Agricultural tenancy data collection for Scotland: methodology report

Appendix A: Issue Map

The final version of the diagnostic Issue Map is shown below. The initial version, developed during the Discovery phase was refined through the subsequent phases to incorporate additional insights from sector experts, farmers, and land managers. As a result, this final version is tailored to the potential data quality issues associated with the tenancy questions included in the JAC up to 2021. A full written summary of each issue is provided in the accompanying report.

The Issue Map includes six distinct categories:

1. Issue ranking: This column ranks each issue in order of importance as assigned by stakeholders, with the most frequently discussed issues presented first.

2. Issue identified: This column summarises each of the five issues identified.

3. Causal category: This column assigns one of four causal categories to each issue:

a. Behavioural (respondent willingness or engagement)

b. Operational (process or contextual constraints)

c. Legal (legislative or compliance limitations)

d. Cognitive (understanding, clarity, or questionnaire complexity)

4. Primary impact type: This column describes the main type of impact each issue has on data quality, organised into four categories: 1) Coverage/Response rate, 2) Accuracy/Reliability, 3) Contextual/Trust, and 4) Comprehension/Clarity.

5. Effect on data quality: This column outlines the effect of the primary impact type on qata quality.

6. Perceived impact: This column captures the level of impact of each issue as perceived by stakeholders, categorised as High, Medium, and Low.

A more detailed description of each issue, including examples raised by stakeholders, is provided below.

Issue 1 – Limited motivation to complete the June Agricultural Census:

• Lack of clear benefit or consequence for completing the JAC
• Form perceived as optional and without incentive
• Participation seen as public cooperation rather than personal gain
• Limited effort may lead to inaccurate or incomplete responses
• Some respondents are uncertain of tenancy type or rely on memory
• Responses sometimes completed by family members without full access to records

Issue 2 – Competing administrative priorities:

• Farmers and land managers overloaded with paperwork
• Optional forms like the JAC given lower priority
• Daily farm management pressures reduce attention to non-essential forms
• Forms without material consequences often delayed or deprioritised

Issue 3 – Complexity of tenancy legislation:

• Most tenants are aware of their tenancy arrangements, but certain types can be difficult to categorise (e.g., SLDTs, LDTs, MLDTs)
• Seasonal/short lets, multigenerational holdings, informal agreements may create confusion
• Limited partnerships and family partnerships can be misinterpreted
• Smallholdings versus small land holdings distinctions can be unclear
• Crofts and crofter status sometimes misunderstood

Issue 4 – Reluctance to share tenancy information:

• Fear of negative impacts on individuals and businesses
• Complex, informal, or atypical leases increase reporting uncertainty
• Potential lack of written leases or lost documentation for some respondent
• Concern about legal disputes with landlords
• Sensitivity around social or community disclosure
• Perceived risk despite anonymisation

Issue 5 – Survey design and clarity:

• Complexity of reporting tenancy areas to the nearest 0.01ha
• Pre-populated responses leading to unchecked submissions
• Unclear purpose of the survey
• Confusing terminology and scope
• Redundant or unnecessary questions
• Use of technical and legal language difficult for respondents