as a source of renewable energy (e.g. Scottish Parliament Environment and Rural Development Committee, 2006). However, they are physically different from those commonly grown in most rural settings. The possible impacts of converting to large-scale planting of these crops will need to be considered. Unlike arable crops which are mostly annual, biomass crops remain in place for 7 to 25 years, harvesting cycles can be long (1 to 4 years), harvesting is normally in spring and the crops are deep rooting and very dense and tall (3 to 4 m). All of these factors modify the appearance of the rural landscape and have potential implications for tourism, farm income, water use and biodiversity.

2.103 A move towards a Biomass FMA might comprise short rotation (7 to 10 yrs)

willow coppice on arable land, and short rotation broadleaves (15 to 20 yrs) on poorer cultivated agricultural land and short rotation conifers (15 to 20 yrs) on existing afforested land. This would result in a within-field change to the appearance of the countryside with short rotation forestry with ash, sycamore and aspen on less productive areas. There are also landscape impacts of shorter rotations of Sitka spruce and other conifers (e.g. more frequent clear-fell). The effects on biodiversity of these crops are currently being investigated by the Forestry Commission.

Policy targets – Forestry Strategy 2.104 The Scottish Government’s Scottish Forestry Strategy (Forestry Commission

Scotland, 2006) sets out a framework for an integrated, cross-sectoral approach to the use and enjoyment of woodlands and forests into the future. Within this there are targets to increase forest cover in Scotland from 17% of the total land cover to 25% across all forest management alternatives. This will result in a wide range of changes in land-use which are likely across all rural land use sectors and sets out to deliver a range of outcomes: • Helping to tackle greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon sequestration,

timber and fuel production. • Restoring lost habitats and adapting to climate change. Forest habitat

networks and new native woodlands. • Helping to manage ecosystem services. Sustainable flood management,

and protection of soil and water resources. • Underpinning a sustainable forest products industry. Consistent and

reliable timber supply for timber processing and wood fuel investments. • Supporting rural development. Supporting local businesses and farm

diversification. • Providing community benefits. Provision of welcoming and well-managed

woodlands in and around communities and where health and community need is greatest.

• Enhancing urban areas and improving landscapes. Improving derelict, underused and neglected land, improving degraded or unsightly environments and diversifying farmed landscapes.

2.105 An aim is to enable the expansion of the area of woodland cover, managed to

deliver on a range of ecosystem services, such as as described by Haines-Young et al. (2006) and Haines-Young and Potschin (2008) in research for Defra. The predictions of how this can be achieved (Forestry Commission

44

Scotland, 2006) showed that there is potential for a further 16% (1.3 M ha) of Scotland which is potentially suited for woodlands. This excludes areas where there are biological and existing land use constraints.

2.106 A further 28% (2.2 M ha) was found to be potentially suitable but with possible

constraints in relation to better quality agricultural land (Land Capability for Agriculture classes 1, 2 and 3.1; Bibby et al., 1991), important hill grazing land and ‘wild and remote’ bare land. However, such extension of woodlands will only be achievable in the context of the other drivers of land use change within Scotland, which are summarised in Table 2.3. The forest grant schemes are the mechanism for delivering the Scottish Forestry Strategy, which have been designed to promote sustainable forest management across all management alternatives.

Table 2.3 Area of existing land cover suited for future woodland creation

Indicative total area of land type in

Scotland Possible woodland creation scenario

Land type

K/ha K/ha % land cover type

Built-up 150 10 7% Arable and temporary grassland 900 50 5%

Permanent improved grassland 900 170 19%

Semi-natural grassland/ bracken 1500 290 19%

Shrub heath 2100 130 6% Deep peat 400 0 0% 2.107 Figure 2.10 illustrates the geographic distribution of potential for conifer

plantations of Sitka spruce, the dominant commercial tree species in Scotland constituting 47% of all woodland and approximately 58% of coniferous woodland. Sitka spruce is likely to remain the major tree species underpinning the Scottish timber processing industry until 2050.

2.108 Figure 2.11 shows the areas of potential for new native woodlands to

contribute to Biodiversity Action Plan objectives. These are split into the different types of native woodland found in Scotland. Areas not suitable for native woodland may have the potential for scattered native trees to grow but are unlikely to develop into woodland and support the associated woodland biodiversity. The maps were derived using the Forest Research Ecological Site Classification (ESC) for woodland and potential woodland (www.forestresearch.gov.uk/esc), which predicts site suitability for tree species or habitat types based on a combination of environmental and climatic conditions. The biophysical and critical constraints indicate areas where woodland expansion would not be appropriate.

45

Figure 2.10 Potential areas for woodland and current woodland, derived using the Ecological Site Classification

Figure 2.11 Woodland Habitat Action Plan (HAP) and semi-natural land cover in areas identified as suitable for woodland expansion

2.109 One mechanism for encouraging the uptake of woodland planting, to assist in

achieving the targets set is the National Forest Land Scheme. This gives community organisations, recognised non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and/or appropriate housing bodies the opportunity to buy or lease National Forest Land where they can provide increased public benefits. The result is expected to be the deforestation of surplus land (i.e. that land which makes little net contribution to Forestry Commission Scotland’s public policy objectives), thus leading to a shift of land use from forestry towards social housing.

Grants and farm payments 2.110 The returns through the Single Application Form (SAF) enabled the mapping

of the land uses on farm holdings of businesses in receipt of grants and payments for Scotland. Agricultural land-use classes have been derived with respect to selected drivers, (see Appendix 7), which has matched the land use reported in the IACS, for 2007, with individual drivers. Figure 2.12(a) shows that the mix of land uses is strongly regionally differentiated with an intensity gradient decreasing from southeast to northwest matched by an increasing dependence of businesses on semi-natural land cover resources. Figure 2.12(b) shows the distribution of the diversity of land uses per business for 2007, again with a broad pattern of greater diversity apparent in the east of Scotland (from the Borders to Aberdeenshire and Inverness), consistent with the greater flexibility in soil and climatic conditions in these areas, compared with western Scotland and the west and northern isles. Individual businesses

46

covering large areas are also identifiable in upland and western Scotland which have greater diversity in land uses8.

2.111 The limitations to changes in land-based businesses identified in the

telephone questionnaire in Chapter 3, included biophysical constraints (e.g. land capability and availability), socio-economic constraints (e.g. unsuitability of infrastructure), and regulatory constraints (e.g. planning permission). Of these constraints, the underlying capability of the land for agricultural activities can be inferred from the mapping of Land Capability for Agriculture (LCA) (Bibby et al., 1991).

2.112 The distribution of land uses was mapped for 2007, for the 71% of Scotland

for which claims were made through the Single Application Form (SAF). Figure 2.13 shows a comparison of land uses with: (a) the absolute areas per LCA class, and (b) the proportions of land use type by LCA class.

Figure 2.12(a) Land-use classification to match headline drivers, derived from returns in the IACS for 2007

Figure 2.12(b) Number of land uses per business, derived from returns in the IACS for 2007

8 Care needs to be taken in interpreting the diversity maps as the numbers depend entirely on the specificity of the classification scheme used, the more specific classification the greater the apparent diversity. Some of the classes are also cover-based and thus do not on their own differentiate between enterprises, e.g. the many possible use of grassland and woodlands.

47

Figure 2.13(a) Agricultural land-use classes reported as total area per Land Capability Class (LCA). Data derived from the SAF, 2007

Figure 2.13(b) Proportions of Land Capability Class (LCA) occupied by agricultural land-use classes. Data derived from the SAF, 2007

2.113 Figure 2.13(b) shows the proportion of each LCA class devoted to particular

land uses making clear the three fold nature of Scotland land use – arable, grassland and semi-natural grazings. The best quality land, classes 1 and 2, are dominated by spring and winter cereals, which occupy over 50% of these areas, and 43% of class 3.1. It is on these three classes that most energy crops are also currently grown. Only 4.8% of the land in LCA classes 1 to 3.2 has a land use reported as Environmental Management, with a maximum of 1% of any class occupied by woodlands and forestry (i.e. farm woodlands). Grassland is the dominant current land use of LCA classes 3.1 to 5.1, which is mainly used for upland grazing. However, most agricultural claims are on LCA class 6.3 (39.1% of the area claimed) in Scotland, of which 69.9% is rough grazing.

2.114 Changes in climate would change the capability of land for agriculture (Brown

et al., 2008) and the range and distribution of land uses. The predominantly waterlogged, acid soils currently mainly used for rough grazing (LCA class 6) could progressively dry out seasonally and offer a greater flexibility of land use, and those dominated in heather moorland (LCA class 5), support more improved grassland. Progressively, the areas of highest quality and flexibility in the range of crops may become suited for cereals, energy crops, but require more management support through irrigation.

2.115 It is proposed that support for Less Favoured Areas be based on natural

disadvantage based on a set of nine standard biophysical criteria including climate, topography, and a number of soil factors. Previously, designation was based on socio-economic criteria but the EU have expressed concern at the apparent lack of consistency and objectivity in their application across Europe. At the time of writing, work is progressing to determine how this change may affect the LFA boundary (and consequently payments); a limited redistribution of the £61 million annual budget remains a possibility.

2.116 The pattern of payments for the Less Favoured Area Support Scheme

(LFASS), Single Farm Payment (SFP) and Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) are shown for 2007 (Scottish Government 2009c) (Figure

48

3.10). The illustrations are of the total payments per business at the level of the holding, and left blank (i.e. ‘white’) are those for which there is no payment. As the maps show payments per business they thus incorporate the effects of the structure of land ownership.9

2.117 The pattern of eligibility for LFASS payments around the upland areas of

Scotland, but with low values in the Western Isles, and some areas through the west and central Highlands is shown in Figure 2.14(a). The pattern of total SFP payment is shown in Figure 2.14(b), with the lowest total payments being made to businesses in the Western Isles and north-west Scotland. Higher rates of SFP are associated with areas that had higher rates of stocking under historical (pre-2002) support schemes, in particular south-west Scotland. Other areas with higher rates include those associated with arable aid payments.

2.118 Figure 2.14(c) shows the pattern of total SRDP payments, with low total

payments for areas such as the Western Isles, Shetland Isles and much of the north-west of Scotland. The highest total payments are to areas of Sutherland, Speyside, upland Angus and south-west to Argyll, and upland areas of the Borders, South Lanarkshire and Wigtownshire. SRDP payments are particularly interesting since they show the most striking local contrasts, reflecting choices about land management regimen (rather than just land use) made by individual land managers (e.g. the differences between businesses in Aberdeenshire). However, access to advice relating to such payment mechanisms is highlighted as an issue in the informant interviews (Chapter 3, Grants, para. 3.51 to 3.53).

2.119 As part of the Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP), new grants

have been introduced aiming to deliver targeted environmental, social and economic benefits from forests. The SRDP combines a range of formerly separate support schemes, including those covering the farming, forestry and primary processing sectors, rural enterprise and business development, diversification and rural tourism. Grant support will be delivered through a number of forestry-specific (e.g. short rotation coppice crops of Willow or Poplar) and non-specific (e.g. support for renewable energy – forestry) options, including those of climate change mitigation. Some of these options require a five year commitment while others are one year. They are non-competitive and open to all managers with land in Scotland (Forestry Commission Scotland, 2008).

9 Since some businesses are made up of multiple holdings across two or more regions the maps can contain “artifacts” such as land in non-LFA areas being shown as receiving LFASS payments

49

Figure 2.14(a) Distribution of payments of LFASS to businesses in 2007

Figure 2.14(b) Distribution of payments of SFP to businesses in 2007

Figure 2.14(c) Distribution of payments of SRDP to businesses in 2007

50

Designations 2.120 The principal mechanism for the protection and enhancement of natural

heritage in Scotland, is through a suite of designations of international, national and local stature. Figure 2.15 shows the coverage of international and national designations for flora, fauna and landscapes, but excludes Historic Gardens and Designed landscapes (due to the scale of representation) and archaeological designations. It also shows the extensive areas of peatland protected under RAMSARs in Lewis, Caithness and Sutherland, plus coastal areas in the south, and stretches of the Firths of Firth and Tay, and the Inner Moray Firth. The designation specifically targeting landscapes (i.e. NSAs) is predominantly in the west coast, Western Isles, Lochaber and the Cairngorms. The increase in native woodlands within natural reserves and close nature forestry (FMAs 1 and 2) will help to attain Biodiversity Action Plan targets for woodland habitats and dependent species.

2.121 The designations will each have different implications for prospective land use

and land-use change, constraining some options and encouraging others. Wider designations, such as Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZs) are not shown, but have implications for choices for land uses with consideration to downstream effects, therefore not specific to the site of the change (see Chapter 3, Regulations, para. 3.49). Similarly, designations with landscape-related objectives, such as NSAs or National Parks, can experience impacts due to change beyond their boundary (e.g. impacts on the setting of a National Park or designed landscape).

2.122 Long-term impacts on rural land use in Scotland will result from existing and

additional National Parks and other protected area designations. However, the two Scottish national parks have a very different purpose and governance structure to other designations. The objectives of each are subtly different, but a common objective is to deliver economic, social and environmental sustainability. This can raise the prospect of competing pressures (e.g. supporting objectives of increased renewable energy provision, whilst protecting natural heritage and landscapes).

51

Figure 2.15 Distribution of international and national landscape and natural heritage

designations Policy regulations – planning 2.123 The recent consultation on Scottish Planning Policy (SPP)

(www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/04/01132105/4), within its item on sustainable development, identifies the need to consider reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and adaptation of the impacts of climate change throughout the planning system. This aligns with the Scottish Government’s Climate Change delivery Plan,10 in which there is a commitment to develop a Land Use Strategy for Scotland by March 2011, supporting a coherent approach to satisfying multiple demands on Scotland’s land use.

2.124 For strategic planning, issues such as Scotland’s capacity to provide food and

energy, as well as limits of acceptable change in the landscape set increasingly pressing demands on our use of land, and abilities to future-proof against drivers of change. Environmental, economic and social issues associated with agriculture are often fundamental for rural prosperity and sustainability, with consequent implications for future land use.

2.125 Given an acceptance and understanding of the drivers of land-use change,

the question is what combination of land uses can co-exist which deliver on issues as wide as sustainable economic growth, carbon management, whilst

10 www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/276273/0082934.pdf

52

also contributing to health benefits and biodiversity? Recognition that not everything can be achieved everywhere raises questions as to the appropriateness of the scale within which to consider how change in one place can affect change in another. Implicit is the understanding that some activities may be considered to be of national importance, but not necessarily consistent with local priorities.

2.126 With heightened interest in how land might be used in future, meeting public

expectations of participation in decision-making is important. The Scottish Planning Policy consultation includes questions on the expectations for community engagement, and describe its enhanced role in the modernised planning system, with statutory requirements for pre-application consultation with communities (see also, SG Planning Advice Note 81 on Community Engagement). The relevance of this issue is consistent with the findings relating to community engagement, and the role of communities in decision-making reported in Chapter 3.

2.127 The consultation on Scottish Planning Policy recognised that ‘Better

engagement cannot guarantee that everyone gets the decisions or outcomes that they desire.’ However, it does provide for statutory pre-application consultations to enable communities to contribute views prior to a formal application for planning permission. In this it seeks to: • enable communities to become involved in shaping the future of their

area; • clearly explain the basis and justification for policies, land allocations,

infrastructure priorities and decisions; • make the consideration between competing and, in some cases,

conflicting interests explicit and transparent.

2.128 There is also an aspiration that early consultation can contribute to speeding the process of applications, whilst adding value, and engendering a greater sense of confidence and fairness in the process.

2.129 At a strategic planning level there is a need to frame issues within an

integrated framework for land-use decisions. Policy targets or stakeholder requirements for land require to be evaluated against physical constraints such as land capability, to produce spatially explicit scenarios of land-use change (e.g. options for accommodating different priorities, such as the land valued for nature conservation, carbon storage in soils or vegetation, or flood management regimes).

2.130 By considering land ‘demand’ and land ‘supply’, it is possible to screen

unviable alternatives and identify those that can deliver sustainable development with multiple functions and benefits (sometimes referred to as ‘ecosystem services’). The aim would be to encourage ‘future proofing’ of spatial plans and policies, especially against issues such as climate change.

2.131 At present, the potential benefits of moving towards a more adaptive, multi-

functional landscape (defined as so being by Mander et al., 2007 because of their ‘… simultaneous support of habitat, productivity, regulatory, social and

53

economic functions’, citing also de Groot, 1987) are often more the subject of research than action, but the process for evolving the strategic visions for the regions around Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow, and preparation of local plans is now embracing the principles and considering their implementation. These fit within the wider aims of the National Planning Framework.

2.132 From the National Planning Framework 2, two overviews of development are

provided. Figure 2.16(a) shows the main elements of spatial strategy at a national level, highlighting corridors of key economic development and strategic transport routes, identified as supporting development to 2030. It also identifies the potential extent of the Central Scotland Green Network.

2.133 Figure 2.16(b) shows the strategic overview of national developments and

natural heritage designations from the National Planning Framework 2 (Scottish Government, 2008d). It illustrates the broad geographic pattern of investment in energy infrastructure, and nationally significant developments, including transport hubs and routes and industrial development. Associated with such investments will be new, or upgraded, local transport facilities, and potential implications for existing land uses due to electricity grid reinforcements.

Figure 2.16(a) National designations, National Planning Framework for Scotland 2 (source: Scottish Government, 2008d)

Figure 2.16(b) National designations, National Planning Framework for Scotland 2 (source: Scottish Government, 2008d)

54

Cultural and Social Factors

Land manager – Attitudes (business development) 2.134 The role of grants, reported in Chapter 3, para. 3.51, is that they are viewed

by land managers as mainly a means of achieving their strategic aims, but do provide support for opportunistic change, through assistance for change if suitably motivated.

2.135 Figure 2.17 illustrates the change in the distribution of the size and number of

farm businesses returning a Single Application Form (SAF) for 2000 and 2007. The increase between the two years is due to the number of active database records which link fields to businesses. The overall number of businesses participating in government-funded schemes is increasing (Figure 2.17a): in 2007 there were 1,879 businesses less than or equal to 3 ha (1,598 in 2000), 4,786 (4,670 in 2000) of between 50 and 100 ha, and 145 (86 in 2000) greater than 6,000 ha.

Key messages: Land tenure is recognised as significant as a cause and constraint to decisions on land-use change. The patterns of ownership of land will contribute to different levels of change across Scotland, even when accounting for biophysical differences. The literature review also suggests that the lack of successors is an important social driver of land-use change in the case of family farms. Structural changes in the agricultural sector such as changes in business sizes affect land use and management. The direct determinants of such structural changes are: gender (male), age (young), business inherited from previous generation, discussion with banks, land size (large), intention to pass on the business (positive), changes in government funding, succession planning, and attitudes towards changing size of business. Extensive changes in land use will impact on the character of the landscape, including on historic land-use patterns and culturally important features. Public attitudes and beliefs will strongly influence the nature and rate of change, expressed trough the planning process and behavioural changes.

55

Figure 2.17(a) Distribution of the size and number of farm businesses for 2000 and 2007, derived from IACS data

Figure 2.17(b) Distribution of the size and combined area of farm businesses for 2000 and 2007, derived from IACS data

2.136 Figure 2.17(b) in contrast shows the importance of large businesses in terms

of the area managed. Most of the increasing area of businesses making SAF returns 1,700,000 ha (960,000 ha in 2000) has been in the largest business classes (6000, 12,000 and >12,000). The change in participation reflects the changing nature of support schemes with more opportunities for environmental management, supported by the findings of the informant and questionnaire research, reported in Chapter 3.

2.137 Structural equation modelling (based on the telephone questionnaire)

provides further insights into the increasing scale of large farm businesses. The outputs (Appendix 8, Figure A8.1) show an 83% level of prediction of the intention to increase the size of the business. The direct determinants of this are: gender (male), age (young), business inherited from previous generation, discussion with banks, land size (large), intention to pass on the business (positive), changes in government funding, succession planning, and attitudes towards changing size of business.

2.138 Indirect influences are land availability, legacy issues, income from

government support, and attitudes towards business (focus on production, highest outputs, reduce input costs). Attitudes towards increasing business size, and discussions with bank managers, have the strongest influence, demonstrating the important role the banking system plays in land-based business expansion. Some of these findings are to be expected, e.g. decision-makers who focus on economics are interested in increasing the overall size of their business (Calus et al., 2008).

2.139 Models were run separately for businesses with forestry land (sample size

190) and farmers (sample size 478). The results were similar to the overall model, although 'attitudes towards size change' and 'discussion with banks' have a slightly stronger influence in the 'farmers' model. Discussing changes in size of business with banks was the strongest predictor, followed by land size, perceived impact of changes to government funding, attitudes towards increasing size of business and gender.

2.140 One difference between the models for forestry and that of the overall model

is the higher influence of ‘land size’, which may suggest that it is the larger

56

forest businesses which would be looking to expand. The variables included in the forestry model were found to predict 54% of the intention to change the size of the business. This can be expected to impact on the potential for other use of the land, such as pasture or grazing, as the timescales for change relate to the present capability of the land for trees.

Land manager - Ownership 2.141 Land tenure is recognised as significant as a cause and constraint to

decisions on land-use change. Figure 2.18 shows the proportions of types of tenure for farmed land as reported in IACS and the June Agricultural Census (JAC), for three NUTS 4 regions which reflect the extremes in differences across Scotland: Western Isles, East Lothian and the Orkney Islands. Maps of the distribution of land ownership with respect to crofting in Scotland are provided in Appendix 9.

2.142 In the Western Isles, 84% of businesses are rented crofts, compared with

11% owned, or 5% with combinations of ownership and rental. However, rented holdings only occupy 33.6% of the land area reported in the June Agricultural Census for 2007, and 24.7% of such land is occupied by rented crofts. The number of holdings managed in East Lothian is 80% owned, with 78.4% of the land area managed by the owner. The areas for these two NUTS 4 regions compare with that of Orkney where 89% of holdings are owned by the land managers, equivalent to 90.4% of the area owned and managed, and 31.3% of the total area occupied by owned crofts.

57

Figure 2.18(a) Area of land managed by the owner or rented in the Western Isles

Figure 2.18(b) Number and percentage of holdings managed by the owner or rented in the Western Isles

Figure 2.18(c) Area of land managed by the owner or rented in East Lothian

Figure 2.18(d) Number and percentage of holdings managed by the owner or rented in East Lothian

Figure 2.18(e) Area of land managed by the owner or rented in Orkney

Figure 2.18(f) Number and percentage of holdings managed by the owner or rented in Orkney

Note: These data comes from the JAC (2005-07). Legend:- SLA Ten. - Small Land Owners Act; 91 A Ten. – 1991 Act Tenancy; 91 A Ltd – 1991 Act Limited Partnership; SLDT – Short Limited Duration Tenancy; Limited Duration Tenancy. Heritage 2.143 In Scotland, there are an estimated 8,099 Scheduled Ancient Monuments

(SAMs, RCAHMS, 2009), contributing significantly to the character of Scotland’s landscape. There are also around 46,329 listed buildings (in

58

2007), and 386 Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes (2007). The greatest geographical cluster of Landscape Character Assessment classes with such features identified in the key to this dataset is the Lothians, most noticeably East Lothian, where the land cover includes ‘policy woodlands’, settlement includes ‘large houses’ and other features includes ‘Designed landscapes’.

2.144 Agriculture is associated with a wide range of “cultural landscapes” in

Scotland. Surveys of land cover and landscape have reported on the amalgamation of fields and simplification of field patterns in lowland agricultural areas (Scottish Natural Heritage, 2002b), with removal or deterioration of field boundaries and enlargement of fields as associated changes in the landscape due to reduced levels of management. The same issue is reported in several assessments of landscape character, with recommended management aims to conserve or protect defined field patterns from enlargement and loss of boundaries (e.g. in the agricultural heartlands of NE Scotland; Environmental Resources Management, 1997).

2.145 Changes in landscape patterns can have direct impacts on landscape

functions (e.g. loss of ecological structure) and cultural features (e.g. archaeological or built heritage). Research on landscape value shows that people are sensitive to landscape character.

2.146 The distribution of sites with historic association, as mapped by the Ordnance

Survey in 2005, is shown in Figure 2.19. These include cairns and prehistoric sites, memorials, castles and fortifications, and roman remains, and will include almost all of the SAMs. The highest concentration is in forests of the Southern Uplands, reflecting the number of Duns, forts, field systems, hut circles and cairns (although cairns will not always have historic significance and could inflate the results). Other areas include northern Caithness, in areas of mixed agriculture and settlement, craggy uplands of north Argyll, Tayside and the Cairngorms, all of which have extensive coverage of settlement labelled as derelict sheilings and other features of historic artifacts. In such areas, proposals for wind farms have been a cause of debate, with potentially negative impacts on the landscape and historic setting.

59

Figure 2.19 Number of sites representing historic interest by landscape character

polygon (as mapped in 2005) 2.147 Landscape character assessments for Scotland, such as that for

Aberdeenshire (Environmental Resources Management, 1997) and the Inverness district (Richards, 1999), note that forces for change from intensification of farming and management aims should be to improve drystone dykes and hedges. One impact is losses in the ‘distinction of the field patterns which (are) characteristic of this landscape’ (Richards, 1999), whereas, small fields impose variety in crop types and thus ‘ever-changing colours’ through the year, increases in the size of field, and monoculture negatively impacts on the landscape’s character.

2.148 Similarly, the Farmed and Wooded Foothills of Inverness-shire are

characterised by active agricultural management with 19th century field patterns providing a sense of place, with small fields associated with small farms and settlements. By comparison, amalgamated fields used for improved pasture cause uniformity and a loss of visual and seasonal diversity; in Wooded Glens in Inverness-shire small, pastoral, fields are ‘a key characteristic’ which can be lost with changes in agricultural practices.

2.149 Use of the Historic Land Use Assessment (HS and RCAHMS, 2005) enables

interpretation of the distribution of relict field patterns (e.g. from the 17th to 19th century). For example, in central and north-east Scotland the rectilinear patterns remain and have not been replaced, but these are restricted to areas such as the Cairngorm Straths, and Uplands and Glens. In such areas features like derelict shielings and steadings contribute to the sense of place,

60

and losses to intensive grazing, or woodland expansion could be inconsistent with the character of the area. Areas in which field patterns have been modernised are in the vicinity of the City of Aberdeen, where forestry and grazing are the dominant land uses.

Discussion of Drivers with Respect to Decision-Making

2.150 The drivers cause changes in state in land use. Specific examples of the nature and extent of changes have been presented above, such as demographic change creating pressures of new housing in rural areas, or changes in emphasis between winter and spring cereals and their impacts on biodiversity.

2.151 Such changes are not predictable with accuracy, particularly with respect to

the impact on land use of the choices made by the decision-maker. Some generic elements of change can be identified and are briefly discussed here with respect to their economic and social impacts, with a view to the issues to be addressed in Chapter 3. More detailed discussion of impacts is provided in Rural Land Use Study Project 2 (Slee et al., 2009).

2.152 The types of economic impacts of drivers cut across all land-use sectors, in

positive and negative ways. Higher market prices (i.e. an increase in production and income of land managers) provide greater incentive and return to farmers. Current direct payments such as the SFP and LFASS support the income of farm households and, in the case of the SFP, provide increased flexibility to adjust land use to prevailing market conditions and, in the case of LFASS, safeguard upland cattle and sheep systems (Gelan and Schwarz, 2008). The extent to which these are relied upon by farmers is an issue for which new data are collected in this study (presented in Chapter 3).

2.153 Production from agricultural land can be adversely impacted by higher input

prices, leading to decreases in production and income for land managers with potential negative spill-over effects on up- and down-stream industries. Demand for housing and in-migration increases competition for land leading to the transfer of land out of agriculture. This may bring economic benefits to the seller, the implications of which could include other investments in agricultural activity. However, the extent of immediately available land is permanently reduced (Burton et al., 2005).

2.154 The lack of a successor can be expected to result in farms being split, or farm

buildings split from the surrounding land. Future investments in farming are then likely to be lost (Burton et al., 2005). Questions about the future intentions of farmers with respect to succession, and intentions for land use are included in the surveys in Chapter 3.

2.155 As for agriculture, so high timber prices provide greater economic return for

forest land uses. Forest payments, and public sector investments in improved road and rail infrastructure also support forestry. Each of these aids in the delivery of policies to increase forest cover, and woodland contributions

61

towards highly biodiverse and good quality landscapes provide assets for marketing to tourists, thus wider economic benefits. A further benefit is that gained from the development of new opportunities for local business for community woodlands and tourism.

2.156 However, impacts of low timber prices which reduce economic return from

forestry will limit the appeal and uptake amongst land managers. Similarly, attitudes and beliefs towards the use of land for agriculture rather than forestry may be a significant constraint on woodland expansion, particularly given the long-term ‘lock-in’ for land use which it represents.

2.157 Drivers of energy security, with European, UK and Scottish aims of increasing

the development of energy from renewable sources, provide identifiable benefits to rural areas. These include broadening the base of energy supply, diversification of the employment base and capital investment, and diversification of income for land managers, depending upon large or small-scale renewable energy development. New business opportunities in the renewables, environmental, consultancy and maintenance industries are created, as is the prospect of community funds coming from direct investments in wind energy developments.

2.158 Negative economic impacts in the food sector might arise through the loss of

land from agricultural production to biomass production. Impacts on landscapes may also arise where agricultural or forestry energy crops are inconsistent with the character of the landscape. Similarly, negative impacts on landscape due to poor siting and design could adversely impact on landscapes and consequently on tourism.

2.159 In the wider rural economy, positive impacts of drivers, such as higher market

prices, across land-use sectors, including sporting uses, recreation and small business exploiting digital communications infrastructure, will spill over to up- and down-stream industries (e.g. services industries) and the prospect of a wider skill-base. However, a lack of transport and infrastructure is likely to provide disincentives for economic activities and new investments, as does the out-migration of skills and expertise to urban areas.

2.160 The potential impacts of such drivers underpin reasons for questions to land

use decision-makers about their business priorities, such as to provide local employment.

2.161 Two broad areas of social impacts of drivers are those of social capital and

networks, and employment. Increased market prices contribute to a more economically viable farming sector, with increased need for labour in primary sectors and down- and up-stream industries. LFASS is one grant scheme which supports social capital and networks within remoter rural communities, through maintenance of agricultural activities. SRDP provides some support for traditional land-based skills in rural areas and positive employment effects from agri-environmental measures and other socio-economic measures (Moran and Hussain, 2006; Schwarz et al., 2006), including cultural issues such as landscape (e.g. Burgess et al., 2009).

62

2.162 Therefore, the broadly beneficial social impacts of these policy instrument

drivers would be to strengthen the social capital and networks of farming and rural communities. This may aid in attracting new entrants to farming, or encouraging successors in the long term.

2.163 However, aided by the Single Farm Payment, large scale extensification and

agricultural sector abandonment could weaken the social fabric of rural (farming) communities in remoter areas. Reduced numbers of farmers and farm families would also have negative impacts on social capital and networks, and patterns of in-and out-migration in rural areas could change the socio-demographic profile of a local area such that it led to lower social capital and weaker social networks (Schwarz et al., 2006; Burton et al., 2005).

2.164 Lack of public transport, or investment in transport networks, can be expected

to decrease accessibility, increase travel times, and accentuate poor connectivity between rural and urban areas. A likely consequence is reduced economic activity with fewer employment opportunities. Changes in demographic profile towards an older population would be expected to result in a reduction in the proportion of people in employment, a loss of traditional skills, and lack of newer skills provided within an area.

2.165 It is recognised that accepted public attitudes and values may change over

time, and that the effect of these as drivers of change in land use may be significant, both at a level of influencing national policy (e.g. genetically modified food and crops, Burke, 2004), and a local levels (e.g. in relation to specific planning applications for change). There are potentially significant differences of opinion and attitude between those living in urban and rural areas towards rural land uses, such as farming (e.g. Glenn and Hill, 1977), windfarms (e.g. Coleby et al. 2009), or of characteristics of landscapes such as wilderness (e.g. Lutz et al., 1999). The implications of such differences may vary across Scotland, reflecting the changes in demographic profile and patterns of migration discussed above.

2.166 The potential social impacts of drivers on land uses require evidence to

support their interpretation, which may be gathered through asking land use decision-makers about business priorities, attitudes and roles and interactions seek to inform on some of the potential social impacts of drivers, as was done in the primary element of this study, which is reported on in the next chapter.

63

3 DECISION-MAKING 3.1 This chapter reports on the findings from both the qualitative stakeholder

informant interviews and the quantitative telephone survey of a representative sample of land use decision-makers across Scotland, which were informed by the findings of a preliminary literature review. Statements attributed to specific stakeholder informants are noted throughout the text. For further details on the methodology, see Chapter 1.

3.2 For ease of explanation, the analysis was organised to reflect the research

objectives described in Chapter 1: • Land use decision-making processes • Attitudes and constraints • Types of land use decision-maker • Sources of information • Key actors, influences and constraints • The role of rural communities

Land Use Decision-Making Processes 3.3 The actual process of land use decision-making has received relatively little

attention in the rural studies and land-use literature. Instead, most literature focuses on the influences on the land use decision-making process (the ‘why’, rather than the ‘how’ of decision-making) (for Scottish Government funded work on influences on decision-making see Burton, 2004; Burton et al. 2008; Gotts et al., 2009; Sutherland, 2009). This section presents findings on how decisions are made: the process of decision-making, the number of people involved, prompts and frequency of strategy change, and the time horizon over which land use decision-makers plan. Subsequent sections focus on the ‘why’ of decision-making.

3.4 In this study, the stakeholders who were interviewed as ‘key informants’, for

the professional or sectoral view they could bring, had difficulty describing a step-by-step decision-making process undertaken by individual land users. Key informants were inconsistent about the degree to which individual decision-makers plan, with some indicating that many farmers operate largely on instinct (member of Scottish Estates and Business Group, SEBG), but others indicating that in recent years farmers have become accustomed to developing business plans in order to gain funding for new ventures (agricultural banker). However, for groups, key informants were able to

Key messages: There are very different land use decision-making processes taking place, depending on whether the decision is made by a sole trader or a collective; the latter tended to have more formal procedures. The other main difference refers to land uses with statutory requirements for consultation and planning permission, which tend to involve longer time scales and involve actors beyond the immediate family or business partners.

64

describe processes very clearly, typically an established set of ‘corporate’-style procedures whereby staff raised ideas, supported these with a business case as to costs and consistency with organisational goals, and presented this to various levels of management for approval. As such, the process very much reflected the organisational structure of the group, with the highest level of management having the final approval over the decision to proceed. These group structures were more likely to be found in non-agricultural/crofting land uses.

3.5 Similarly, findings from questionnaire respondents demonstrated that the

number of people involved in making the decision varies with the organisational structure of the entity concerned: 12.5% reported making decisions within the extended family, 16.7% business partners, and 1% for both public employees and board of directors. However, the majority reported making decisions either independently (37.8%) or within the household (33%), consistent with the notion of the ‘family farm’ and croft.

3.6 Informants indicated that the number of people involved in making a decision

increases exponentially if the number of people consulted is included. For example, a decision that requires planning permission will involve planners, and other participants as required, such as SNH and landscape architects. Decisions which do not involve planning permission can feasibly be undertaken by one individual.

3.7 Frequency of strategic decision-making for both individuals/households and

groups was in the 1 to 5 year range. Just 10% of the telephone survey respondents reported planning for 10 or more years into the future. This finding appears to refer to shorter term decisions, such as intensity and mix of commodities, as informants indicated that longer term vision was more consistent over time. Several informants indicated that decision-makers have been having to adjust their strategies more frequently in recent years, in response to changes occurring in policy and market arenas (see later comments about uncertainty for decision-makers).

3.8 Informants reported that more intermediate changes in strategy tended to

occur when a new opportunity arises (such as being approached by a windfarm developer), or there was evidence of a need (most commonly due to insufficient income). Longer term strategic changes on-farm often occurred around the issue of succession: the addition of a new decision-maker and his or her ideas to the unit, or the lack of a successor leading to a reduced investment in the enterprise, resulting in strategic change occurring once in a generation. Some of the group decision-makers, such as the John Muir Trust and a member of SEBG, undertake five-yearly review processes, within a longer term vision which span decades. As such, strategic decision-making often falls within the larger parameters of the group’s formal purpose, or the goals of the current decision-making authority.

3.9 The type of commodity produced also had an impact on planning strategy;

forestry is clearly a commodity which requires intergenerational thinking

65

(Chapter 2, Figure 2.1), whereas field crops can be changed on an annual basis (e.g. Chapter 2, Cultural and Social drivers).

Attitudes and Priorities

3.10 In order to develop a typology of land managers from the telephone

questionnaire, data were analysed in two stages. The first stage was a principal component analysis of attitudes and priorities; the second stage was the definition of a typology, in which land managers were identified as addressing multiple components (presented in Section 3.20). The findings on attitudes and priorities are useful in themselves, and are discussed here, in conjunction with findings from the key informant interviews.

3.11 Stage one identified clusters of attitudes and priorities, based on responses

found to be important in other studies of the land-use sector. Using a five point Likert scale, respondents were asked the degree to which they agreed with each of these statements. Principal component analysis was then used to identify themes which were consistent between individuals. Five key themes emerged from this analysis and are shown in Table 3.1.

3.12 The first attitudinal theme reveals a productionist approach, related to

maximising efficiencies within the business by reducing costs. The second theme relates solely to diversifying activity on niche markets. Both suggest a strong economic motivation for land use decision-making among respondents. However, the priority of “to make enough money to keep my family comfortable” (79.5%) scored higher than “to obtain the greatest profit from my resources” (73%). This is consistent with literature which suggests that land managers (particularly farmers) are not entirely profit driven (see Gasson and Errington, 1993 for multiple farming objectives).

3.13 The importance of economics varied by sectors, but was most strongly held

among private foresters, where the primary motivation appeared to be economic. In the qualitative interviews, informants indicated that forestry is often used as part of an investment portfolio, to make profit and as a tax shelter against capital gains and inheritance tax. This economic motivation is even clearer when it is also noted that forestry is usually carried out and managed by professional agents and does not bring any lifestyle benefits to the land owners, who often live ‘off-site’.

Key messages: The questionnaire analysis identified five attitudinal groups across the sectors (economic, diversification, environmental responsibility, ecological and community). Informant interviews and survey data suggested that most actors have to achieve some economic success before they can act on other motivations or achieve other goals. Responsibility for the environment appeared as strongly in priorities as economic attitudes. This appears to reflect the importance of land, as opposed to a strong orientation towards wildlife and conservation. The particular importance of community in respondent attitudes was much stronger than the literature review suggested.

66

Table 3.1 Main attitude themes and significant statements Theme Category Significant Statements Production ‘I always aim to have the highest levels of output from the use of my resources’

‘On a business/holding of this size you must be focused on production/services if you are to survive’

‘My main concern is to reduce the costs of my inputs’ Diversifying ‘Focusing on niche markets is the way to improve profits within this industry’ ‘Diversifying one's business/holding is the right way to go’ Responsibility ‘Other industries pollute more than mine and should be penalised more’ ‘Environmental measures should be paid for by the government’

‘It is fair that I should be held responsible for environmental damage my business may cause in this community’

Ecology ‘Land managers should be responsible towards the soil condition on their land’ ‘Land managers should be responsible towards the wildlife on their land’ Community ‘My land provides considerable benefits to the local area’ ‘My business/holding provides benefits to rural Scotland’ ‘Using workers and staff from the local labour force is important to me’ ‘Being part of the local community is important to me’ ‘I make decisions that will benefit people who inherit this land’

3.14 Economic motivations also influenced the other three themes; informants

indicated that, as a general principle, only once economic conditions had been satisfied could land managers focus on their other priorities. Informants indicated that in the vast majority of cases there was an economic motivation attached to land management, ranging from trying to make as much profit as possible, to trying to break even. However, it was not always easy to distinguish the two: even those who appeared to be managing land at break-even to maintain a lifestyle may be doing so in part to pass the land to the next generation to cash in the asset (forestry or land), without losing value through inheritance tax. So although breaking even may look like a lifestyle choice, it may actually be about long term economic gain. As such, it was evident to the researchers that economically efficient land management acts as an enabling mechanism: even philanthropic land managers may seek to optimise returns, so that they can use this revenue to pursue other goals. Public organisations need to demonstrate the efficiency with which they are utilising land holdings to achieve objectives; charities need to demonstrate effective use of funds. At a household level, ensuring that land management does not drain family resources may be part of providing a favourable lifestyle for the family unit. There are exceptions to this, most notably private estates, where an owner may be happy to pump in money to maintain ‘a highland playground’ (although no information is available on the sums of money which may be involved).

3.15 The third and fourth attitudinal themes concern environmental awareness and

responsibility. These themes indicated awareness of environmental problems and that land use production methods are partly to blame. Interestingly, “improve its environmental condition” (78%) and “stewarding the land for

67

future generations” (85.5%) were scored as highly as economic themes. What is important to note is that statements did not refer to specific environmental practices. Carr and Tait (1990) found that farmers define environmental goods differently than conservationists. It is also important that maintaining land in ‘good environmental condition’ is a requirement of cross–compliance under the Single Farm Payment, and therefore a consideration in business planning for farmers (Sutherland, 2009). So although respondents clearly valued the environment, this does not necessarily indicate enthusiasm for biodiversity and wildlife that similar agreement from a conservationist might imply.

3.16 In informant interviews, environmental considerations received noticeably less

discussion than economic or social motivations. This may be because a number of environmental behaviours appear to have been motivated by incentives and therefore formed part of the discussion on economic motivations. For example, among farmers and estate owners, economic motivations were often identified as the reason for environmental action, such as wind turbines, micro-hydro schemes and environmental schemes. Those who did discuss environmental motivations did so in the context of their organisational aims and objectives, with the John Muir Trust noting that their priority was to get the environment into better shape, the RSPB noting that they were primarily about biodiversity and public interest, and a planning authority (Aberdeenshire Council) noting that they aimed to promote environmental quality and to protect the environment. It is therefore important to remember that respondents with different attitudes may make a similar decision – e.g. to establish a wind turbine – but do so for different reasons.

3.17 The fifth set of attitudes arising from the questionnaire survey responses

relates to the local community. This was consistent with the informant interviews, which found a much stronger social theme than initially expected. Often land owners wanted to improve the quality of life for those in the community, for example through better services, affordable housing, improving opportunities for young people and retaining the population – making it a better place to live (Highlands and Islands Enterprise). Key informants reported that many organisations have social objectives, with an increasing recognition of the need to deliver public benefits from private land (Deer Commission). Public bodies are also encouraged to reflect government objectives directly; for example, Defence Estates reported the importance of their role in remote communities, giving an example of working with local initiatives and governments to ease the transition when they discontinue airfields or training facilities. Respondents from the Scottish Estates Business Group noted that issues like community engagement and general social well-being were becoming increasingly important as part of their decision-making process.

3.18 Although it did not appear in the principal components analysis as a distinct

set of attitudes, 72% of survey respondents identified “maintaining an attractive lifestyle for my family” as important. Lifestyle was repeatedly mentioned by informants when discussing farming, with several noting that farmers were not farming for maximum profitability. Informants indicated that

68

most farmers are motivated by the lifestyle, reasonable profitability, having their own business and being their own boss (Tenant Farming Forum). It was suggested that agriculture was neither a lucrative nor attractive business option and if farmers were rational business people, many would be doing something else (Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority). Crofting was also identified by informants as a lifestyle choice, as crofts are typically expected to be a part-time source of income at best.

Types of Land Use Decision-maker

3.19 Analysis of land manager attitudes and priorities formed the primary data on

which the typology was grounded. As described in Chapter 1, a draft land use decision-maker typology was developed, and then refined using feedback from the informant interviews and findings from the questionnaire.

3.20 Five final clusters were identified for the questionnaire responses which

ranged in size from 22 respondents (4% of responses) up to 234 respondents (39% of responses). These primarily addressed decision-makers operating at individual and household level (farmers, private foresters, and crofters). The informant interviews addressed ‘group’ decision-makers (estates, public bodies and charities), as well as industry group representatives, who described their observations of decision-making across the sectors. This data was analysed qualitatively. The full version of the typology can be found in Appendix 1.

3.21 Cluster 1: Ecological Land Stewards (4% of Respondents, 2% of Land)

This group is characterised by high levels of agreement with the ecological and the environmental responsibility theme. Thus, they acknowledge that land management decisions have an impact on the ecology of the area. They are also aware that it is part of a wider environmental framework, which includes government policy and non-land-based primary industries. This cluster suggests that there is a small percentage of land managers who are primarily concerned with environmental stewardship, and that their holdings tend to be below average in size. Other studies have identified clusters which have a strong ecological theme. For example, Van Herzele and Van Gossum (2008) identify an ‘ecologist’ type of forester; the key informants in Ingermarson et al. (2006)’s study also identify a ‘conservationist’ type of forester, both of which have strong recreational, as opposed to economic orientations. Although environmentalists do not typically appear as a distinct ‘type’ of farmer in European studies, Fairweather and Keating (1994) explicitly

Key messages: Five ‘types’ of decision-maker were identified through the analysis. These were: ecological land stewards, economic land stewards, multifunctionalists, community stewards and ‘other’. No type was found which focused solely on economic gain. The most common type numerically was the community stewards, who identified primarily social goals as their priority for land use. The multifunctionalists (social, economic and environmental priorities) managed the most land. There was no significant statistical difference found between these types across sectors, or Scotland’s four geographic regions.

69

introduced the ‘environmentalist’ as a type within their study of New Zealand. Morris and Potter (1995) in their UK study, use conservationist ideals as a means of differentiating ‘active’ and ‘passive’ farmers, in terms of their engagement with agri-environmental schemes.

3.22 This cluster tends to be dominated by males (77%) and has an average age

of between 51 to 65. The majority are only educated to school level. A large proportion (73%) own the business outright and have been in the business for more than 15 years. However, only half of this group have lived all their life in the community, with 27% having lived locally for more than 10 years and 22% having have lived there for less than ten years. Another distinctive feature of this group is that only 41% claim to operate the business for profit, whereas the majority (46%) are mainly concerned that they break even. This group has the highest proportion of no regular employees. The bulk of the decision-making is not made by one person but by the household (59%). They also have the lowest percentage (46%) of inheritance of the business but have just over half of this group wishing to pass the business on to a family member. Out of all the clusters, this group has the highest level of satisfaction with their standard of living, possibly related to low profit expectations. Similarly, they have the lowest levels of reliance on the SPF and environmental schemes.

3.23 Although the land managed by individual land managers primarily for

ecological stewardship is small, a similar approach was described by charitable organisations oriented towards conservation, such as the RSPB, the National Trust for Scotland and John Muir Trust. These organisations manage considerably larger land holdings. None of these are concerned with profit, focusing instead on making efficient use of their resources to achieve environmental aims. Unlike individual decision-makers, they make decisions through their corporate structures, and involve a number of employees. These types of organisations tend to be particularly responsive to public opinion, ‘adjusting their direction of travel’ (National Trust for Scotland) accordingly.

3.24 Cluster 2. Economic Land Stewards (19% of Respondents, 3% of Land)

This group demonstrates high land care, along with high income-related priorities, indicating greater awareness of the underlying economic drivers of land-use production. This is also reflected in their attitudes, which reveal a high degree of agreement with diversification themes, but also indicate an underlying ecological awareness of production methods. However, they demonstrate a low level of agreement with community-related social attitudes, which may indicate a more individualist approach to land-use management. This cluster combines the economic and environmental attitudinal groups described in the attitude section. Combinations of environmental and economic goals have been particularly well addressed in the literature on agricultural decision-making (e.g. Sutherland, 2009; Burton et al, 2008; Morris and Potter, 1995; Wilson and Hart, 2000)

3.25 Again, this group has high male to female ratio (74%) and are of the age

category 51 to 65. The majority are school educated. The distinguishing features of this group are they have the highest numbers of members who

70

have been in charge of decision-making for more than 15 years and the highest agreement with operating the business for profit. Similarly, this cluster has the most sole decision-makers compared to the others and most members have between 1 to 3 regular employees. A high proportion of this cluster inherited the business (69%) and a similarly high proportion wish to pass the business on to another family member. Notably, this group has the lowest level of satisfaction with their standard of living, with 13% of this group not at all satisfied. The bulk of this group have at least 25% of their income from the SFP and around 40% are members of environmental schemes.

3.26 Informants described ‘progressive’ farmers in this manner: family-oriented

individuals seeking to improve their farm business while recognising and stewarding the land resource on which their business is built. As will be shown later, this cluster crosses sectoral lines. Sporting estates can also fit easily into this type, as maintenance of the environment for game is important to successful commercial operation.

3.27 Cluster 3. Multi-functionalists (26% of Respondents, 48% of Land)

This cluster reveals a high amount of agreement with all eight attitude and priority themes. Consequently, they represent a multi-functional approach to land-use management. Specifically, they are orientated towards both land-based production, but also to opportunities for diversification whilst aware of the ecological impacts of production activity. They relate to the community-based attitude theme, which focuses land-use management decision-making with respect to the local community context. Multifunctionality has also appeared in recent land manager typologies: Gorton et al. (2008) identified a multi-objective type among respondents in their study of European farmers; as did Barnes et al. (2009) amongst Scottish farmers, and Ingemarson et al. (2006) in their study of Swedish foresters.

3.28 This group have a similar profile to cluster 2, as they are mostly male,

between 51 and 65 and have been involved in decision-making for more than 15 years. Distinguishing features include the lowest level of members who own the business outright (56%) with some who have a mix of tenanted and ownership structures. Again, like cluster 2, they have a high proportion who operate the business for profit, and have lived all their life in the community and have similar inheritance and succession characteristics. Most of this group have 1 to 3 full time employees. They have low levels of satisfaction with their standard of living, but have the highest dependency on the single farm payment and from environmental schemes.

3.29 Informants suggested that this multifunctional approach is particularly

common among ‘traditional’ estates: estates which continue to espouse a social obligation to their employees and the local community. Respondents from a member of Scottish Estates Business Group commented on the balance they must make between social, economic and environmental aims. Due to the considerable land base of most estates, it is possible to focus on economic objectives on one part of the estate, and use the profits to support more philanthropic efforts on other parts. This combination of social and environmental objectives was also found in Defence Estates, which have a

71

strong orientation towards environmental conservation and community development; however, these are secondary to their primary objective of service provision.

3.30 Cluster 4. Community Stewards (39% of Respondents, 21% of Land)

This cluster reveals either indifference to, or disagreement with, production, land stewarding and ecological themes. However, they showed strong agreement with community based attitude and priority themes, revealing their decision making to consider impacts at both a community and national level. Thus this cluster had high agreement with such statements as ‘to involve the local community in decision making’ and ‘to provide local employment’.

3.31 This cluster is similar to the previous two clusters but have the highest male to

female ratio (80:20) and the highest number of members who have lived all their life in the community (65%). Its main distinguishing feature is that a larger number have been college educated (46%), compared to solely school educated (33%). They predominantly make decisions themselves without consultation with household or other external actors. About 46% of this cluster employs 1 to 3 full-time regular employees, though this group has a higher percentage of no employees compared to the previous two groups. They have the highest level of inheritance of the business from a previous generation (71%) but a lower level of intention to pass the business on to another family member. They are second only to cluster 2 in terms of their low levels of satisfaction with their standard of living. Just below 50% of this group have around half their income coming from the single farm payment.

3.32 The level of the emergence of this cluster in the survey was unexpected: This

is not a finding replicated in other European land manager typologies, although Walter (1997) identified community and lifestyle as an important type in his study of Illinois. This apparent lack may reflect the non-inclusion of community orientation in the factors included in the design of recent typologies. Although the researchers anticipated that stewarding for future generations would be identified in the study, this was expected to be part of an economic theme, in order to pass on a viable business. Similarly, this cluster does not display any strong opinion towards environmental issues, which could also be expected to link to a community focus. In the researcher’s view, it is possible that many of these respondents inherited a land-based business (farm, forest or croft) but no longer view it as such, potentially operating it as part of their heritage or hobby, and service to the local area.

3.33 The issue of community stewardship arose in informant interviews as being

particularly important. Communities can own land in their own right; land is also owned by local councils. Both manage this land for the benefit of the local areas. However, none of the key informants suggested that social or community issues would be a priority for private land managers (i.e. not community land owners). This is an important area for future research

72

3.34 Cluster 5. Other (12% of Respondents, 21% of Land) Twelve percent of respondents did not fit well into the previous four categories, largely because they did not express any strong views in relation to any of the attitude themes. This may suggest that the attitude and priority statements in the survey did not suit their particular approach; given the fairly comprehensive nature of the attitudes described. It is also possible that these respondents are somewhat passive, in that they have no strong priorities or attitudes towards their land. Although ‘passive’ does not appear as a category in farming typologies, Ingemarson et al. (2006) and Van Herzele and Van Gossum (2008) both identified ‘passive’ types of approaches to forestry management. It is also possible that these respondents represent multiple less common ‘types’ of land use approach, which might emerge from a larger sample. Nevertheless there are some socio-economic facts about this group that are of interest. This group diverges from the other groups in terms of having lived less time in the community (44%) than the others. Only around 75% of members claim to operate the business for profit, a situation that puts them midway between group 1 and the latter three groups in terms of economic focus. Another distinguishing feature of this group is that, whilst around 60% have inherited the business, they have the lowest number of members (47%) who intend to pass it on to another family member. Again, they are midway between the two extremes when it comes to satisfaction with their standard of living, with 35% claiming to be very satisfied. Just less than 40% of members have between 25 to 50% of their income from the single farm payment. However they have the highest percentage (47%) of members with financial investments outside the business.

3.35 Cluster Membership by Land-Use Sector

The choice to focus on attitudes and priorities in developing the typology, as opposed to a more sectoral or structural approach, was to determine whether there were similarities in orientation which crossed sectoral boundaries. This indeed appears to be the case. Figure 3.1 shows cluster membership across the types and clearly shows that the clusters are made up by a mixture of types operating within the rural land-use sector. A chi-square test found no significant difference across sectors for cluster membership, indicating this is not a factor in forming attitudes and priorities towards land use decision-making.

73

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Croft Hobby Hort Non-Comm

Energy Agric Forest

Ecological Land Stewards Economic Land Stewards Multi-functionalists Community Stewards Other

Figure 3.1 Cluster member by main sector, column percentage 3.36 Clearly, there is some similarity between the forestry, crofting and agricultural

sectors. This may be related to the similarity of land-use activity, as a large percentage of the foresters and crofters had agricultural land. It is notable, however, that all of the cluster types appeared in both categories, with community stewards, multi-functionalists and economic land stewards appearing in similar measure. This suggests a range of interests, and the likelihood that different types within the same sector will respond to different drivers.

3.37 Cluster Membership by Region

The clusters were then compared across region, to determine whether there was any concentration of these types operating at a sub-national level. Cluster membership by parish was aggregated and shown at the NUTS 2 regional level in Table 3.2.

3.38 Table 3.2 shows the distribution by number of responses, clearly revealing

very little difference across region by cluster. This was confirmed by a chi-square test, which found no statistical relationship between these two factors. It was initially thought that the emphasis on social goals in particular (characterising the multi-functionalists and community stewards) might be arising from regions in which commercial production is less economically viable; land managers in these areas could reasonably be expected to rely heavily on grants and subsidies, and as such, see their land management as a form of community service. The sample was not large enough to test this hypothesis directly (all four of the regions could be expected to have a number of these land managers). The disconnect between percentage of respondents in each type and the percentage of land in the study managed by each type, also suggests that land managers who identified social priorities have larger, and therefore possibly more extensive land management approaches; alternately, this may reflect the inclusion of estates in this

74

category. However, findings seem to indicate that region itself is not a factor in forming attitudes towards, and priorities for, land use within Scotland.

Table 3.2 Cluster membership by NUTS 2 Region, number

East Highlands North East South West Total

Ecological Land Stewards 12 27 20 16 75Economic Land Stewards 63 40 63 68 234Multi-functionalists 41 40 35 37 153Community Stewards 27 29 25 31 112Other 6 6 6 4 22

Sources of Information 3.39 The informant interviews identified differences between land owners in terms

of their sources of information. Public agencies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) managing for ‘public good’ tend to use other public agencies and NGOs, working in partnership with “other like minded bodies” (John Muir Trust), suggesting there is a network of information between these types of organisations. Informants from public bodies and NGOs were the only ones to talk about the need for evidence and scientific research to underpin advice. On the other hand, private individuals and households were more likely to access strategic advice from a variety of sources, many of whom require payment for their services. Key informants indicated that these private individuals will seek advice from public agencies and NGOs on the regulatory requirements and ways to maximise environment, social or economic benefits. They will seek advice from financial and business advisors on investment strategies and projected returns. Membership organisations (e.g. National Farmers Union and RSPB) tend to provide a range of advice from interpreting policy, through publicising opportunities, to providing a sounding board for ideas. Finally, informants indicated that private individuals and households will seek advice or assistance for grant applications from local land agents, the Scottish Agricultural College consultants or the Scottish Government’s Rural Payments and Inspections Directorate.

3.40 The informants (qualitative interviewees) identified themes around reputation

and the influence of professional advisors, noting that estates and forestry sectors were more likely to retain the services of factors and land agents who

Key messages: Most individual land managers appear to primarily consult with their own households during decision-making, but different types of land manager have varying sources of information and advice, with economic land stewards most likely to use professional advisors and other land manager networks and the ‘other’ passive agents the least likely. The media were used more often than the internet for all types. Informants noted that public bodies had different information networks to private individuals; and raised concerns about both the fragmentation of advice sources and cost of getting advice.

75

were skilled in a suite of land management aspects. However, farmers were perceived to use a range of different specialist advisors. Due to the increase in fee for service consultations, there was a concern raised by key informants that those who are most in need of advice may be least able to pay for it, and also that some farmers seek no advice at all. Furthermore, land managers only able to afford a single consultation may not identify appropriate opportunities beyond those lying within the individual specialist advisor’s expertise (see also the following section on constraints and grants).

3.41 Questionnaire respondents identified a wide variety of information sources,

formal and informal, for advising on their decision-making processes. Types are presented here in relation to the typological categories, in order to demonstrate links between attitudes, priorities and information sources. What is particularly notable is the importance of consultation with family members, which is consistent across categories.

3.42 Cluster 1: Ecological Land Stewards

This type predominantly relies on consultation within the family for strategic decisions. Around 45% of respondents claim to consult frequently, whereas another 46% consult very frequently with family members. There was a clear rejection of other sources of information, with large proportions claiming to never consult the media, the internet or local advisors for information. However, 59% of respondents do attend training events and demonstrations occasionally. This suggests to the researchers a low level of technical knowledge or information-seeking activities. Similarly, this type has the lowest dependence on government funding, and the majority only claim to hope for the business to break-even. There is consequently less imperative to seek information for efficiency improvement in the business.

3.43 Cluster 2. Economic Land Stewards

This type revealed a more diverse use of information sources compared to the previous cluster. Whereas 40% of respondents claimed to never consult the internet, the majority (50%) did claim to consult with family members very frequently. Around 60% of respondents also consulted the media, such as radio and television, either occasionally (29%) or regularly (31%). Similarly, around 38% of respondents met with other land managers occasionally to help inform strategic decisions and 45% used business consultants occasionally. This suggests that commercially-oriented land managers are active in accessing information sources, but that the internet is still not a primary component in this process. This may reflect access to the internet issues in rural and remote areas with implications for accessing SRDP.

3.44 Cluster 3. Multi-functionalists

This type used family members to make decisions very frequently (48%). A more even spread of responses was obtained for consultation of the internet, with 31% never using it, 25% using it occasionally, and 29% using it regularly. Similarly, they use media sources more regularly than the previous two groups. They occasionally take consultants advice and attend open days, though tend to meet with other land managers on a more regular basis. This group was predominantly educated to school level, but is also the most

76

dependent on government funding. This may have led to some skill development for accessing funding sources, e.g. the internet.

3.45 Cluster 4. Community Stewards

Again, this type consults with the family very frequently for making strategic decisions. They show a similar spread of responses to using the internet as the previous group but most are only occasional users. Consequently, they mirror the ecological land stewards but are slightly more active in using other sources in comparison. Notably around half of this type are college educated which would indicate more familiarity with more technically-advanced media sources, in particular the internet and perhaps a lower level of reliance on traditional information sources.

3.46 Cluster 5. Other

Whilst the main information source for this type came from consulting with family members, they had the lowest level of use of this source compared to the other clusters (33%) and 20% claimed to never consult with family. This suggests that a number of these respondents are commercial businesses or charities and therefore draw on a corporate decision-making strategy. For the remaining information sources, most of this type never use the internet, consult the media, meet with other land managers or take consultant’s advice. However, 44% of respondents claimed to occasionally attend demonstrations or open days. This low level of information seeking perhaps reflects the fact that this type has low levels of reliance on government funding and also has the highest levels of outside investments and may rely on other sources of information not recorded within the survey for business advice.

Key Actors, Influences and Constraints

3.47 Informants and questionnaire respondents were specifically asked about the

influence on decision making exerted by the following institutional aspects: banks and financial organisations; grants and incentives; regulations; and peer judgements. Informants also commented on ownership issues and climate change.

3.48 The questionnaire also asked respondents about a specific set of possible

constraints over the past 10 years, whereas the informants were asked to

Key messages: All sectors report constraints due to regulations, and uncertainty over future conditions. Climate change was believed to be particularly important as a future issue, but through resultant policy, rather than ecological change. Banks influence the ability to acquire land but have not had much influence on land-use change or management to date. Grants enable change of use or management but may not drive these choices, although difficulty in accessing them will act as a constraint. Regulations act as an important constraint on land-use options and create a decision space in which land manager can act. Peer pressure has an indirect influence on decision-making but links to the social obligation motivations highlighted above and the following section on rural communities.

77

describe in more detail the constraints they believed to be most important. Constraints identified through the questionnaire are listed in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3 Constraints on decision making by type, percentage of strong agreement, percent Crofters Hobbiest Horticulture Public

Forest Non-Commercial

Energy Cropping

Farmers Foresters

Land Capability 4.4 25.0 13.3 21.4 4.0 17.1 17.5

Land Availability 8.9 6.3 10.0 7.1 36.0 19.0 18.2

Uncertainty about future conditions

24.4 25.0 10.0 21.4 16.0 22.6 20.3

Suitability of Infrastructure 6.7 6.3 20.0 21.4 4.0 9.5 9.1

Access to capital 11.1 12.5 13.3 35.7 12.0 9.2 13.3

Labour availability 4.4 10.0 21.4 16.0 8.6 16.8

Access to markets 6.7 12.5 10.0 21.4 4.0 9.8 14.0

Government regulations 35.6 31.3 10.0 35.7 44.0 44.3 42.7

Difficulty getting planning permission

15.6 25.0 16.7 28.6 20.0 16.2 28.0

Regulations 3.49 Most sectors identify regulations as a main constraint, highlighting that it acted

to bound what was possible to do in terms of land-use change and land management. Informants and respondents believe there have been increases in levels of government regulation in recent years, particularly in relation to animal welfare and water pollution. This clearly has an impact on costs and restrictions on inputs which, in turn, may have been perceived to constrain yields. Land use decision-makers also seek to influence the regulations and policies which influence them, through the lobbying efforts of their membership associations.

3.50 Discussions of grants and regulations were interwoven by informants, as

access to grants requires cross compliance with a suite of regulatory measures. The overall view was that regulation acted as a framework or boundary for decision-making, setting the limits within which decisions could be made. Many saw regulations, particularly environmental ones, as a constraint on farming, property development, forestry, renewable energy and development of community owned land. It is important to note that, even those informants who felt regulations were a constraint generally did not feel that they impacted on strategic land-use decisions. The exceptions were the potential of NVZs to encourage farmers to exit dairy farming or at restrict expansion, and pig welfare requirements might impact on pig farming. Foresters are typically compelled to replant any trees they fell, and so cannot change land use.

78

Grants 3.51 There was a mixed response by informants to the question of the influence of

grants on decision-making. Those respondents who spoke from a position of owning land and accessing grants themselves were at pains to note that they would decide on their strategic vision and then find grants to support that, rather than fit their strategy to the funding available (John Muir Trust, RSPB). However, some did realize that availability of grants would influence an opportunistic change of land use (National Trust for Scotland). Those speaking about community owned land or housing development seemed to suggest that these sectors were more influenced by the availability of grants, and more willing (or had to) to adapt their strategic objectives to the conditions of the grant (John Muir Trust, Highlands and Islands Enterprise).

3.52 Very few informants would state that grants are necessary to sustain

agricultural businesses, but questionnaire respondents clearly indicated that income from government support (including the SFP and environmental schemes) make up a considerable amount of the total income from many businesses and holdings.

Table 3.4 Percentage of income from grants

Ecological Land

Stewards

Economic Land

Stewards

Multi-functionalists

Community Land

Stewards

Other

Less than 25% 23 39 33 32 33 Around 25 to 50% 32 46 50 47 39 More than 50% 9 13 16 18 7 None 36 1 1 3 21

3.53 In the opinion of the researchers, what is likely happening is that the SFP and

environmental programs do not generally promote change in land use at whole-enterprise scale. However, they do provide financial assistance for those who are already motivated to manage land in specific ways. Indeed, some informants felt that grants played an important role in stimulating innovation or experimentation through acting as catalyst or enabler to get an long held idea implemented. Accessing grants is an issue that may explain their limited influence on land use decisions. Key informants commenting on the housing and renewable energy sectors noted that uptake of grants were directly associated with awareness and were keen that grants were better publicized and made more accessible. There were quite a number of comments on the difficulties of accessing the current SRDP funding, especially by smaller businesses and local communities. This was linked to the issue of needing professional assistance to access and apply successfully for grants (see the later section on information sources). From the mapping of grants and farm payment in Chapter 2, the highest SRDP payments are obtained by those businesses of the largest size, predominantly in upland Scotland.

Climate Change 3.54 Informants also indicated that climate change was likely to have the biggest

influence on future land-use change but because of the policy responses and

79

market opportunities (particularly for renewable energy) which would arise, as opposed to the physical realities of climate change.

Uncertainty over future conditions 3.55 Uncertainty over the future appears related to changes in funding structures

and government policy. Multiple informants commented on the difficulty land managers have in planning, due to the changing funding and policy structures. The uncertainty issue can be emphasised for those with the majority of their land under agricultural activity, as price fluctuations have been quite severe in the last 10 years; there is also uncertainty about the future of the Single Farm Payment. The rationale of government funding for agriculture has also changed from solely production focus towards more multifunctional goals, which may have had an effect on increasing uncertainty within this sector. The agricultural sector has also undergone regular revisions to its grant and subsidy structure in recent years. The respondent from the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust likened it to “trying to play a football match where every ten minutes the rules change”. The planning process also created uncertainty for energy and housing sectors. Given the importance of subsidies and grants to the land-use sector, and the time horizons for seeing a return on new investments (several years in livestock, decades in forestry), insecurity about future financial returns are particularly problematic.

Land Ownership 3.56 Land tenure is also linked to discussions of certainty. Farmers operating

under a year to year tenancy agreement will clearly plan differently than those with a secure multiple generation tenancy, or outright ownership. As discussed earlier, public and private sector owners can be expected to have different priorities for their land, although there are clearly a number of private owners who emphasise public interest in their attitudes towards decision-making. How the land is held also impacts on the potential to leverage it to finance diversification and other ventures.

Banks and Financial Institutions 3.57 Access to capital was also identified as a constraint by questionnaire

respondents, although at a fairly low level. However, consultation with banks was the most important factor identified in the SEM model (see Chapter 2) for intention to increase the size of the business. The general view of informants was that banks and other forms of financial institutions had an influence at the point of acquiring land but less influence on strategic choices beyond this point. Only 52% of questionnaire respondents indicated that discussion with bank personnel was part of their strategic decision-making process. Some sectors buy, sell or lease land more often than others – for example the trend to consolidate farms demonstrates a different land market pattern to estates, whose boundaries are less likely to change. Crofts are rarely purchased on credit, so banks have limited involvement. Housing developers, wind-farm developers and community purchasers were mentioned as most likely sectors to interact with banks for land acquisition. Financial institutions are clearly an important part of building capital intensive projects. Membership organisations and public sectors tend to have access to capital from sources

80

other than banks. Respondents argued that estates and forestry were much less dependent on banks to finance their strategic management, although they were very dependent on wider financial markets to maintain the inward flow of funds to maintain the infrastructure of the estate (especially the built heritage).

3.58 Once land is owned, banks were seen to have most influence on the

agricultural sector, which was most likely to incur debt as part of their business practice. Financial organisations seek to manage risk with regard to debt, so they will focus on influencing choices that might improve business margins and protect their assets. Historically, rising land values have meant that farms could have poor margins and high debts and still be seen as viable, but several respondents pointed out that post the ‘credit crunch’ one bank has restricted lending to the land based sector. These changes may lead to banks having more influence on agricultural decision-making in the future. Finally, banks and financial institutions can be landowners in their own right, and therefore act on that land directly.

Difficulty Getting Planning Permission 3.59 This was also identified by a number of respondents in the survey, across the

sectoral categories. This was not discussed by key informants, as one commented that most land-use changes (e.g. between commodities) do not require planning permission. Constraints identified suggest to the researchers that planning permission is impacting on business diversification, possibly wind energy but also shops and housing.

Skills 3.60 The informant interviews picked up issues of skills as a constraint on

innovation. Many of the estate sector respondents contrasted the suite of skills and training practiced by factors and land agents employed by estates compared to most farmers, who may not have much formal education or business skills, and often operate traditionally. Certainly a number of respondents felt that entrepreneurial skills are largely missing in the agriculture sector, although the bank respondent commented that farmers now routinely appear with well-developed business plans, a marked change from recent decades. Another key informant argued that most new entrants to farming have tertiary qualifications so this lack of skills is limited to the ‘outgoing’ generation.

Peer Influence 3.61 All the informant discussions relating to peer influence were made in the

context of farmers and estate owners, although estate owners would include those developing property, renewable energy and/or forestry. The key message seems to be that all land owners living on their land and actively involved in land management judge, and are judged, by others. “In a rural land use community people are frequently watching over their shoulder, not only watching what others are doing but thinking that others are watching what they are doing” (The Crown Estate). However, there was less certainty about to what extent this ongoing mutual evaluation influenced decision-making. Informants indicated that tradition is highly important to decision-

81

making. Maintaining traditions can be expected to be valued by farming peers. Burton (2004) makes this connection in his Scottish study of farmers, identifying both the pattern of observation of neighbour actions, and how this is lodged in farming culture. Peers may demonstrate options through their actions, but this is different from making recommendations. Farmers in particular are keen to be viewed as independent and typically emphasise consultation with family, rather than peers. Forestry is harder to evaluate, partly due to the physical nature of forested landscapes, where forestry practices can be hidden; and partly as forestry has often been owned and managed by those not living on-site. A similar pattern seems to hold for estate owners and managers – sporting land is necessarily remote from their neighbours and therefore it is more difficult to access and evaluate visible practices. This therefore suggests a strong link between peer evaluation, location and social obligations – those living elsewhere were considered less influenced by negative judgments of neighbours to their land holding; whereas those with the most visible land holdings were seen to be most influenced by peer judgements.

3.62 A number of key informants commenting on estates did note that a

combination of financial, political and social pressures have meant that estate owners/managers are recognising the value of learning from one another. This can have both positive and negative impacts. For example, with regard to the provision of affordable rural housing, estate owners hear both positive and negative stories from other land owners.

Role of Rural Communities

3.63 The importance of using land to benefit the community was identified as an

important set of attitudes among land use decision-makers, and was a major characteristic of the largest cluster type. This section presents the other side of the issue: how community members perceive their role in land use decision-making, based on informant interviews. From these interviews, there are three key areas emerging from the data: community ownership; consulting local communities and finally, wider societal influences on land-use change. Central to this are ideas about whether land owners and local communities

Key messages: Community land ownership is becoming more common, and leads to direct community influence on decision-making. Private land owners are increasingly involving communities in decision-making. This is typically done voluntarily, as only decisions requiring planning permission require formal consultation. Public support is being increasingly recognised as important, particularly for public and charitable bodies, but also private land managers. Some land owners, particularly those owning estates not seeking to profit maximise, reported seeing it as their role to steward the land and local communities; whereas others, particularly farmers, did not seem to feel the same sense of obligation to deliver for the local community, although they did believe in their role in providing food for the nation. These findings on influence of local communities support the findings discussed earlier about the strength of community motivations.

82

have a shared sense of place and a shared sense of responsibility towards stewarding both the land and the people it sustains. Urbanites can also be expected to influence rural land use, through influence on policy, and more directly through member associations and rural tourist activities. However, urban influence was not addressed in this study.

3.64 Several informants focused attention on the trend of community land

ownership, linking this to the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. This legislation formally allows rural communities to be directly involved in owning and managing land. Therefore, those residents influence the decision whether to buy the land, what objectives to list in the strategic plan and in the choices made as the strategic plan is operationalised. Community ownership is perceived by informants to be more commonly initiated in the Western Highlands and Islands. Community landowners are perceived by informants to have different objectives and resources for managing land. The objectives were likely to be focused on providing employment, housing and services to the local community in order to maintain a dynamic and thriving local population as a way of redressing past wrongs, improving the environment and providing a public service. This is very different from the more overtly economic focus of some private estate owners, although community-owned land may have economic gain as a goal in order to generate revenue for other activities. Local communities are also directly involved in land-use change decisions through the ways in which renewable energy projects are negotiated and the economic benefits distributed. In many cases, the land owner will go into partnership with the community, but further individual contracts are also entered into with crofters or tenants whose land is affected. This raises the situation where several members of a community are involved, but as a series of individual legal contracts, rather than one community trust or board.

3.65 Planning legislation requires consultation on a range of actions, although this

means that communities are more commonly consulted on land uses covered by the planning regime, e.g. building construction, rather than changes in agriculture or sporting estate management. One respondent (from the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authority) indicated that rural communities have very limited influence on land use on a day-to-day basis, beyond participation in formal consultation processes. Farming and forestry actions in particular typically have limited input from local communities, unless it is a charity or public body managing the land. Informants also noted that formal consultation processes may not involve the whole community or non-local groups who would also be impacted. Residents may also have different opinions, with some informants (Scottish Borders Councilor) noting conflicting desires between people who were born into a community, in contrast to those who had relocated there later in life.

3.66 There appears to be an important geographic element to these findings with

several respondents suggesting that remote rural communities exert less influence than residents living closer to urban centres. This may be due to cultural differences in expectations, ability to mobilise or length of residence. Non-legislated consultation processes are becoming more common. Many

83

informants indicated that consultations were undertaken in recognition that communities were able to mobilise protest effectively using ICT and local networks, and that such protests can seriously impede the land owner’s ability to carry out their objectives – these ideas were particularly recognised by those dealing with planning and land-use change. Other land managers seek out better solutions for all involved, as a result of insights on potential impacts raised in consultation: the respondents from SEBG gave an example of how they changed their plans due to local feedback. One respondent noted there can be some commercial benefit in consultation as it allows land managers to understand consumer attitudes and preferences. Finally, some informants, particularly those discussing private and community-owned estates, talked about the need to give local communities a ‘stake in the future of the land’ and demonstrate corporate social responsibility. Owners who live and work on the land are also part of their rural community, and as such may be involved in community councils and other community bodies.

3.67 There was a muted recognition by informants of the role of public opinion on

land use choices, with a couple of informants noting that both farmers and land managers recognised that they had to counter negative public opinion about their industries. These informants noted that the public’s expectations on what they expected from land managers had both increased, and become more diverse (RSPB). At a more specific sectoral level, one key informant suggested that farmers were becoming more aware of being ‘friendly neighbours’, for example not spreading slurry before a bank holiday. It was also noted that developers are sometimes motivated to help the local housing need. This ties in with the planning sector, who aim to improve the living quality of the general public (Aberdeenshire Council). Public opinion is particularly important for publicly funded land managers. The RSPB were mindful of the need to maintain public support from their members for their work on local sites, and members throughout the UK. Some informants expressed concern that public attitudes towards hunting might put sporting estates out of business, and questioned whether the perceived loss of hill farming was in the public interest. This suggests that public influence impacts on government policy, and as such is an important driver on land-use change.

84

4 GENERAL DISCUSSION 4.1 This chapter summarises the main issues emerging from the study,

integrating findings from the various research activities. It begins to draw out the implications of its analyses for policy and practice in land use decision-making, which will be developed through further engagement with this and the other outputs of the Rural Land Use Study and of other programmes, such as RELU and the Foresight work. It also suggests areas and directions for potential further research.

Drivers 4.2 Climate change, mitigation and adaptation strategies are expected to be

dominant drivers of future change. The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 and associated Climate Change Delivery Plan, with the key target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050, provide an overarching context through a suite of response measures to mitigate and adapt to climate change. However, this does not represent the only environmental driver, with others continuing to operate within this from global to local scales.

4.3 Environmental drivers interact across all other drivers. These interactions

include processes which influence environmental characteristics (e.g. soil quality and biodiversity), some economic factors (e.g. energy and food security), policy and institutional frameworks (e.g. targets and timetables), and social factors (e.g. public attitudes).

4.4 Some interactions between drivers will be complementary and others create

tensions in terms of scale, intensity and sequencing. There are those which can be anticipated and planned for, but others which may be classed as trigger events (such as war, natural disaster or economic crises) which require emergency responses. Other drivers may lead to relatively rapid rates of change in land use as a momentum is gained through combinations of factors. For example, policy responses to climate change, leading to incentives for encouraging uptake of renewable energy (or penalties not to), encouraging investments at large (e.g. multi-national energy companies) and small (e.g. farm and domestic) scales. Increased information availability to decision-makers (e.g. access to technical expertise), and evidence of benefits (e.g. financial and environmental) will contribute to the momentum for uptake and change, and the implications for land use may be across different timescales from long-term (e.g. large scale hydro-electric facilities), medium-term (e.g. 25 years lifespan of a windfarm), or short-term (e.g. rapid uptake of a particular energy crop).

4.5 In this study, policy drivers have been conceptualised as divided into

overarching policy objectives, translated into related frameworks, and implemented through specific policy instruments. Policy instruments such as targets, grants and regulations are the most direct mechanism to affect land management and use, but the type and number of policy instruments varies by sector and activity. Grants, such as the SFP, LFASS and AEMs, and

85

environmental regulations are key policy drivers of agricultural land use and management.

4.6 Most drivers will have ongoing influences on land use in the period through to

2050 (a commonly used timeframe across a number of policy targets). However, some incremental changes can be expected due to the gradual, ongoing effects of relatively recent changes, such as the greater diversity in options for land ownership and management enabled by the Land Reform Act. Rapid change in some influencing factors may also have a long lead time in which to prepare. For example changes in European Union membership leading to short-term or rapid changes in demographics may be preceded by a decade or more of notice prior to such a ‘trigger’ event. More significant in relation to decision-making over the short term is the factor of ‘uncertainty’ for the land-use decision-maker. An instance of a significant cause of such uncertainty is when the timeframe for policy instruments (e.g. LFASS) is known but successor arrangements, and their timescales, are not.

4.7 Policy targets in the Climate Change Delivery Action Plan and the EC

renewable energy directives are key drivers for land use in relation to the provision of renewable energy (e.g. biomass production and large and small scale wind energy). While traditional food crops are not expected to play a major role in future biomass production, short rotation forestry integrated in traditional forest management and on marginal agricultural land has currently the highest potential of providing biomass for renewable energy in Scotland.

4.8 The direct (e.g. on natural heritage and landscape, community cohesion), or

indirect (e.g. requirements to upgrade the electricity grid) impacts of change may be to pressurise responses through other drivers, such as policies to strengthen protection through designations and planning regulations. Other drivers, such as cultural and social attitudes, may increase or restrict a momentum for change, sometimes differentially across Scotland. This can modify the direction of change in land use, or other means of achieving the same objective (e.g. diversification of means of energy supply into woodfuel).

4.9 Technological changes, leading to changes in farming practices,

modifications to systems, or through biotechnology crops, have a potentially crucial role in responding to challenges of climate change and food security. However, potentially negative impacts through fragmentation of arable plant and insect populations and loss of biodiversity and wider implications for environmental management are an important consideration. Public and political attitudes towards greater development in this area will be significant in the extent of the role they play.

4.10 A classification of drivers by the type of land use decision-maker would enable

a more refined interpretation of the significance of the scheduling of timescales of different drivers. Although the periods of greatest change in drivers (e.g. a policy framework timetable, or end of a policy instrument) group around 2013, 2020 and 2025 to 2030, these dates ignore the lead time to such changes, and any aspect of uncertainty that may have in the considerations of the planning horizon of the land use decision-maker.

86

4.11 Over time there may also be changes in attitude towards the urgency with

which targets require to be achieved. New data from monitoring may indicate a need for greater rates of change, but unintended consequences of change may also become more apparent (e.g. impacts on habitat quality due to rapid increases in mono-culture forestry, or potential carbon loss from peatland due to windfarm development). The momentum for such change will be heavily dependent on the public sector (see Rural Land Use Study Project 3, Moxey et al., 2009), and the attitudes and objectives of land use decision-makers.

4.12 Projections of increases in energy prices and agricultural commodity prices,

and resultant market prices imply extensification of energy-intensive production systems due to higher production costs. At the same time, higher market prices will provide incentives to expand land-based production, and lead to increased competition between environmental and productive land uses, with a risk that some land-uses experience significant pressures and negative impacts (e.g. protected habitats). There is less focus on multi-functional land uses in areas dominated by arable land use, yet a high diversity in agricultural land uses in close proximity (e.g. energy crops, horticulture, cereals). Changes in a driver such as market prices for horticultural products or cereals may lead to significant changes in land use between crops (Aspinall, 2009), with rapid consequences for landscape. This emphasises the strong links between the land-use impacts of economic drivers, such as changes in market prices and bio-physical constraints for land-use changes such as soil quality. However, the diversity in land uses per business may provide greater stability against rapid changes in markets.

4.13 The aims of land-use decision-makers are critical in the extent to which

threats of impacts are realised. In marginal areas with lower quality soils, higher input prices potentially increase reliance on grants with social and environmental objectives and could lead to a change from production oriented towards more environmental land uses.

4.14 The delivery of policy objectives such as increased woodland and forestry

may be difficult if competition for land increases (e.g. housing and transport expansion onto better agricultural land, increased demand for food or fuel resulting in increases in inputs to poorer land for agriculture, competing with the drive for an increase from 17% to 25% of land for woodland).

4.15 Interdependency between population increases, housing, and transport

infrastructure can be expected to increase demand for land in certain areas, particularly in eastern Scotland. This compares with static or reduced levels in the west, north-west and far north. ‘Hotspots’ of competition for land may arise in the city regions around Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee, and Inverness

4.16 The mapping of farm payments shows that, in lowland Scotland, higher

payments are received by business in areas such as the Borders, the Lothians, Fife and Perthshire, Angus and Aberdeenshire, broadly the same areas as projected for the greatest demands for housing. Although a detailed

87

regional breakdown of respondents is not available, the identification of intentions of land managers to maintain or increase the size of their business could be expected to focus on areas of existing agricultural or forestry activities, supporting demand for land.

4.17 Therefore, the competition for land between sectors is likely to increase,

particularly in areas of eastern Scotland. The potential for such conflict is addressed further in Rural Land Use Study Project 2 (Slee et al, 2009).

4.18 What is often unclear is the cumulative effect of drivers on land use, in terms

of the mix such that change in one location has unintended consequences in another. These may range across land uses, including economic consequences of a growth in one area impacting on those adjacent, the loss of a key link in a habitat network (Moseley et al., 2007), the visual or ecological footprint of a windfarm, the character and historic patterns of the landscape, or downstream impacts on water quality or flood risk.

4.19 The issues of planning permission, and access to expert advice, constraints

in decision-making can be expected to continue as significant given the projections for increases in population numbers and households. The same issues arise with respect to the uptake of small-scale wind energy developments. The latter are an example of local-level action, delivering economic return for small and large scale single owners, and institutional land managers, where land availability can be exploited, and responding to the environmental driver of climate change. However, negative environmental (e.g. landscape character) and social consequences (e.g. one farmer’s gain may preclude that of their neighbour) may arise where decisions are not co-ordinated or in the wider context of a spatial plan.

Decision-making 4.20 This research was unusual in identifying both individual and ‘group’ land

managers as respondents. To date, very few studies have addressed ‘group’ land managers, such as estates, charitable organisations and public bodies. Decision-making by these land managers in general could be a potential area of future research, as they manage considerable amounts of Scotland’s land, but very little is formally known about influences on their decision-making processes.

4.21 One important result of including these ‘group’ land managers in the study,

was the finding that there has been a growing polarisation between ‘professionalised’ and ‘non-professionalised’ land managers, reflecting differences in the depth of in-house expertise and external advice to which they have access. ‘Group’ land managers frequently have multiple experts on staff, and ready access to an array of professional advisors. In contrast, owner-occupied farm businesses or crofts tended to rely on consultations with family members or a single advisor, and may be unable to access affordable advice, particularly on non-traditional extension topics. This suggests that there is a need for increased access to specialist advice in relation to proposals for housing and renewable energy. The question of skills was also

88

raised as an issue, although more in relation to older land managers. It may also be important to reconsider how information is passed to land managers; for example, media was consistently valued more highly than the internet as an information source.

4.22 The research identified a set of attitudinal patterns as expressed by land

managers. The importance of satisfying multiple goals with respect to economic conditions and family responsibilities, rather than profit maximisation, was evident. This was true of all sectors, except a few private estates. However, most land managers sought to achieve some level of economic success, often needing to achieve a minimum standard (e.g. ‘breaking even’) prior to pursuing other goals. This suggests that grant programmes which appeal solely to the economic goals of land managers, are unlikely to result in a direct response to the degree that may be intended. Instead, respondents indicated that grants and subsidies act as an enabling framework within which they operate; grants make possible activities which were already valued by the land manager (see also Sutherland, 2009).

4.23 In this study, environmental considerations were identified as being of equal

priority to economic considerations by questionnaire respondents. As discussed, these considerations were expressed in terms of environmental responsibility, not specific environmental action. Therefore, these attitudes may reflect the importance of land conditions to successful land management, rather than conservationist ideals. Recognition of the importance of the environment to land managers suggests the opportunity to build on this interest and build expertise in achieving policy goals for the environment.

4.24 To date, social goals in relation to land use have had limited academic study.

The high and wide-spread importance of social and community-based attitudes and priorities towards land use was an important new finding of the study. This may reflect contemporary engagement with issues that could be framed in terms of social responsibility, community involvement and localised decision-making. The research also identified the growing importance of rural communities to land-use change, not only through community ownership of land, but increased inclusion in formal and informal consultation and planning processes. Further research could explore the prevalence, precise meanings and implications of social or community-oriented attitudes and priorities across different categories of land managers.

4.25 There was no evidence of differences in attitudinal approaches towards land

use at the level of Scotland’s four agricultural regions. However, there is some evidence that the size of land holding is related to attitudes, which may indicate that land managers operating more extensive systems – typically on less productive land – have different attitudes from those operating more intensive systems. The geographic patterns of land tenure, as interpreted from the analysis of IACS and JAC data, contribute to different levels of change across Scotland, even when accounting for biophysical differences, and there may be merit in investigating the relationships between smaller regions, land capability, enterprise size and priorities for land use, in order to

89

identify regional preferences and potential areas for collaborative effort toward meeting joint goals.

4.26 There are insufficient accessible data to describe the likely geographic

distribution of land managers who intend to increase the size of their business, and the nature of the expansion. Structural changes in the agricultural sector, such as changes in business sizes affect land use and management. The direct determinants of such structural changes are: gender (male), age (young), business inherited from previous generation, discussion with banks, land size (large), intention to pass on the business (positive), changes in government funding, succession planning, and attitudes towards changing size of business.

4.27 However, the majority of telephone survey respondents planned to maintain

(54%) or increase the size of the business (32%). Also of note is that land availability did not have a direct influence on the intention to change business size, but only indirectly (as it constrains intention to pass on the business within a family). This is consistent with literature suggesting that lower potential to develop business by inheritors was found to be a constraint to succession (Upton and Haworth, 1987; Weiss, 1999).

4.28 Government regulations were identified as the most significant constraint on

decision-making (as measured by the percentage of ‘strong agreement’ with statement in the telephone survey) by all land manager groupings except horticulturalists (and had equal significance as access to capital for non-commercial public foresters). Uncertainty about future conditions and difficulty obtaining planning permission were the next two most significant constraints across almost all sectors. Most land use decision-makers used a planning horizon of one to five years, with 10% planning for 10 or more years into the future, a timescale which includes most of the short and medium-term targets or policy horizons. Therefore, the design of mechanisms which appeal to the manager’s concept of the land and its stewardship, using management systems appropriate for the capability of the land, and ensuring the compatibility of the decision-maker’s planning horizon with the lead time required for a policy aim, have the potential to align a decision on land use accordingly. See Moxey et al. (2009) for discussion of intervention mechanisms.

90

Framework for Drivers and Decision-Making 4.29 The findings of the reviews of drivers and decision-making have been drawn

together into a revised version of the conceptual framework identified in the review of drivers, proposed by Geist and Lambin (2002, 2004), and Birnie et al. (2002). Figure 4.1 shows the revised summary of causes and consequences of change.

Figure 4.1 Synthesis of causes, constraints, proximate changes and consequences of changes in land use (based on Birnie and Mather, 2006, revised from Geist and Lambin, 2002) 4.30 This framework distinguishes between proximate (“near final or final human

activities that directly affect the environment”) and underlying (“fundamental forces that underpin the more obvious or proximate causes”) drivers of change. Proximate causes predominantly operate at the local level (e.g. agri-environment schemes) whereas underlying causes are operating at national and international levels (e.g. Common Agricultural Policy). Strategic planning of local authorities would also come under the latter heading (e.g. adopted Local Plans).

4.31 The factors which impede or delay change have been revised in light of the

results of the driver review and the study of decision-making and decision-makers, in line with expectations of Birnie and Mather (2006). The new data provide evidence for modifying that model, expanding it beyond changes in agricultural land use, and an underpinning of the understanding of the causes of land-use change. It also increases attention to economic and social consequences of changes in land use, and the reported importance of cultural and social factors.

91

Planning for future land-use change 4.32 One key message from the study is the importance of territorial development

and spatial planning in satisfying multiple demands on Scotland’s natural resources. The national planning framework and a range of spatial plans will enable appropriate national and local responses to drivers which balance opportunity with the positive and negative economic, social and environmental impacts of prospective changes in land use.

4.33 Due to the complexity of the interactions that lead to land-use change, there is

often an understanding of the relationship within the process but exploring scenarios of future land uses, and their consequences, is constrained by the absence of consistent and comprehensive information relating to biophysical and social processes.

4.34 The literature review demonstrated the paucity of academic literature on

public and charitable land holders, and land use decision-making by individuals who are not farmers. This may reflect to a degree, difficulty in accessing these populations.

4.35 Even within the farming sector, although environmental protection has been

well addressed; food security and climate change as considerations in decision-making processes would merit exploration, as their prominence as key high-level drivers is relatively new and evolving. Partly related to such developments, there is an ongoing need to review and keep relevant the information resources available to different types of land managers.

4.36 The new data derived from this research and the analysis presented in this

report, can inform thinking on policy and practice in relation to land use and land use change, and the generation of possible further evidence on at least three issues: • socio-cultural processes operating at land manager level, in particularly

the social and community goals of land managers, trade-offs between multiple priorities, and influences on decision-making of public, charitable and estate land managers;

• identifying and representing differences and inter-relationships between land use and land cover;

• understanding the multiple spatial and temporal scales at which processes operate (Aspinall, 2009).

4.37 To enable the exploration of scenarios of future change in land uses, there is

a need for means of modelling land-use change. This is a complex process which requires the integration of quantitative and qualitative data representing the groups of drivers. Outputs from the first research area above would enable more effective responses to questions about what and how land uses have changed, and will in future, and changes in multiple uses. Outputs from the second area would support the analysis of potential implications of the interactions of drivers, and the level of abstraction most appropriate to answering questions about land-use change.

92

4.38 The qualitative interviews and quantitative survey provide new data on the factors that influence decisions about land use at the level of the land manager. They provide a new opportunity to explore the spatial implications of land-use decisions by land managers, using a number of modelling tools which can represent behaviours of individual and interacting land managers while taking account of social influences on decisions and environmental constraints (e.g. Gotts and Polhill, 2009; Aalders and Williams, 2008; Aspinall, 2009; see also Appendix 10). However, this is understood as a complex task, and should not be expected to predict outcomes of change, rather the development of modelling approaches is a goal for those in the land use science community (Rindfuss et al., 2008).

4.39 The database of agricultural land uses, based on the data from IACS and the

JAC and classified according to their relevance to individual drivers, provides a unique basis for the exploratory analysis of the implications of changes in some drivers on others, and the impacts on wider land use and landscapes. This should benefit the activities in another component of the Rural Land Use Study which is exploring data-accessibility, availability and integration. . Combined with the new data on land use decision-making, the outputs can be exploited to aid the identification of spatial implications of scenarios of change, and inputs to assessments of potential impacts.

4.40 The findings of this project on drivers and decision-making about land use in

Scotland contribute to the wider agenda of the Rural Land Use Study, and should be considered alongside research on the potential contributions of Scotland's rural land to delivering sustainable economic growth (Slee et al., 2009), and on the role of the public sector in realising the benefits (Moxey et al., 2009). Together, they provide a deeper understanding of Scotland’s land use, the demands placed upon it, and how these may be addressed through the public and private sectors. The outputs from these and UK-level programmes such RELU and the Foresight initiative will make significant contributions to a more integrated, rich and complex evidence-base for policy-makers, land managers and decision-makers, communities and researchers.

4.41 Finally, Last (1988) quoted from The European Community and Environment

Protection (Commission of the European Communities, 1987), that ‘land is one of the most limited and sought-after of natural resources; the way it is used very largely determines the quality of the environment.’ He observed the need to recognise this, whether living in the town or country, and the sentiment remains valid today.

93

REFERENCES Aalders A. and Williams F. (2008) Farmland transaction: urban influences on rural land use. Proceedings of IP SENSOR Conference: Impact Assessment of Land use change, Urban Rural Linkages. Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany, 6-9 April 2008. ADAS (2007) $100 a Barrel of Oil: Impacts on the sustainability of food supply in the UK. Report to the Sustainable Development Commission. Altierri M.A. (1999) The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 74: 19-31. Andersen R.S., Towers W. and Smith P. (2005) Assessing the potential for biomass energy to contribute to Scotland's renewable energy needs. Biomass & Bioenergy 29: 73-82. Antrop M. (2003) Continuity and change in landscapes. In: U. Mander and M. Antrop (eds.) Multi-functional Landscapes: (vol. 3) Continuity and Change. Southampton: WIP Press: 1-14. Aspinall R.J. (2009) Global Land Project: major scientific challenges for coupled modeling of land systems. pp135-142. In: P.Y. Groisman and S.V. Ivanov (eds) Regional aspects of climate-terrestrial-hydrologic interactions in Eastern Europe Proceedings of a NATO Advanced Research Workshop, Springer. Bakker M.M. and Veldkamp A. (2008) Modelling land change: the issue of use and cover in wide-scale applications. Journal of Land Use Science, 3(4): 203-213. Barnes A.P. (2006) Does Multi-functionality affect Technical Efficiency? Journal of Environmental Management 80: 287-294. Bayard B. and Jolly C. (2007) Environmental behavior structure and socio-economic conditions of hillside farmers: a multiple group structural equation modeling approach. Ecological Economics 62: 433-440. Bell J. (2007) Commercial viability of willow short rotation coppice in Scotland. Scottish Forestry 61: 23-26. Berger T. and Schreinemachers P. (2006) Creating agents and landscapes for multiagent systems from random samples. Ecology and Society 11(2): 19. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art19/ (checked 22.06.09). Bibby J.S., Douglas H.A., Thomasson A.J. and Robertson J.S. (1991) Land Capability Classification for Agriculture. The Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Aberdeen. ISBN 0 7084 0508 8. Birnie R.V. and Mather A.S. (2006) Drivers of agricultural land use change in Scotland. In: E. Milanova, Y. Himiyama and I. Bicik (eds.) Understanding Land Use

94

and Land Cover Change in Global and Regional Context. Enfield USA: Science Publishers Inc. Chapter 10: 147-163. Birnie R.V., Miller D.R., Horne P.L., Leadbeater S. and Macdonald, A. (2000) The potential distribution and impact of bracken in upland Scotland: An assessment using a GIS-based niche model. Annals of Botany, 85, Supplement B: 53-62. Birne R., Curran J., MacDonald J.A., Mackey E.C., Campbell C.D., McGowan G., Palmer S.C.F., Paterson E., Shaw P. and Shewry M.C. (2002) The land resources of Scotland: trends and prospects for the environment and natural heritage. In: M.B. Usher, E.C. Mackey and J.C. Curran (eds.) The State of Scotland’s Environment and Natural Heritage, Edinburgh: HMSO. Bohan D.A., Boffey C.W.H., Brooks D.R., Clark S.J., Dewar A.M., Firbank L.G., Haughton A.J., Hawes C., Heard M.S., May M.J., Osborne J.L., Perry J.N., Rothery P., Roy D.B., Scott R.J., Squire G.R., Wolwood I.P. and Champion G.T. (2005) Effects on weed and invertebrate abundance and diversity of herbicide management in genetically modified herbicide-tolerant winter-sown oilseed rape. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 272: 463-474. Bohanec M., Messéan A., Scatasta S., Angevin F., Griffiths B., Krogh P., Žnidaršič M. and Džeroski S. (2008) A qualitative multi-attribute model for economic and ecological assessment of genetically modified crops. Ecological Modelling 215: 247-261. Brenchley W.E. and Warrington K (1933) The weed seed population of arable soil. I. Numerical estimation of viable seeds and observations on their natural dormancy. Journal of Ecology 18(2): 235-272. Briassoulis H. (1999) Analysis of land use change: theoretical and modeling approaches. Regional Research Institute, West Virgina University, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA. Bringezu S., Schuetz H., Arnold K., Merten F., Kabasci S., Borelbach P., Michels C., Reinhardt G.A. and Rettenmaier N. (2009) Global implications of biomass and biofuel use in Germany - Recent trends and future scenarios for domestic and foreign agricultural land use and resulting GHG emissions. Journal of Cleaner Production, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.03.007. Britton R. and Fenton F. (2007) Identification and Analysis of Drivers of Significant Land Use Change. Report to the Waikato Regional Council, New Zealand. http://www.ew.govt.nz/PageFiles/5463/tr0740.pdf (last accessed 16/10/2009). Brooks D.R., Bohan D.A., Champion G.T., Haughton A.J., Hawes C., Heard M.S., Clark S.J., Dewar A.M., Firbank L.G., Perry J.N., Rothery P., Scott R.J., Wolwood I.P., Birchall C., Skellern M.P., Walker J.H., Baker P., Bell D., Browne E.L., Dewar A.J., Fairfax C.M., Garner B.H., Haylock L.A., Horne S.L., Hulmes S.E., Masons N.S., Norton L.R., Nutall P., Randle Z., Rossall M.J., Sands R.J., Singer E.J. and Walker M.J. (2003) Invertebrate responses to the management of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant and conventional spring crops. I. Soil-surface-active

95

invertebrates. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 358(1439): 1847-1862 Brown I., Towers W., Rivington M., Black H., Booth, P. and Barrie D. (2008) The implications of climate change on Land Capability for Agriculture. Report to The Scottish Government. Burgess D., Patton M., Georgiou S. and Matthews D. (2009) Public attitudes to changing landscapes: an exploratory study. In: Proceedings of 1st International Conference on Landscape Economics, Vienna, Austria, July 2009. Burke D. (2004) GM food and crops: what went wrong in the UK? EMBO Reports, 5(5): 432 - 436. Burton R.J.F. (2004) Seeing through the “good farmer’s” eyes: towards developing an understanding of the symbolic value of utilitarian production. Sociologia Ruralis 44: 195–215. Burton R.J.F. and Wilson G. (2000) Farmers’ resistance to woodland planting in community forests: the influence of social and cultural factors. Occasional Paper, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK. Burton R., Kuczera C. and Schwarz G. (2008) Exploring farmers’ cultural resistance to voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Sociologia Ruralis 48(1): 16 - 37. Burton R., Mansfield L., Schwarz G., Brown K.M. and Convery I. (2005) Social capital in hill farming. Report for the International Centre for the Uplands, Penrith, Cumbria.

Calus M., Van Huylenbroeck G. and Van Lierde D. (2008) The relationship between farm succession and farm assets on Belgian farms. Sociologia Ruralis 48(1): 38-56. Cannell M. (2003) Carbon sequestration and biomass energy offset: Theoretical, potential and achievable capacities globally, in Europe and the UK. Biomass and Bioenergy 24: 97-116. Carr S. and Tait J. (1990) Farmers’ attitudes to conservation. Built Environment 16(3): 218-231. Coleby A.M., Miller D.R. and Aspinall P.A. (2009) Public attitudes and participation in wnid turbine develoment, Journal of Environmental Assessment, Policy and Management, 11(1): 69 – 95. Commission of the European Communities (1987) The European Community and Environment Protection, File 5/87, Office for official Publication of the EC, Luxembourg. Crosthwaite J., Callaghan J., Farmar-Bowers Q., Hollier C. and Straker A. (2004) Drivers of Land Use Change: Driver Research Phase, Overview Report, ESAI project 05116, Ecologically Sustainable Agriculture Initiative, Department of

96

Sustainability and Environment, and Department of Primary Industries, Victoria, Australia, September 2004. Council of Europe (2003) European Landscape Convention, Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, Florence, 2000. Defra (2006) UK’s report to the European Commission made under Decision 280/2004/EC of the European parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol. Defra: 36. De Gorter H. (2008) Explaining agricultural commodity price increases: The role of biofuel policies. http://arec.oregonstate.edu/faculty2/PerryFiles/deGorter%20paper.pdf (checked 22.08.09). De Groot R.S. (1987) Environmental functions as a unifying concept for ecology and economics. The Environmentalist, 7: 105 – 109. Dworak T., Schlegel S., Kaphengst T., Laizet C., Guilet M., Kaditi E., Brouwer F., Woltjer G., Nowicki P. and Karaczun Z. (2008) EU bioenergy policies and their effects on rural areas and agriculture policies. Report to the European Commission. EFSA (2006) Guidance document of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms for the risk assessment of genetically modified plants and derived food and feed. The EFSA Journal (99): 1-100. Environmental Resources Management (1997) South and central Aberdeenshire landscape character assessment. SNH Battleby: 1-135. European Commission (1997) Energy for the Future: Renewable Sources of Energy. White Paper for Community Strategy and Action Plan, COM(97)599 FINAL (26/11/1997), Brussels. European Commission (2000a) Communication from the commission to the Council and the European Parliament; Indicators for the integration of environmental concerns into the Common Agricultural Policy, COM (2000) 20 final, Brussels. European Commission (2000b) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal L 327, 22/12/2000 P. 0001 – 007. European Commission (2005) Biomass action plan Communication from the Commission {SEC(2005) 1573} /* COM/2005/0628 final */ http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=en&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2005&nu_doc=628 European Commission (2006) An EU Strategy for Biofuels" [COM(2006) 34 final http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=en&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2006&nu_doc=34

97

European Environmental Agency (EEA) (2006) How much bioenergy can we produce without harming the environment? EEA Report No. 7/2006. Copenhagen. European Parliament (2009) DIRECTIVE 2009/28/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:140:0016:0062:EN:PDF EUROSTAT (2008) Large changes in main crop areas in the EU in 2008. Statistics in focus, 59/2008. EUROSTAT: Luxembourg. http://www.edsdestatis.de/de/ downloads/sif/sf_08_059.pdf (last accessed 19/10/2009). Ewert F., Rounsevell M., Reginster I., Metzger M. and Leemans R. (2005) Future scenarios of European agricultural land use. I: Estimating changes in crop productivity. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 107: 101-116. Fairweather J. and Keating, N. (1994) Goals and management styles of New Zealand farmers, Agricultural Systems 44:1-20.

Foley J.A., DeFries R., Asner G.P., Barford C., Bonan G., Carpenter S.R., Chapin F. S., Coe M.T., Daily G.C., Gibbs H.K., Helkowski J.H., Holloway T., Howard E.A., Kucharik C.J., Monfreda C.J., Patz A., Prentice I.C., Ramankutty N. and Snyder P.K. (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309: 570-574.

Forestry Commission Scotland (2006) The Scottish Forestry Strategy www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/SFS2006fcfc101.pdf/$FILE/SFS2006fcfc101.pdf (checked 22.06.09). Forestry Commission (2007) Forestry Statistics: Woodland Areas and Planting. www.forestry.gov.uk/website/forstats2007.nsf (checked 16/10/09). Forestry Commission Scotland (2008) The Scottish Government’s Rationale for Woodland Expansion. http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/ForestExpansion.pdf/$FILE/ForestExpansion.pdf (checked 22.06.09). Forestry Commission Scotland (2009) Woods For Health – the Forestry Commission Scotland health strategy. http://www.forestry.gov.uk/woodsforhealth (checked 22.06.09). Fraser of Allander Institute, The Macaulay Institute and The Arkleton Centre (2003) Economic Impact of the 2001 Foot and Mouth Disease Outbreak in Scotland. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2003/07/17383/22553 (checked 22.06.09). FREDS (2005) Forum for the Renewable Energy Development in Scotland - Promoting and Accelerating the Market Penetration of Biomass Technology in Scotland. www.scotland.gov.uk.

98

Gasson R. and Errington A. (1993) The farm family business. Wallingford: CAB International: 304pp. Geist H.J. and Lambin E.F. (2002) Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical desertification. BioScience 52(2): 143-150. Geist H.J. and Lambin E.F. (2004) Dynamic causal patterns of desertification. BioScience 54(9): 817-829. Geist H.J., McConnell W., Lambin E.F., Moran E., Alves D. and Rudel T. (2006) Causes and trajectories of land-use/cover change. In: land-Use and land Cover Change: Local Processes and Global Impacts (Eds E.F. Lambin and H.J. Geist), The IGBP Series, Springer. Gelan A. and Schwarz G. (2008) The effect of single farm payments on less favoured area agriculture in Scotland: a CGE analysis. Agriculture and Food Sciences 17: 3-17. General Register Office for Scotland (2005) Household Estimates for Scotland by Local Authority 1991 to 2005. http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/statistics/publications-and-data/household-estimates-statistics/household-estimates-for-scotland-by-local-authority-1991-to-2005/index.html (checked 22.06.09). General Register Office for Scotland (2009) Scotland’s Population 2008 – The Register General’s Annual Review of Demographic Trends. http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/statistics/publications-and-data/annual-report-publications/annual-review-2008/index.html (checked 28.08.09). Glenn N.D. and Hill L. (1977) Rural-urban differences in attitudes and behaviour in the United States, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 429 (1): 36-45.

Global Land Project (2005) Science Plan and Implementation Strategy. IGBP Report No. 53/IHDP Report No. 19. IGBP Secretariat, Stockholm. 64pp.

Gorton M., Douarin E, Davidova S and Latruffe L. (2008) Attitudes to agricultural policy and farming futures in the context of the 2003 CAP reform: A comparison of farmers in selected established and new Member States. Journal of Rural Studies 24: 322–336. Gotts N. and Polhill J.G. (2009) When and how to imitate your neighbours: lessons from and for FEARLUS. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 12(3)2. Gotts N., Sutherland L-A., Cudlinova E., Kovach I., Reusswig F. and Steg L. (2009) The GILDED Project – Governance, infrastructure, lifestyle dynamics and energy demand: European post-carbon communities. International Scientific Congress on Climate Change, Copenhagen, 10-12 March 2009. Haberl H., Gaube V., Díaz-Delgadob R., Krauzec K., Neunerd A., Peterseild J., Plutzar C., Singh S.J. and Vadineanu A. (2009) Towards an integrated model of

99

socioeconomic biodiversity drivers, pressures and impacts. A feasibility study based on three European long-term socio-ecological research platforms. Ecological Economics 68(6): 1797 - 1812. Haddad N.M., Tilman D., Haarstad J., Ritchie M. and Knops J.M.H. (2001) Contrasting effects of plant richness and composition on insect communities: a field experiment. American Nature 158: 17-35. Haines-Young R. and Potschin M. (2008) England’s Terrestrial Ecosystem Services and the Rationale for an Ecosystem Approach. Overview Report to Defra, 30 pp. Defra Project Code NR0107. Haines-Young R., Potschin M. and Cheshire D. (2006) Defining and identifying Environmental Limits for Sustainable Development. A Scoping Study. Final Overview Report to Defra, 44 pp, Defra Project Code NR0102. Halfacree K. (2006) From dropping out to leading on? British counter-cultural back-to-the-land in a changing rurality. Progress in Human Geography 30: 309-336. Haughton A.J., Champion G.T., Hawes C., Heard M.S., Brooks D.R., Bohan D.A., Clark S.J., Dewar A.M., Firbank L.G., Osborne J.L., Perry J.N., Rothery P., Roy D.B., Scott R.J., Wolwood I.P., Birchall C., Skellern M.P., Walker J.H., Baker P., Browne E.L., Dewar A.J., Garner B.H., Haylock L.A., Horne S.L., Mason N.S., Sands R.J.N. and Walker M.J. (2003) Invertebrate responses to the management of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant and conventional spring crops. II. Within-field epigeal and aerial arthropods. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 358(1439): 1863-1878. Hawes C., Haughton A.J., Osborne J.L., Roy D.B., Clark S.J., Perry J.N., Rothery P., Bohan D.A., Brooks D.R., Champion G.T., Dewar A.M., Heard M.S., Wolwood I.P., Daniels R.E., Young M.W., Parish A.M., Scott R.J., Firbank L.G. and Squire G.R. (2003) Responses of plant and invertebrate trophic groups to contrasting herbicide regimes in the farm scale evaluations of genetically-modified herbicide-tolerant crops. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 358: 1899-1913. Hawes C., Haughton A.J., Bohan D.A. and Squire G.R. (2009) Functional approaches for assessing plant and invertebrate abundance patterns in arable systems. Basic and Applied Ecology, doi:10.1016/j.baae.2007.11.007 Heard M.S., Hawes C., Champion G.T., Clark S.J., Firbank L.G., Haughton A.J., Parish A.M., Perry J.N., Rothery P., Scott R.J., Skellern M.P., Squire G.R. and Hill M.O. (2003) Non-crop plants in fields with contrasting conventional and genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops.1. Main effects of treatments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 358(1439): 1819-1832. HS and RCAHMS (2005) Historical Land Use Assessment for Scotland. http://jura.rcahms.gov.uk/HLA/start.jsp (checked 26.06.09).

100

Ingemarson, F, Lindhagen, A. and Eriksson, L. (2006) A typology of small-scale private forest owners in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research. 21 (3): 249–259. Lambin E., Turner B., Geist H., Agbola S., Angelsen A., Bruce J., Coomes O., Dirzo R., Fischer G., Folke C., George P., Homewood K., Imbernon J., Leemans R., Li X., Moran E., Mortimore M., Ramakrishnan P., Richards J. and Skånes H. (2001) The causes of land-use and land-cover change: moving beyond the myths. Global Environmental Change 11(4): 261-269. Lambin E.G. and Geist H.J. (eds.) (2006) Land-use and land-cover change. Local processes and global impacts. London: Springer: 222pp. Last F. (1988) Introduction, Land use and the European Environment, (eds. M. Whitby and J Ollerenshaw), Belhaven Press, 1 – 6. Lutz A.R., Simpson-Housley P. and Deman A.F. (1999) Environment and Behavior, 31, No. 2, 259-266. Mackay D.J.C. (2009) Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air. UIT Cambridge. pp. 384. McConnell W.J. and Keys E. (2005) Meta-analysis of agricultural change. In: Seeing the forest and the trees: Human-Environment interactions in forest ecosystems (eds E.F. Moran and E. Ostrom), MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 325 – 353. Mander U., Helming K. and Wiggering H. (2007) Multifunctional land use: meeting future demands for landscape goods and services (Editorial): In: Multifunctional land use: meeting future demands for landscape goods and services (eds. U. Mander, K. Helming and H. Wiggering), Springer, 1 – 15. Marshall E.J.P., Brown V.K., Boatman N.D., Lutman P.J.W., Squire G.R. and Ward L.K. (2003) The role of weeds in supporting biological diversity within crop fields. Weed Research 43: 77 - 89. Mather A.S., Hill G. and Nijnik M. (2006) Post-productivism and rural land use: cul de sac or challenge for theorization? Journal of Rural Studies 22(4): 441-455. Matthews K.B., Rivington M., Buchan K., Miller D. and Bellocchi G. (2008) Characterising and communicating the agro-meteorological implications of climate change scenarios to land management stakeholders. Climate Research 37: 59-75. May M.J., Champion G.T., Dewar, A.M., Qi A. and Pidgeon J.D. (2005) Management of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant sugar beet for spring and autumn environmental benefit, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Biological Sciences, 272(1559): 111–119. Published online 2005 January 19. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2004.2948. Messean A., Squire G., Perry J., Angevin F., Gomez M., Townend P., Sausse C., Breckling B., Langrell S., Dzeroski S. and Sweet J. (2009) Sustainable Introduction

101

of GM Crops into European Agriculture: A Summary Report of the FP6 SIGMEA research project. OCL 16(1): 37-51. (doi:10.1684/ocl.2009.0241).

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems and Human Well-Being — A Framework for Assessment, World Resources Institute, Island Press, www.millenniumassessment.org/en/ Framework.aspx, 245 pp.

Morris C. and Potter C. (1995) Recruiting the New Conservationists: Farmers' Adoption of Agri-environmental Schemes in the UK. Journal of Rural Studies 11(1): 51-63. Moseley D.G., Ray D. and Watts K. (2007) Improving forest habitat networks with new woodland planting schemes. Forestry and British Timber. January 2007, p. 14 – 18. Moran D. and Hussain S. (2006) Scottish Agri-Environment Schemes: Review of economic evidence. Report for RSPB and SNH, SAC Edinburgh. Moxey A., Robinson R. and Swales V. (2009) The role of the public sector in realising the benefits of Scotland’s rural land. A report for the Scottish Government Rural Land Use Study, Project 3. pp. 96. Nayak D.N., Miller D.R., Nolan A., Smith P. and Smith J. (2008) Calculating carbon savings from wind farms on Scottish peat lands - A New Approach. Report for Scottish Government. pp.83. Nijnik M. and Mather, A. (2008) Analysing public preferences for woodland integration with other land uses in rural landscapes in Scotland, Landscape and Urban Planning, 86, 267-275. Norton L.R., Murphy J., Reynolds B., Marks S. and Mackey E.C. (2009) Countryside Survey: Scotland Results from 2007. NERC/Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, The Scottish Government, Scottish Natural Heritage, 83pp. (CEH Project Number: C03259). OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) (2008) Policy Briefs, August 2008. OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) and FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) (2009). Agricultural Outlook 2009-2018, Paris, Rome. Parker D.C., Hessl A. and Davis S.C. (in press) Complexity, land-use modeling, and the human dimension: fundamental challenges for mapping unknown outcome spaces. Geoforum. Richards J. (1999) Inverness District landscape character assessment. Report for SNH Inverness. http://www.snh.org.uk/publications/on-line/LCA/inverness.pdf (checked 26.06.09).

102

Rindfuss R.R, Entwisle B., Walsh S.J., Nathan L.A, Badenoch N., Brown D., Deadman P., Evans T.P., Fox J., Geoghegan J., Gutmann M., Kelly M., Linderman M., Liu J., Malanson G.P., Mena C.F., Messina J.P., Moran E.F., Parker D.C., Parton W., Prasartkul P., Robinson D.T., Sawangdee Y., Vanwey L.K. and Verburg P.H. (2008) land use change: complexity and comparisons. Journal of Land Use Science 3(1) 1 – 10. Roberts H.A. (1958) Studies on the weeds of vegetable crops. I. Initial effects of cropping on the weed seeds in the soil. Journal of Ecology 46: 759-768. Rounsevell M.D.A., Ewert F., Reginster I., Leemans R. and Carter T.R. (2005) Future scenarios of European agricultural land use. II: projecting changes in cropland and grassland. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 107: 117-135. Rounsevell M.D.A., Reginster I., Araujo M.B., Varter T.R., Dendoncker N., Ewert F., House J.L., Kankaanpaa S., Leemans R., Metzger M.J., Schmith P. and Tuck G. (2006) A coherent set of future land use change scenarios for Europe. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 114: 57–68. Rowe R.L., Street N.R. and Taylor G. (2009) Identifying potential environmental impacts of large-scale deployment of dedicated bioenergy crops in the UK. Renewable& Sustainable Energy Reviews 13: 260-279. Runge C.F., Senauer B., Pardey P.G. and Rosegrant M.W. (2003) Ending Hunger in Our Lifetime. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Schwarz G., von Witzke H. and Noleppa S. (2009) Determinants of international agricultural market prices and the European Union: The roles of energy prices and biofuel production. Paper presented at the International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium Analytic Symposium ‘Confronting Food Price Inflation:: Implications for Agricultural Trade and Policies’, June 22-23, Seattle, Washington. http://iatrc.software.umn.edu/activities/symposia/2009Seattle/seattle-VonWitzke.pdf (checked 12.08.09). Schwarz G., Blanke B., Birnie R. and Wright I.A. (2006) The state of the Scottish farmed environment. Scottish Executive 2004 Environment Group Research report 2004/5. Scottish Executive (2004a) Planning for Housing, Scottish Planning Policy Planning for Rural Development: Consultation Draft, Scottish Planning Policy 13, Edinburgh. January 2004. Scottish Executive (2004b) Scotland’s Biodiversity: It’s in Your Hands. A strategy for the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity in Scotland. www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/25954/0014583.pdf (checked 04.05.09). Scottish Executive (2005) Housing in the Countryside. Planning Advice Note 72, Scottish Executive, Edinburgh: pp. 13.

103

Scottish Executive (2006) Scotland’s soil resource – Current state and threats. Environment and Rural Affairs Department, Scottish Executive, Edinburgh: pp 195. Scottish Government (2007) Scottish Planning Policy SPP 6 Renewable Energy. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/03/22084213/0 (checked 22.06.09). Scottish Government (2008a) Key Scottish Environment Statistics 2008, Scottish Government, Edinburgh, pp. 53. Scottish Government (2008b) Planning Advice Note: PAN 84 Reducing Carbon Emissions in New Development, www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/03/06133051/0 (checked 01.08.09). Scottish Government (2008c) Scottish Transport Statistics: No. 27, 2008 Edition. www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/12/22091243/0 (checked 01.08.09). Scottish Government (2008d) National Planning Framework for Scotland 2: Proposed Framework, www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/12/12093953/0 (checked 01.08.09). Scottish Government (2009a) Scotland's Climate Change Adaptation Framework (consultation), www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Environment/climatechange/scotlands-action/adaptation/AdaptaitonFramework/Consultation (checked 28.07.09). Scottish Government (2009b) National Food and Drink Policy for Scotland. www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Business-Industry/Food-Industry/national-strategy (checked 26.08.09). Scottish Government (2009c) Scotland Rural Development Programme 2007 - 2013. www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/farmingrural/SRDP (last accessed 16/10/2009). Scottish Government (2009d) Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/acts2009/pdf/asp_20090012_en.pdf (checked 25.08.09). Scottish Government (2009e) Final estimates of cereal and oilseed rape harvest 2008. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2009/01/14164908 (last accessed 19/10/2009). Scottish Natural Heritage (2002) Facts and Figures 2002-2003. SNH Battleby. www.snh.org.uk/publications/online/corporate/factsandfigures/ff2003/index.htm (checked 26.06.09). Scottish Natural Heritage (2004) Urban: Built land. Natural Heritage Trends Series, pp. 4. Slee W., Bergman H., Brown I., Huband S., McCracken D., Renwick A., Sutherland L-A., Thomson S. and Reed M. (2009) Realising the potential contributions of

104

Scotland’s rural land to delivering sustainable economic growth. A report for the Scottish Government Rural Land Use Study, Project 3: pp. 110. Squire G.R., Hawes C., Bohan D.A., Brooks D.R., Champion G.T., Firbank L.G., Haughton A.J., Heard M.S., May M.J., Perry J.N. and Young M.W. (2005) Biodiversity effects of the management associated with GM cropping systems in the UK. Defra, London. Sutherland L-A. (2009) Environmental grants and regulations in strategic farm business decision-making: A case study of attitudinal behaviour in Scotland. Land Use Policy in press. Swanwick C. (2008) Landscape as an integrating framework for upland management. In: A. Bonn, T. Allott, K. Hubacek and J. Stewart (eds.) Drivers of Environmental Change in Uplands. London: Routledge, 544pp. Towers W., Grieve I.C., Hudson G., Capbell C.D., Lilly A., Davidson D.A., Bacon J.R., Langan, S.J. and Hopkins D.A. (2006) Scotland’s soil resource – Current state and threats. Environmental Research Report 20076/01, Scottish Executive, Edinburgh. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/09/21115639/0 (checked 03.10.09). Tubby I. and Armstrong A. (2002) Establishment and management of short rotation coppice. Forestry Commission Practice Note 7, Forestry Commission, Edinburgh. http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/BEC_TECHNICAL/BEST%20PRACTICE/BROADLEAVEDCOPPICEGUIDEREVISION131007%20GPH.PDF (checked 01.08.09). Tuck G., Glendining M.J., Smith P., House J.I. and Wattenbach M. (2006) The potential distribution of bioenergy crops in Europe under present and future climate. Biomass and Bioenergy 30: 183-197. Upton M. and Haworth S. (1987) The growth of farms. European Review of Agricultural Economics 14(4): 351–366. Van Herzele, A and Van Gossum, P. (2009) Owner-specific factors associated with conversion activity in secondary pine plantations. Forestry Policy and Economics 4: 230-236. Veldkamp A. and Verburg P.H. (2004) Modelling land use change and environmental impact. Journal of Environmental Management 72: 1-3. von Braun J. (2007) The World Food Situation: New driving forces and required actions. Washington, D.C., IFPRI. Walter G. (1997) Images of success: How Illinois farmers define the successful farmer. Rural Sociology 62:1:48-68. Weiss C. (1999) Farm growth and survival: econometric evidence for individual farms in upper Austria. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81(1): 103–116.

105

White R.M., Fischer A., Marshall K., Travis J., Webb T.J., di Falco S., Redpath S. and van der Wal, R. (2009) Developing an integrated conceptual framework to understand biodiversity conflicts. Land Use Policy 26: 242 - 253. Williams F. (2006) The future of farming? Factors influencing the decisions of the next generation. Commissioned research report to Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department. www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Research/projects/environment-biologyagri/completed/ agricultural-college/SAC2006CP#a11 (checked 28.07.09). Wilson J.D., Taylor R. and Muirhead L.B. (1996) Field use by farmland birds in winter: an analysis of field type preferences using resampling methods. Bird Study 43: 320-332.

App

endi

x 1.

Typ

olog

y of

Dec

isio

n-m

aker

s

Fi

gure

A1.

1. T

ypol

ogy

of d

ecis

ion-

mak

ers

Notes on decision-maker types The following groups, which appear in the typology key, have been developed following a quantitative survey. These were then mapped onto the updated typology diagram. The characteristics of each group are outlined briefly below. Ecological Land Stewards This group tends to:

• Place a high level of importance on land steward priorities, ecological attitudes and responsibility.

• Acknowledge that land management decisions have an impact on the ecology of the area.

• Are aware that land management is part of a wider environmental framework, which includes government policy and non-land based primary industries.

Economic Land Stewards This group tends to:

• Demonstrate high land care, in conjunction with high income related priorities, indicating greater awareness of the underlying economic drivers of land use production.

• Agree with diversification themes, but also indicate an underlying ecological awareness of production methods.

• Demonstrate a low level of agreement with community related social attitudes, which may indicate a more individualist approach to land use management.

Multi-functionalists This group tends to:

• Place a high level of importance on economic, environmental and social themes. Consequently, they represent a multi-functional approach to land use management.

• Be orientated towards both land based production but also to opportunities for diversification.

• Be aware of the ecological impacts of production activity. • Focus land use management decision making with respect to the local

community context. Community Stewards This group tends to:

• be indifferent to, or in disagreement with, production, land stewarding and ecological themes.

• Strongly believe in community based priorities and attitudes, suggesting that their decision making considers impacts at both a community and national level.

RLUS1 Question Guide The purpose of the Rural Land Use Study, which consists of a number of research projects, is to provide an evidence base on the potential contributions of Scotland’s rural land to delivering sustainable economic growth, and the major policy challenges it faces in relation to land use. The focus of the specific project we are involved in is rural land use decision-making: how people make strategic decisions about what to do with land they own or manage. Please see letter outlining the purpose of the research for additional information. The interview will include: Introductory description about research purpose, and agreement regarding recording, confidentiality, etc. We would like to make a recording of this interview. The recording will be used primarily to make notes on our conversation, but we may use some direct quotations in the research report or publications unless you ask us not to. It would be very useful if we could associate the comments you make with your organisation, but if prefer we will keep your statements anonymous or not quote you at all. 1. Background of the key informant

A. Clarify their position/role in their organisation, how long they’ve worked there, general experience there; and other biographical history that might be useful to contextualise their answers.

B. Clarify which types of sectors they are competent to provide insight into.

C. Establish the past major rural land-use trends and changes they have observed.

D. Establish the future major rural land-use trends and changes they anticipate.

E. Establish what they think is driving land-use changes. F. Identify the land-use decisions they will be describing from now on:

Emphasise that this is what we will mean by strategic land-use decisions in the rest of the interview.

2. Process of Decision-Making

A. Describe what prompts a land use decision. B. Describe the chain of events for decision making. C. Identify the decision-making authority. D. Frequency of decision-making. E. Timescale for action.

3. Roles and interactions

A. Financial institutions [banks, credit unions, insurance?]. B. Subsidies and grants [SFP, agri-environment, LFASS, RDC, WGS, forestry grants, LEADER]. C. Regulations [environmental, H&S, processing, transport, bio-security,

planning, building, energy quotas …]. D. Sources of information. E. Rural Communities. F. Attitudes of peers [other farmers/foresters/estates etc].

4. Identifying decision making types A. Identify main priorities of decision-makers in their sector. B. Identify other motivations. C. Discuss our actor-typology. [we will send this to you on the day]. D. Address economic issues (if not already raised). E. Identify constraint. F. Summarise revisions to Actor – typology.

5. Conclusion Opportunity to add any further comments, on or off the record. Information on next stage of process (results to Scottish Government in July, Land Use Summit led by Minister Lochhead in November 2009). Key Informant Interview Participants John Muir Trust Crown Estates Scottish Environment Protection Agency Scottish Renewables Scottish Enterprise Rural Housing Service Factor from Highlands and Grampian Deer Commission Scottish Estates Business Group Agricultural Banker (Northern Scotland) Crofters Commission Defence Estates Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authority Scottish Borders Councilor RSPB Deer Commission National Trust Scotland Scottish Rural Property and Business Association Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust National Farmers Union Tennant Farmers Forum Confederation of Forest Industries Agricultural Estate Agent (Inverness)

App

endi

x 2.

Sam

plin

g Fr

amew

ork

and

Tele

phon

e qu

estio

nnai

re

Sam

plin

g fr

amew

ork

for t

elep

hone

que

stio

nnai

re (i

.e. q

uant

itativ

e su

rvey

) Sa

mpl

ing

Fram

e D

ata

Sour

ce

Mai

n D

ecis

ion

Mak

er

Com

plet

ed

resp

onse

s (N

o.)

Bre

akdo

wn

(%)

Sam

plin

g Si

ze

(No.

)

Stra

tific

atio

n

(No.

)

Per

Reg

ion

Per

Inte

nsity

Pe

r Si

ze

Agr

icul

ture

IA

CS

Fa

rmer

s/

Hou

seho

lds

290

48

1,00

0 25

0 12

5 42

Cen

sus

Cro

fters

45

8

128

128

64

21

Cen

sus

Hob

byis

ts

20

3 10

1 25

Fore

stry

IA

CS

P

rivat

e Fo

rest

ers

200

33

507

127

63

21

FC C

onta

cts

Pub

lic

Fore

ster

s 5

1 18

A

ll

Oth

er

IAC

S

NG

O/N

on-

Com

mer

cial

10

2

A

ll

Ren

ewab

le

Ener

gy

IAC

S

Ene

rgy

Cro

p S

chem

e B

enef

icia

ries

30

5 62

A

ll

Tota

ls

60

0 10

0 2,

045

Def

initi

ons

Det

ails

Id

entif

iers

in th

e D

ata

Set

Reg

ion

Nor

th E

ast,

Nor

th W

est,

Sou

th E

ast,

Sou

th W

est

Par

ish

Iden

tifie

r In

tens

ity

Hig

h, L

ow

Sto

ckin

g D

ensi

ty (

lives

tock

uni

t pe

r ha

), C

ropp

ing

Den

sity

(cro

ppin

g ac

tivity

per

ha)

Siz

e S

mal

l, M

ediu

m, L

arge

C

enus

Def

initi

ons

Telephone Questionnaire Information about you and your business

1 What, would you say, is your main land based activity?

Farming Forestry

Field Sports

Tourism Energy Production

Other (which) 2 Are you Male Female 3 How old are you? 18 – 35 36-50 51-65 Over 65

4 What is your status with respect to the land you manage? Tenanted Owned

outright Partly tenanted/

Partly owned Employee

5 Your educational level School College University or higher

6 Is this enterprise operated for profit? Yes No, but it is

important that it breaks even

No, we expect to make a loss.

Note to interviewer: if the above response is ‘yes’, refer choose ‘business’ in referring to the enterprise; otherwise use ‘holding’.

7 Are you the main decision maker on the business/holding? Yes No If not, who is? (related to Employer,

Family, Partner, Joint Decision maker) 8 How many people are employed on this land None 1-3 4 -10 More than 10 9 Please give a rough estimate of how much land is involved in the enterprise

10

Please give a rough estimate of how much of the enterprise’s land is allocated to the following activities

Forestry ____ha

Agricultural Activity(incl. grassland) _____ha

Sporting Activity

_____ha

Growing Energy Crops

____ha/acre

Horticultural activities,

e.g. glasshouse

Environmental Schemes

11 How many years have you been involved in decision making? 1-5 6-15 More than 15 years

12 How long have you lived in this community? All life More than

10 years Less than 10 years

I don’t live on or near the land I manage

13

Are decisions on this

business/holding made by

One person Household Extended

family Business partners

Public employees

Board of Directors Other

14 Was this business/holding inherited from a previous generation? yes no

15 Do you intend to pass the business/holding on when you leave?

Not my decision

Yes, to another family

member

Yes, to business

partner, associate

No, I intend to

sell when I retire

Un-decided

16 Decisions are made on the basis of what will be best for about the next:

One year Five years 10 years 20 years 50 years longer

17 How satisfied are you with the income generated by this holding/enterprise?

Not at all satisfied

Slightly satisfied

Fairly satisfied Very satisfied

18

How much of the income from this business/holding is made up from Government support (e.g., Single farm payment, rural development contracts, forestry challenge funds, forestry grants scheme, woodland grant scheme, etc.)?

Less than 25%

Around 25 to 50% More than 50%

19 Do you have any financial investments outside of this business/holding?

None at all

Very Few

Quite a Few Many

20 Are you a member of an environmental scheme? Yes No

21 If not, have you taken any environmental conservation measures yourself

Yes (please state) ___________ No

22 Have you ever travelled in order to look at other businesses/holdings that are like yours? Yes No

23 Do you see yourself as an early adopter of technology compared to others? Yes No

24 During the past ten years have any of the following had an effect on the way you manage your business/holding?

- Changes in Government funding Not affected Slightly affected

Much affected

- Changes in Input prices Not affected Slightly affected

Much affected

- Changes in Output (products, services) prices Not affected Slightly

affected Much

affected

- Changes in Regulation Not affected Slightly affected

Much affected

- Changes in Technology Not affected Slightly affected

Much affected

- Decision-maker approaching retirement Not affected Slightly

affected Much

affected

- Increasing opportunities for external income Not affected Slightly

affected Much

affected

- Changes in trained staff availability Not affected Slightly affected

Much affected

- Climate Change Not affected Slightly affected

Much affected

- Joining a quality assurance program Not affected Slightly affected

Much affected

- Succession planning Not affected Slightly affected

Much affected

25 During the past ten years have any of the following limited the changes you can make to your business/holding?

- land capability Not limited Slightly limited Much limited - land availability Not limited Slightly limited Much limited - uncertainty about future conditions Not limited Slightly limited Much limited - suitability of infrastructure Not limited Slightly limited Much limited - access to capital Not limited Slightly limited Much limited - labour availability Not limited Slightly limited Much limited - access to markets Not limited Slightly limited Much limited - government regulations Not limited Slightly limited Much limited - difficulty getting planning permission Not limited Slightly limited Much limited

Information Sources

26

In order to get ideas on strategic decisions (medium & long term development of the business/holding) how often do you:

Never

Occasionally

Regularly

Very frequently

- consult with your family - consult the internet - consult media (TV, ratio, newspapers)

- attend open days or demonstration activities

- meet with other land managers - take a consultant’s advice

Priorities

Please rate on a scale of 1 to 5 (with 5 being the most important) the following priorities for your business

1 2 3 4 5

27 To obtain the greatest amount of profit from my resources

28 To make enough money to keep my family comfortable

29 To ensure there is a business/holding for my successors when I retire

30 To maintain an attractive lifestyle for my family 31 To obtain or maintain respect within the local

community

32 To remain independent and increase my self-reliance 33 To make my business/holding an example for others

to follow

34 To steward the land for future generations 35 To improve its environmental condition 36 To provide a service to society 37 To provide local employment 38 To enjoy working on it myself 39 To make money in order to fund other activities of this

holding/enterprise

40 To involve the local community in decision-making.

Attitudes

Below there are some comments gathered from a variety of sources. Please state whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree, or unsure in response to the following statements:

Strongly Disagree Disagree

Unsure/ not

applicableAgree Strongly

Agree

Attitudes towards business

Note to interviewer: Offer the ‘not applicable’ option of response ONLY for questions marked with *.

41

* On a business/holding of this size you must be focused on production/services if you are to survive

42 * I always aim to have the highest levels of output from the use of my resources

43 My main concern is to reduce the costs of my inputs

44 * Focussing on niche markets is the way to improve profits within this industry

45 Increasing the size of one’s business/holding is the right way to go

46 Diversifying one’s business/holding is the right way to go

Environmental responsibility

47 Environmental actions should be paid for by the government

48 Other industries pollute more than mine and should be penalised more

49

It is fair that I should be held responsible for environmental damage my business may cause in this community

50 Environmental protection in the area should be the responsibility of the whole community

51 Land managers should be responsible towards the wildlife on their lands

52 Land managers should be responsible towards the soil condition on their lands

General social responsibility

53 Being part of the local community is important to me

54 Using workers and staff from the local labour force is important to me

55 My land provides considerable benefits to the local area

56 Local residents represent a high share of my customers

57 My business/holding provides benefits to rural Scotland

58 I make decisions that will benefit people who inherit this land

Business management intentional behaviour (please, accept multiple responses)

59 In the next 5-10 years do you intend to change any of your activities within the business/ holding? Yes No

- Invest in more agricultural-related activities

- Grow more energy crops

- Plan for renewable energy, e.g. wind power, hydro power

- Invest in forestry related activities

- Invest in more tourism activities, e.g. bed and breakfast

- Invest in more sporting activities, e.g. shooting, horses etc.

- Invest in more landscape features for recreation etc.

- Invest in housing on this business/holding

- Invest in my fixed assets

- Purchase or rent more land

- Employ more full-time labour

- Use more contractors

- Invest/invest more outside of this business/holding

- No, keep the same activities

- No, I aim to reduce the number of activities in my business/holding

- Other change, which: _________________________________________________________________________

60 In the next 5-10 years do you intend to change the size of the business/holding

No Sell up

Reduce size a little

Reduce size a

lot

Increase size a little

Increase size a

lot

(Please, accept multiple responses)

61 Who influenced your decision to change or not the size of the business/holding or activities?

It is my own decision Yes No

After discussion with family Not at all Yes, a little Yes, a lot

After discussion with business partners Not at all Yes, a little Yes, a lot

After discussion with board of directors Not at all Yes, a little Yes, a lot

After discussion with advisors/consultants Not at all Yes, a little Yes, a lot

After discussion with other land managers Not at all Yes, a little Yes, a lot

After consulting written sources (market reports etc.) Not at all Yes, a little Yes, a lot

After consulting with the local community Not at all Yes, a little Yes, a lot

After discussions with bank/building society manager Not at all Yes, a

little Yes, a lot

Other influence. (Please state): ________________________________________________________________________

Thank you very much for completing the survey!

APPENDIX 3 Summaries of generic economic, environmental and social implications of key drivers Table A3.1 Summary of drivers Group of Drivers

Elements Sub-element

Climate change: mitigation strategies

Climate change: adaptation strategies

Extreme weather events and other natural catastrophes

Biodiversity change Water quality Soil quality

Environmental

Landscape enhancement and protection, habitat networks

In- and out-migration Age of rural population

Demographic

Consumer preferences Economic growth Input and output prices Labour market Energy security Transport Housing Food Security

Economic

Exchange rates Technological changes in land-use sectors

Other technological changes Bio-tech crops Winter cereals

Technological factors

Improved tree varieties Living standards in rural areas Sustainable rural economy Water quality Biodiversity

Policy and institutional: Objectives

Climate change GATT & WTO negotiations International environmental obligations and agreements

International obligations and agreements

EU Water Framework Directive EU Renewable Energy Directive 2008 Forest cover targets (Forestry strategy) Political influences of stakeholders (lobbying) Fiscal policy

Policy and institutional: Frameworks

Policy targets and timetables

National Forest Land Scheme Market instruments (export subsidies, coupled payments etc.) SFP (decoupling - “income transfers”) LFASS AEMs

Grants/subsidies

Forestry payments Set-aside

Policy and institutional: Instruments

Quantity measures Milk quota

GAEC & SMR National Parks, Natura 2000, SSSIs, etc.

Regulations and designations

Land reform Public Attitudes and beliefs

Attitudes and beliefs Tradition Cooperation Education Skills

Land manager

Ownership and succession Health and well-being

Cultural & social

Heritage Table A3.2 Summary of generic economic implications of key drivers with respect to land use sectors. Sectors Generic

Implications Key Drivers and Driver Elements

+

• Higher market prices: Increase in production and income of land managers

• SFP: Greater flexibility for farmers to adjust their production structure to market developments

• LFASS: Positive impact on farm incomes in LFA and safeguarding of upland cattle and sheep systems

• Technological progress: Increased yield and profit per hectare/farm

Agriculture

-

• High input prices: Decrease in production and income of land managers

• Housing demand and in-migration: Competition to agricultural land use – reduction in agricultural production

• Lack of successor: Split of farms and farm buildings and reduction in investments in future developments of farms

• Loss of soil quality: Reduction in yield and profit per hectare/farm

+

• High timber prices: Greater economic return for resource

• Forestry payments • Improved transport infrastructure: Increased

ease of business from inheriting investments in roads and rail infrastructure

• Biodiversity: Tourism • Community cohesion: development of new

opportunities for local business for community woodlands and tourism

Woodlands and trees

-

• Low timber prices: Reduced economic return for resource

• Attitudes and beliefs of land managers: limiting farmer uptake of farm woodland

• Agricultural subsidies: Limited uptake of farm woodland options

• Lack of adequate transport infrastructure constraining woodland expansion to meet targets of 25% cover

Renewable energy +

• Energy security: broadening the base of Scotland’s energy supply and diversify

employment base, especially in rural areas • Policy targets and EC Directives: increased

capital investment in energy projects, mainly in rural areas, new income opportunities for land managers through bioenergy production, and potential for development of themed tourism routes,

• Public attitudes and beliefs: Offsetting domestic and business fuel costs by local energy capture

• Climate change - mitigation: New business opportunities for maintenance or exploitation of local electricity, combined heat and power, increased community funds from different forms of ownership of renewables, local consultancy businesses

-

• Food security: priority use of land for food production rather than energy (e.g. crops) production

• Landscape enhancement and protection: Reduced potential for renewable energy sites (e.g. wind turbines) because of negative impacts on landscapes,

• Biodiversity concerns: Reduced realisation of economic potential of renewables due to less land available for renewable energy production because of potential impacts on wildlife (wind turbines) and biodiversity (energy crops)

• Climate change – mitigation: release of carbon from carbon rich soils (e.g. peat) from wind farm construction – limit economic potential of wind farm development

+

• Higher market prices: increase in primary production leads to positive spill-over effects to up- and downwards industries

• SFP: Gains for the rural economy can be expected due to the shift of resources to other sectors

• Skills: High production and quality standards and diversified economic activities lead to benefits for the rural economy

• Technological developments: Internet and digital communications enabling new business opportunities and renewable energy

Rural economy

-

• Lack of transport and infrastructure: Disincentives for economic activities and new investments / industries

• Employment and labour market: Out-migration of skills and expertise to urban areas

Table A3.3 Summary of generic social implications of key drivers. Indicators Generic

Implications Key Drivers

+

• Higher market prices: More economically viable farms strengthens the social fabric of rural areas and could attract successors in the long term

• LFASS: Supports social capital and networks within remoter rural communities through maintenance of agricultural activities

• Cooperation: Cooperation in land management strengthens social capital and networks

• Tradition: Maintenance of traditional activities in rural areas strengthen the social capital and networks of farming and rural communities

Social capital and networks

-

• SFP: Large scale extensification and potential agricultural sector abandonment could weaken the social fabric of rural (farming) communities in remoter areas

• In-and out-migration: Change in socio-demographic profile of local area can lead to lower social capital and weaker social networks

• Lack of successor: Reduced numbers of farmers and farm families have negative impacts on social capital and networks

+

• High market prices: Increased need for labour in primary sectors and down- and upstream industries

• EU Renewable Energy Directive 2008: Positive employment effects in rural areas from further investment in and development of the renewable/bioenergy sector

• AEMs: Positive employment effects from agri-environment measures with positive spill-over effects for the local economy and cost-effectiveness of public expenditure in terms of providing non-market benefits (public goods)

Employment

-

• Lack of (transport) infrastructure: Decreased accessibility, increased travel times, and poor connectivity resulting in reduced economic activity with less employment opportunities

• Aging population: Reduction of employment and skills potential of rural populations and reliance on migrant workers for some sectors

Table A3.4 Summary of generic environmental implications of key drivers. Indicators Generic

Implications Key Drivers

+

• National Parks, Natura 2000, SSSIs, etc., AEMs: Protection and enhancement of habitats through networks of designations or agri-environment measures

• Tradition: Encouragement of local approaches to land management and maintenance of natural heritage features

• Co-operation: Community or collaborative stakeholder approaches to natural heritage management, sharing ownership and responsibility, leading to increased flexibility in responding to pressures on biodiversity

• Habitat networks established (following Ecosystem approach in practice)

Biodiversity

-

• Availability of autumn sown cereal varieties: Loss of plant, invert and vertebrate biodiversity in arable-grass landscapes

• EU Renewable Energy Directive 2008: Potential intensification of land use and the use of previously set-aside land can be expected to lead to biodiversity loss

+

• National Parks, Natura 2000, SSSIs, WFD, AEMs: Reduced pollution in water courses and improved conditions for adjacent river banks/loch sides

Water quality

-

• Availability of autumn sown cereal varieties: Greater pollution of watercourses

• Food and energy security: Negative impacts on water quality from intensified land use for food or bioenergy production; particulate matter in water courses due to poorly managed development of windfarms or microhydro sites

Appendix 4 Post-war trends in selected indicators of agricultural land use in Scotland This appendix presents time-series indicating some of the changes that have taken place in Scotland’s agricultural land use since the Second World War.

Figure A4.1a Comparison of relative prices of Brent Crude Oil, wheat, and barley from August 1984 to June 2009. Indices are calculated from monthly world marker prices in US dollars The price for each commodity is expressed relative to the price of that commodity in June 1997 (which therefore has a value of 1.0). For the period from 1986 to 1999 the relative prices of wheat, barley and oil appear to be reasonably stable (apart from the brief increase in oil price in late 1990). From 1999 onwards the relative prices have changed, oil becoming increasingly expensive compared to the price of cereals. The increase in cereal prices (and rapid increase in oil price) from 2007 can also be seen.

0

50

100

150

200

250

Jan 07 Apr 07 Jul 07 Okt 07 Jan 08 Apr 08 Jul 08 Okt 08

Corn Soybeans Wheat Crude Oil

Figure A4.1b Comparison of relative prices of Corn, Soyabeans, Wheat and crude oil for 2007 and 2008 (Source: CRB, 2009).

)

Figure A4.2 Area and relative proportion of area planted as wheat, barley and oats in Scotland (1938 to present) The total area planted with oats, barley and wheat in Scotland has fluctuated between over 500,000 ha and 400,000 ha over the last 60 years, and is currently about 400,000-450,000 ha. From the Second World War until the mid-1950s, about 75-80% of the area planted was to oats, barley being about 15% and wheat about 5%. By the late 1970s/early 1980s, oats had declined to less than 10% of the area planted, while barley area increased to about 80-85%. Since the early 1980s, wheat has increased to about 25% of area planted, barley declining to about 70%.

Figure A4.3 Value and relative contribution of outputs of livestock, livestock products, cereals, other crops, and horticulture in Scotland (1938 to present) In absolute terms the value of output from agriculture has risen considerably since the 1950s. The increase began particularly in the first half of the 1970s, the UK joining the Common Market in 1973, and reached a maximum in the second half of the 1990s. The current annual value of output is about £2 billion. About 40-50% of output value is associated with livestock; livestock products and cereals add a further 20% each. The remaining 20% is from other crops and horticulture. Livestock and livestock products combined are now about 60% of output, down from a high of about 80% in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.

Figure A4.4 Numbers and relative proportions of cattle, sheep, pigs and poultry in Scotland (1938 to present)

Appendix 5 Forest Management Alternatives

Forest Management Alternatives

Describe coherent series of operations and decisions in the forest. They can be ranked along a gradient of management intensity.

App 5.1 FMA1 - Natural reserves

Conservation, protection and enhancement of ecological processes through appropriate non-production-based management:

• No forest operations (including harvesting); • Next to the biodiversity value (most important), some recreational and

scientific value. Management objective: The main aim of management in these stands is to provide ‘reference stands’ where the impact of ecological processes in forests can be followed without disruption from timber management. The categories that are covered within this FMA are generally known in Scottish Forestry as ‘minimum intervention’ and/or ‘natural reserves’. Basic principles: No timber harvesting or other management intervention is undertaken within stands designated under this category, apart from work that may be required to remove invasive species (e.g. Rhododendron ponticum, western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla)) or to carry out control of deer or other pest species. Around 2% of the Forestry Commission estate in Scotland was designated under this category in 2005 (L. Halsall, pers. comm.) and figures for the private sector are thought to be similar. Most of the designated areas are small in size (< 50 ha) and are therefore likely to be vulnerable to wind disturbance.

App 5.2 FMA 2a - Close-to-nature forestry

Maintenance and restoration of authentic biodiversity and low impact silvicultural systems, e.g. single tree or small coupe harvesting of high quality forest products (“Transformation to CCF”). Overall objective: to produce wood by emulating natural processes and cycles

• Management has to enhance or conserve ecological functions of forest; • Low percentage of biomass removed; • Tree species selection according to potential natural vegetation, no

breeds or genetically modified plants; • No soil preparation, fertilization, or application of chemical agents; • Final harvesting system mimics natural disturbances.

Management objectives: The practice of CCF with Sitka spruce generally occurs on sites of high visual, recreational or biodiversity value where it is considered that clear felling, even in small coupes (0.25 to 1.0 ha), is not compatible with delivering other non-market benefits from the forest. Under such circumstances, and on windfirm sites, a range of lower impact silvicultural systems can be used to implement CCF and provide a sustained supply of timber and other ecosystem products. Basic principles: The outline given below is idealised since no fully functioning CCF stands of Sitka spruce can be found in the British Isles. Nearly all examples consist of old plantation stands which have developed a varied structure as a result of silvicultural intervention and can be considered to be in the process of transformation to CCF. Such stands would have developed in the ‘Regeneration’ and ‘Young’ phases in a similar way to that described for FMA4 and the main differences in CCF lie in the crown thinning regimes adopted in the ‘medium’ and ‘adult’ phases. About 5% of Forestry Commission forests were classed in the CCF category in 2005 and a similar figure is thought likely to occur in the private sector. The main principle is that Sitka spruce is suitable for the site and that natural regeneration of a range of species can be obtained. Admixed species could include Larix spp., Pseduotsuga menziesii, Pinus spp., and Betula spp. The stands will be managed under an irregular shelterwood or group selection silvicultural system, which allows for the relatively limited shade tolerance of Sitka spruce – regeneration gaps will typically be in the range of 0.1 to 0.4 ha. No planting or site cultivation is carried out and no fertilisers are applied. Some chemical control of invasive weeds or pest species may take place, but only on small patches. Only stems of felled trees are extracted and all residues are left in the forest. This includes standing and fallen deadwood which is higher in this FMA than all others apart from the ‘unmanaged nature reserve’. A feature of this FMA is the relative amount of large sized trees (dbh > 60 cm) that are produced which can require special marketing in a sector which is increasingly focused on medium sized logs (35to 45 cm dbh).

FMA 2b - Close-to-nature forestry

Conversion to native woodland using CCF. Management objectives: This variant of the Close to Nature forest management alternative applies where the decision has been made to restore a conifer plantation that was established during the last century to a native woodland ecosystem. This is an important component of forestry policy and is achieved either by replanting native species following clearfelling of the conifers (essentially an adaptation of ‘intensive even-aged management’) or by progressive thinning of the stand to favour native species. This approach maintains habitat and visual continuity and is similar to CCF in its aspirations.

Basic principles: These are essentially the same as for intensive even-aged management in the regeneration and young phases and similar to the close-to-nature alternative in the medium and mature phases, other than the use of enrichment and underplanting to introduce native species if no seed sources are available. The success of this option depends upon efficient deer control and the conifers being reasonably wind stable.

App 5.3 FMA 3 – Multi-objective forestry

Optimising the functions and services on the same piece of land at the same time (Production, recreation and conservation). Objective: multiple objectives (e.g. revenue, biodiversity, water protection, soil protection, recreation, fire prevention, hunting, etc.):

• Most variable FMA which allows for optimal adaptation to local situation;

• Tree species suitable for the site, breeds possible, no genetically modified plants;

• No soil preparation, fertilisation & application of chemical agents; • Medium percentage of biomass removed; • Medium rotations.

Management objectives: This is the standard approach used in Scottish forests in areas where non-market and market benefits are of similar importance in management. It differs from CCF in that larger coupe sizes (perhaps up to 10 ha) are acceptable, provided that they are well designed into the landscape, less emphasis is placed on promoting natural regeneration, and trees are normally felled at 50 to 60 years of age at time of maximum MAI. The main difference from ‘intensive even-aged forestry’ is that coupe sizes tend to be smaller, rotation lengths are somewhat longer and stands tend to be composed of a number of species throughout the rotation. Basic principles: The normal method of regeneration is through planting following site cultivation but both natural regeneration and admixed species are welcomed. There is a conscious aim to maintain a diversity of species throughout the life of the stand, but thinning and other tending practices are based on even-aged management. The use of thinning as a component of this system restricts its potential use to around 50% of the Scottish forest area. Chemical weed and pest control are used where needed, and genetically improved genotypes produced in tree breeding programmes are planted in some areas. Some irregularity in stand structure may be provided by small groups of retained trees that are left from previous felling coupes but these ‘retentions’ are not normally managed on anything other than even-aged principles. Apart from clear-felling, the only other forms of silvicultural systems considered would be some form of seed tree or shelterwood system. Normal harvesting is based on stem extraction with crown and other residues being left within the forest.

The statistics do not allow easy distinction between this type of management and FMA4 (intensive even-aged management) but it is thought that perhaps 25% of Scottish forests would fall into this FMA.

App 5.4 FMA 4 - Intensive even-aged management

The production of quality construction timber with woody biomass and secondary products as a by product. Objective: optimise revenue from (saw-) timber production:

• Ecology concerns play minor role; • Small percentage of mixed species and natural processes possible, as

long they do not reduce revenue significantly; • Tree species suitable for the site, breeds possible, no genetically

modified plants; • Application of chemicals; • High percentage of biomass removed; • Short rotations.

Management objectives: The main aim of management is produce sawlogs for the construction market using even-aged management regimes. Management has to take into consideration other forest functions identified through the forest design process and species choice has to conform to the guidance laid down by the UKWAS standard – see introductory remarks. Thus Sitka spruce is unlikely to exceed 65% of a stand, even where it is the most productive species. Basic principles: Site preparation and planting will be the normal methods of reforestation, with chemical weed control being used as required. Higher yielding Sitka spruce family mixtures produced through tree breeding programmes are widely planted. Fertiliser inputs are rare. Thinning, where practised, is normally either an intermediate or a low thinning. The main factor affecting management is the risk of wind damage, and sites that are considered to be at high risk of windthrow are normally managed on a non-thin regime. For this reason, two tables are presented below for this FMA which distinguish between ‘low wind risk’ and ‘high wind risk’ sites. Rotation lengths for the former are about 45 to 55 years whereas for the latter they are shorter, normally 35 to 40 years. Patch clearfelling is the normal silvicultural practice with coupe sizes generally in the range of 10 to 25 ha, but larger coupes are not uncommon. Harvesting practice has to conform to principles laid down in the UKWAS guidance. No residues are removed from the site. This has been the traditional FMA used in Scotland and probably accounted for perhaps 60 per cent of forest management in 2005. However, as noted above, it is difficult to separate this FMA from FMA3 in terms of area. Earlier reports (see Mason, 2007) suggested that perhaps half of Scottish forests were subject to a thinning regime but this figure combines stands that would be classified under FMA3 as well as those that belong under ‘intensive even-aged management’. Allowing for the fact that some of the ‘wind stable’ areas

should be classified as FMA3, then it is probable that only 35 to 40% of stands under ‘intensive even-aged management fall into the low wind risk category and are thinned with the remainder being managed under a non-thin regime. App 5.5 FMA 5 - Wood biomass production Energy forestry short rotation coppice and forestry. Objective: optimize revenue from biomass production:

• Ecology concerns play minor role; • Often introduced tree species, also GMO’s; • Absolutely no mixture; • Fertilization, liming & application of chemicals; • Intensive machine operations; • Soil preparations; • Clear cuts; • All biomass removed; • Very short rotations.

Management objectives: The main aims of management are to combine the production of sawlogs for the construction market using even-aged management regimes with the removal of small dimension thinnings and woody residues as biomass for the woodfuel market. Management has to take into consideration other forest functions identified through the forest design process and species choice has to conform to the guidance laid down by the UKWAS standard – see introductory remarks. Thus Sitka spruce is unlikely to exceed 65% of a stand, even where it is the most productive species. Basic principles: Site preparation and planting will be the normal methods of reforestation, with chemical weed control being used as required. Higher yielding Sitka spruce family mixtures produced through tree breeding programmes are widely planted. Fertiliser inputs are rare. Thinning, where practised, is practised earlier than in FMA4 and is used as a means of removing small dimension trees for the woodfuel market. This could allow initial thinning of stands that would otherwise be considered to be at ‘high risk’ of windthrow. Rotation lengths are likely to be 30 to 45 years depending upon the price of different products and transport costs to market. Patch clearfelling is the normal silvicultural practice with coupe sizes generally in the range of 10 to 25 ha, but larger coupes are not uncommon. Following clearfelling, the brash residues and woody tops left on site are baled and recovered as woodfuel. On more fertile sites, stump harvesting may also be considered. This FMA is very new in Scottish forestry and the practice and guidance are still under development. Management will have to meet the principles of sustainable forest management and there is some concern whether, for example, stump harvesting is compatible with carbon-lean forest management strategies appropriate in an era of climate change. At present it is likely that less than 10% of the forest area is managed in this way, but the developing woodfuel market is attracting a lot of interest from forest managers. For the purposes of this presentation, the ‘high wind risk’ scheme of FMA4 has been assumed as the basic framework.

Appendix 6 Supporting Demographic Information for Scotland

The General Register office of Scotland (GROS) provides information about population and households derived from the population census and other data. From these sources data on issues relating to demographic change in rural Scotland have been summarised, and presented in map, graphical or tabular form in the main report. Some additional graphic and numerical summaries follow, provided courtesy of Duncan Macniven, Registrar General, and colleagues at GROS.

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

1855 1862 1869 1876 1883 1890 1897 1904 1911 1918 1925 1932 1939 1946 1953 1960 1967 1974 1981 1988 1995 2002

Year

Popu

latio

n (M

illio

ns)

Fastest % increase 1876

& 1878

Passes 3m

1856/7

Passes 4m

1889/90

Largest & sharpest fall

1924

Passes 5m 1938/39

Highest-ever level 1974

Largest & fastest post

WW2 fall 1988

Largest & fastest

post WW2 rise 1971Largest rise

1900

First recorded fall 1912

Figure A6.1. Changes in Scotland’s population between 1855 and 2002.

Figure A4.2. Scottish Government 6-fold urban rural classification, June 2008 (source: Scottish Government Geographic Information Science and Analysis Team).

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

SCOTLAND Largeurban

Otherurban

Accessiblesmall town

Remotesmall town

Veryremote

small town

Accessiblerural

Remoterural

Veryremote

rural

60+45-5925-4416-240-15

URBAN RURAL

Figure A6.3. Population age structure for 2007, for urban and rural areas of Scotland.

Figure A6.4. Economic activity in urban/rural areas, 2007.

Figure A6.5. Employment in urban/rural areas by company size, 2007.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Large Urban Areas Other Urban Areas Accessible SmallTowns

Remote Small Towns Accessible Rural Remote Rural

Urban Rural Classification

Perc

enta

ge o

f peo

ple

in e

mpl

oym

ent a

ged

16-7

4

1-910-2425-499500 or more

Appendix 7. Look-up link between Drivers, IACS Land Use Classes and ‘RLUS’ land use classes Table A7.1. IACS and RLUS land use classes relating to drivers of agri-environmental measures, EU Renewable Energy Directive 2008 - bioenergy targets, output prices, LFASS RLUS Land Use Class IACS Reported Land Use

WILD BIRD SEED STRUCTURAL SETASIDE - ELIGIBLE HABITATS SFPS BEING CLAIMED ON AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL OPTIONS POSITIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT NORMAL SETASIDE - WILD BIRD COVER NORMAL SETASIDE - SOWN GRASS COVER NORMAL SETASIDE - PHACELIA NORMAL SETASIDE - OWN MANAGEMENT PLAN NORMAL SETASIDE - NEXT TO WATERCOURSES,HEDGES,WOODS,DYKES AND SSSIs NORMAL SETASIDE - NAT REGEN (AFTER OTHER CROPS) NORMAL SETASIDE - NAT REGEN (AFTER CEREALS) NORMAL SETASIDE - GREEN COVER MIXTURE NORMAL SETASIDE - BARE FALLOW

Environmental Management

FALLOW NORMAL SETASIDE - ORGANIC LEGUMES NORMAL SETASIDE - MUSTARD NON-FOOD SETASIDE - WHEAT FOR INDUSTRIAL USE NON-FOOD SETASIDE - OTHER CROPS FOR INDUSTRIAL USE NON-FOOD SETASIDE - HIGH ERUCIC ACID RAPESEED NON-FOOD SETASIDE - BARLEY FOR INDUSTRIAL USE HEMP FIBRE FLAX BUCKWHEAT

Other Cropping

BORAGE Rough Grazing ROUGH GRAZING

SHARED GRAZING Shared and Common Grazing COMMON GRAZING

Table A7.2. IACS and RLUS land use classes relating to drivers of availability of autumn sown cereal varieties, SFP Driver RLUS Land

Use Class IACS Reported Land Use

Other Cropping SPRING OILSEED RAPE Spring Cereal SPRING WHEAT Spring Cereal SPRING OATS

Availability of autumn sown cereal varieties ("negative" impact), SFP

Spring Cereal SPRING BARLEY Other Cropping WINTER OILSEED RAPE Winter Cereal WINTER WHEAT Winter Cereal WINTER OATS

Availability of autumn sown cereal varieties, SFP

Winter Cereal WINTER BARLEY

Table A7.3. IACS and RLUS land use classes relating to EU Renewable Energy Directive 2008 - bioenergy targets, increasing oil prices - need for fuel substitutes, Forestry payments, abolishment of set aside, health and well-being and input (and output) prices Driver RLUS Land

Use Class IACS Reported Land Use

Energy Crops WINTER OILSEED RAPE ENERGY Energy Crops SWEETCORN ENERGY Energy Crops SPRING OILSEED RAPE ENERGY Energy Crops SHORT ROTATION COPPICE ENERGY Energy Crops NON-FOOD SETASIDE - OILSEED RAPE

FOR INDUSTRIAL USE

EU Renewable Energy Directive 2008 - bioenergy targets, increasing oil prices - need for fuel substitutes

Energy Crops NON-FOOD SETASIDE - CRAMBE FOR INDUSTRIAL USE

Woodlands and Forestry

WOODLAND/FORESTRY WITH UNIQUE FIELD IDENTIFIER

Woodlands and Forestry

TREES THAT ARE INELIGIBLE FOR SFP

Woodlands and Forestry

TREES SHRUBS & BUSHES

Woodlands and Forestry

STRUCTURAL SETASIDE - WGS, FWPS OR SFGS

Woodlands and Forestry

STRUCTURAL SETASIDE - EX 5 YEAR STILL IN FWS

Woodlands and Forestry

OPEN WOODLAND(GRAZED)

Woodlands and Forestry

NORMAL SETASIDE - 5 YEAR UNDER WGS

Woodlands and Forestry

NORMAL SETASIDE - 5 YEAR UNDER FWS

Woodlands and Forestry

NON-FOOD SETASIDE - TREES SHRUBS AND BUSHES

Forestry payments, abolishment of set aside, health and well-being

Woodlands and Forestry

NON-FOOD SETASIDE - FOREST TREES SHORT CYCLE

Forage Crops TURNIPS/SWEDES FOR STOCK FEED Forage Crops RAPE FOR STOCK FEED Forage Crops PROTEIN PEAS Forage Crops OTHER CROPS FOR STOCK FEED Forage Crops FIELD BEANS Forage Crops ARABLE SILAGE FOR STOCK FEED Horticulture FLOWER BULBS AND CUT FLOWERS

Input (and output) prices

Horticulture BULBS/FLOWERS

Table A7.4. IACS and RLUS land use classes relating to drivers of Market prices, demographic changes, health and well-being (in terms of improved human consumption); SFP, LFASS, input and output prices; SFP, output and input prices, new biotech crops; plus, other classes. Driver RLUS Land

Use Class IACS Reported Land Use

Horticulture WHITECURRANTS Horticulture TOP FRUIT Horticulture SOFT FRUIT Horticulture SHOPPING TURNIPS/SWEDES Horticulture RHUBARB Horticulture REDCURRANTS Horticulture RASPBERRIES Horticulture PEAS FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION Horticulture OTHER VEGETABLES Horticulture LOGANBERRIES Horticulture HAZLENUTS Horticulture GOOSEBERRIES Horticulture BLACKCURRANTS Horticulture BLACKBERRIES Horticulture BILBERRIES (AND OTHER FRUITS OF

THE GENUS VACCINIUM) Horticulture BEANS FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION Horticulture ASPARAGUS Horticulture ARTICHOKES Other Cropping WARE POTATOES

Market prices, demographic changes, health and well-being (in terms of improved human consumption)

Other Cropping SEED POTATOES Grassland TURF PRODUCTION Grassland GRASS UNDER 5 YEARS

SFP, LFASS, output and input prices

Grassland GRASS OVER 5 YEARS Forage Crops SWEET LUPINS Forage Crops SORGHUM Other Cropping TRITICALE Other Cropping SWEETCORN Other Cropping RYE Other Cropping OILSEED RAPE Other Cropping MIXED CEREALS Other Cropping MILLET Other Cropping MAIZE

SFP, output and input prices, new biotech crops0

Other Cropping LINSEED Other Land Other Land OTHER LAND Other Class Environmental

Management LFASS INELIGIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Appendix 8 Structural Equation Modelling of telephone questionnaire Figure A6.1 demonstrates the survey items which in combination, were found to predict 83% of the intention to change the size of the business:

Figure A8.1. Factor diagram illustrating the links between variables for business size and succession. Key: ‘sex’ gender ‘ages’ age ‘inherits’ land inherited from a previous generation ‘lndlimit’ management affected by land availability during the past ten years ‘land’ land size ‘sizinfl’ discussion with bank/building society manager about changing

size of business ‘incsupp’ income made up from Government support ‘Passonto’ intention to pass on the business ‘exeffect’ management affected by changes in Government funding during

the past ten years ‘ineffect’ management affected by succession planning during the past

ten years ‘attbuss’ business attitudes ‘attsizes’ attitudes towards increasing size of business ‘intsizes’ intention to change the size of business

Appendix 9 Maps of Owned and Rented Crofts

Figure A9.1. Map of holdings of owned crofts, as registered in 2007, derived from the Scottish Government IACS and agricultural census database.

Figure A9.2. Map of holdings of rented crofts, as registered in 2007, derived from the Scottish Government IACS and agricultural census database.

Appendix 10. Land use and cover mapping in Scotland The first direct mapping of land use in Scotland, as opposed to land cover or sectoral inventories, was that of Dudley Stamp (1948), in his 1” to the mile land utilisation survey, comprehensively described at the ‘Land of Britain’ WWW site (http://riga.iso.port.ac.uk/django_projects/home/). Since then, the mapping, modelling and interpretation of changes in land use in Scotland have focused on maps relating to specific sectors of land use. Examples include:

• forestry (e.g. forest inventory, National Inventory of Woodland and Trees, 2001, www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/hcou-54pg9t);

• agriculture (e.g. mapping data from the agricultural census, EDINA, http://edina.ac.uk/agcensus/kml/)

The mapping of land cover for Scotland, allows some interpretation with respect to specific land uses. Mapping programmes for land cover have been undertaken over a number of years, but by different means and for different purposes. For example, the Land Cover of Scotland 1988 (www.macaulay.ac.uk/mscl/gis2_dataset_4a.php) was a census of land cover which has underpinned several other studies, including changes in land cover and modelling of land uses (e.g. Aspinall, 1993). Scotland has also been covered in programmes of mapping of land cover and land classifications for Great Britain, such as the Countryside Survey (1976, 1984, 1990, 2000 and 2007; www.countrysidesurvey.org.uk/), and the Land Cover Map of Great Britain (LCMGB) for 1990 and 2000, and the National Countryside Monitoring Scheme. These have provided inputs to estimates of changes in land cover (for example, see www.snh.org.uk/strategy/Landcover/home.asp), but not explicitly land use. Recently, the results for the Countryside Survey 2007 were published for Scotland and can be found at www.countrysidesurvey.org.uk/scots_reports2007.html). Other sources of data seeking to describe elements of land use include the Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) Trends series, Forestry Commission statistics (www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-7aqknx), and land cover and data related to land use in the Scottish Environment Statistics (www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/ Environment/seso/Q/TID/13). Recent modelling of potential land-use change in Scotland has considered some of these sources of data as inputs. For example, the agricultural census provided one basis for modelling potential changes in agricultural land use, with its provision of data such as existing land use, ownership and tenure. Aalders and Aitkenhead (2006) used these data in three approaches to modelling the probability of selected land uses (e.g. improved grassland, woodland, rough grazing) in parishes, using neural networks, Bayesian belief networks and decision trees. As land use-change is commonly driven by both biophysical and human processes, the challenge of modelling land-use change using empirical data is

that it is a complex process which requires the integration of quantitative and qualitative data representing the two driving factors. It represents the result of interactions, over time and space, between humans and their environment, with changes consequent on complex interactions between social, economic, political and environmental factors (IGBP, 1995; Medley et al., 1995; Pijanowski et al., 2002; Vesterby and Heimlich, 1991). In reviews of modelling, and their work on categorising the approach to modelling land-use change, Lambin et al. (2000) summarise the categories of land-use change models (Table A10.1). Briassoulis (2000) also identifies categories of land use modelling approaches: statistical and economic, spatial interaction models, optimisation models, and integrated models. Table A10.1. Summary of categories of model used in land-use change (modified from Lambin et al., 2000). Model Category Preliminary

knowledge on Land Use and Cover Change

Form of knowledge of Land Use and Cover Change

Modelling Approach

Stochastic When in the future (short-term)

Transition probability

Why in the past (proximate causes)

Multivariate statistical Empirical, statistical

Past location and rate of change

Where in the future (short-term)

Spatial statistical/GIS-based

When in the future (long-term)

Behavioural and dynamic simulation models Process-based,

mechanistic When and where in the future (long-term)

Dynamic spatial simulation models

Analytical, agent-based, economic

Past location, rate of change and drivers Why in the future

(underlying causes) Why in the future (underlying causes, scenarios)

Generalised Von Thunen models Deterministic and stochastic optimisation models

The commonly-used methods for empirical modelling landscape processes are quantitative in nature and are unable to facilitate the inclusion of qualitative data. In addition, due to the complexity of the interactions that lead to land-use change, there is often an understanding of the relationship within the process but modelling is generally constrained by the absence of consistent and comprehensive information relating to the process and its drivers. The determinants of land-use change (i.e. drivers) can be from either the human activities or land use. The modelling of spatial interactions can use information of human interactions in space, including travel patterns, migration, information and commodity flows (Haynes and Fotheringham, 1990). Although the process of change is often not the same for a given place, the direction of change may be guided by overarching drivers or constraints, such as policy, planning or economic rewards.

Table A8.1 summarises the modelling approaches best suited to take account of past location, rate of change and drivers. The results from the qualitative and quantitative surveys provide the types of information that influence decisions about land use at the level of the land manager, and the prospect of populating models designed to inform the user about possible changes in land use in Scotland. Two relevant approaches have been used recently as applied to Scotland: agent-based modelling and Bayesian modeling. Modelling tools which can exploit spatial patterns and distributions of land uses can also be used to simulate changes in land use under scenarios of different drivers, types of decision-makers and the information available. Such models can include consideration of drivers of change, such as technology (e.g. uptake of precision-farming, new crop cultivars, changes in husbandry, and new agricultural inputs; Aspinall, 2009). The use of agent-based models in the study of coupled human-natural systems provides one means of representing behaviours of individual and interacting land managers while taking account of cognitive, social, economic and environmental constraints (Hare and Deadman, 2004). Dynamic feedback due to changes in the spatial pattern or distribution of land uses can be incorporated to simulate changes in land use under scenarios of different drivers, types of decision-makers and the information available (Parker et al., 2008). The modelling of choices of different land uses using hypothetical environmental contexts can utilise information on factors with different spatial and temporal extents, from constant over a region (e.g. climate and economic factors), to progressive fragmentation of land ownership and biophysical characteristics (e.g. Gotts et al., 2003). The incorporation of social influences on decisions, such as imitation (Gotts and Polhill, 2009), are now being tested in Scottish conditions using qualitative field research (e.g. Burton et al., 2008) with agent-based models as part of the RERAD Programme on Environmental Stewardship and Land Management. Bayesian belief networks (also known as belief networks, causal nets, causal probabilistic networks, probabilistic cause effect models, and graphical probability networks) provide a second means to utilise a combination of limited empirical data and expert knowledge (Bacon, 2002). The modelling process involves the development of a graphical conceptual model consisting of nodes and links that represent system variables and their cause-and-effect relationships (Jensen, 1996, 2001) (Figure A10.1 and Figure A10.2; Aalders and Williams, 2008). The relationships between the nodes is quantified based on expert knowledge or preferably empirical evidence in conditional probability tables (CPT). While the use of expert knowledge rather than empirical data to build a model is often criticised, developing the BBN in an evolving process of knowledge development can be very useful in the early phases of exploring complex processes. In order to ensure the credibility of the model, Marcot et al. (2006) propose a three-staged process of model development: initial BBN, i.e. the creation of the graphical conceptual model; peer-reviewed BBN; evidence-based tested and updated BBN.

With the BBN populated with the best available information and data, it is possible (bearing in mind the state of the available evidence incorporated in the BBN) to explore the causal relationships between the modelled variables through diagnostic and predictive reasoning (Korb and Nicholson, 2004). By identifying the value of each known variable represented by a node, probabilistic inference updates the beliefs for the other unknown variables. This allows us to explore the behaviour of the BBN for scenarios represented by a combination of known values of selected variables. The new data provided in this study offer a new opportunity to explore the spatial implications of land use decisions by land managers in Scotland, using a number of modelling tools. The two approaches summarised above are currently being used in the RERAD programme and could exploit the new data and information as part of their implementation. References Aspinall R.J. (1993) Use of Geographic Information Systems for interpreting land-use policy and modeling effects of land use change. In: Landscape Ecology and Geographic Information Systems (Ed. R. Haines-Young, D.R. Green and S.H. Cousins): 223-236. Bacon P.J., Cain J.D. and Howard D.C. (2002) Belief network models of land manager decisions and land use change. Journal of Environmental Management 65:1-23. Burton R.J.F., Kuczera C. and Schwarz G. (2008) exploring farmers cultural resistance to voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Sociologia Ruralis 45(1): 16–37. Gotts N.M., Polhill J.G. and Law A.N.R. (2003) Aspiration levels in a land use simulation. Cybernetics and Systems 34: 663–683. Gotts N.M. and Polhill J.G. (2009) When and how to imitate your neighbours: lessons from and for FEARLUS. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 12(3): 2. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/12/3/2.html Hare M. and Deadman P. (2004) Further towards a taxonomy of agent-based simulation models in environmental management. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 64: 25–40. Jensen F.V. (1996) An Introduction to Bayesian Networks. University College London Press, London, UK. Jensen F.V. (2001) Bayesian Networks and Decision Graphs. Springer, New York, USA. Korb K. B. and Nicholson A. E. (2004) Bayesian artificial intelligence. Eds J Lafferty, D Madigan, F Murtagh, and P Smyth. Series in Computer Science and Data Analysis. London: Chapman & Hall/CRC.

Lambin E.F., Rounsevell M.D.A and Geist H.J. (2000) Are agricultural land use models able to predict changes in land use intensity? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 82: 321–331. Marcot B., Steventon J., Sutherland G. et al. (2006) Guidelines for developing and updating Bayesian belief networks applied to ecological modeling and conservation. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36: 3063-74. Parker D.C., Hessl A. and Davis S.C. (2008) Complexity, land-use modeling, and the human dimension: Fundamental challenges for mapping unknown outcome spaces. Geoforum 39(2): 789-804.

Figures A10.1. Bayesian Belief Network on land transactions (Source: Aalders and Williams, 2008).

Figure A10.2. Factors influencing land values in Scotland (Source: Aalders and Williams, 2008).

ISSN 0950 2254ISBN 978-0-7559-7770-3web only publication

www.scotland.gov.uk/socialresearch

RR Donnelley B63084 12-09