Draft Environment Strategy: consultation analysis

1. Introduction

Background

In July 2025, the Scottish Government published Scotland’s draft version of the Environment Strategy for consultation. The draft Strategy set out a holistic framework for delivering Scotland’s role in tackling the global crises of nature loss, climate change and pollution.

The draft Strategy brought together the Scottish Government’s existing policy response to tackling nature loss, climate change and pollution, highlighting the importance of carefully managing synergies and trade-offs across these goals. It built on these existing policies by outlining new priorities and proposals. These focus, in particular, on opportunities to support the economic and societal changes needed to help tackle these global crises in ways that create wider benefits for Scotland – supporting green jobs and industries, improving people’s health, tackling poverty, and promoting social justice.

The Strategy fulfils Ministers’ obligation under section 47 of the UK Withdrawal from the EU (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 to prepare, consult on and publish an environmental policy strategy. Section 47 of the Continuity Act also requires Scottish Ministers to have due regard to the strategy when making policies, including proposals for legislation.

The development of the draft Strategy involved extensive stakeholder engagement and evidence gathering, and a public consultation on the draft Strategy ran from 3 July to 29 September 2026. Across 15 closed questions and 23 open questions, the consultation sought views on the draft Strategy’s vision and outcomes, the priorities and proposals outlined in the pathways, and on a series of related draft Impact Assessments (see Chapter 6 for links). In addition to the consultation, the Scottish Government held four stakeholder engagement workshops, focusing on the environment, economy, equality, and health, as well as one follow-up meeting with Scottish Environment LINK’s Sustainable Economy Group.

This analysis of responses to the consultation and notes from the engagement workshops has helped finalise the Environment Strategy and related impact assessments.

Respondent profile

In total, 126 consultation responses were received^[1]. The majority were submitted via the online consultation platform, Citizen Space. Those received in an alternative format, for example, an email or PDF document, were reviewed separately by the policy and research team.

Individuals provided 25 responses to the consultation; the remaining 101 responses were from organisations. To aid analysis, organisations were grouped on the nature of their work. Table 1 overleaf shows the number and proportion of each type of respondent.

Analysis approach

The Lines Between was commissioned to provide a robust, independent analysis of the responses to the public consultation. The primary purpose of consultation analysis is to understand the full range of views expressed, and, where possible, using closed questions to quantify how many respondents hold particular views. This report provides a thematic analysis of responses based on the analysis approach outlined below.

Reflecting the number and knowledge of respondents, it is not practical to detail every response in this report; some, especially organisations, shared lengthy submissions that reflected their specific subject matter expertise. Several respondents also provided detailed submissions explaining how the draft Strategy might impact their organisation or sector. These responses are referenced where possible. However, full responses to the consultation, where permission for publication was granted, can be found on the Scottish Government’s consultation website.

Similarly, the technical nature of some of the proposals outlined in the consultation means it is impractical to fully repeat or explain these within this report. Further information on the proposals can be found in the final version of the Environment Strategy.

Quantitative analysis

The consultation included 15 closed questions. Not all respondents answered every question. To compare across sub-groups, this report presents the results of the closed questions based on those who answered each question. For clarity, each results table shows:

• The percentage of respondents from the total sample of 126 respondents who selected each response (grey row).
• The number and percentage response among those who answered each question, broken down by individual and organisation responses (rows including and under “All answering”).

A full breakdown for each question, including a breakdown by each type of organisation answering, can be found in Appendix A. Please note that the row percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Qualitative analysis

Qualitative analysis identifies the key themes across responses to each question. The research team developed a draft coding framework based on a review of the consultation questions and a sample of responses. During the coding process, new codes were created if additional themes emerged.

In a small number of instances where a response received via email or in a PDF document contained information that did not align with specific questions, analysts exercised judgment about the most relevant place to include this material for analysis purposes.

Notes from the consultation events were reviewed to identify any differences in opinion compared to the main sample and to identify any new themes. The themes evident in the events typically aligned with those evident in the main sample, but any additional or unique perspectives are noted in this report.

When reviewing the qualitative analysis in this report, we would ask the reader to consider:

• Public consultations invite everyone to express their views; individuals and organisations interested in the topic are more likely to respond than those without a direct or known interest. This self-selection means the views of respondents do not necessarily represent the views of the entire population, or of everyone with an interest in this topic.
• Where differences between the views of individuals, organisations or types of organisation were evident in open comments, these have been noted. If no specific differences are highlighted, then a theme was raised by a mix of respondents.
• Many open questions in the consultation allowed respondents to elaborate on the views they recorded at the closed questions. However, not all respondents chose to comment, with those who did providing varying levels of detail. The qualitative analysis can therefore only be based on the information provided by those who commented.
• In a few instances, open comments from individuals did align with their response to the closed questions. For example, a respondent may agree in principle but use their open comment to caveat their agreement or suggest an alternative approach.
• A small number of respondents repeatedly raised the same issues or suggestions at multiple questions, regardless of the specific focus of the question. These views are all included in this report, but analysts exercised judgment about the most relevant place to include each theme to minimise repetition.

Weight of opinion

This report presents the themes identified in responses from most to least commonly mentioned. All themes, including views shared by small numbers of respondents, are covered; a view expressed by a very small number of participants is not given less weight than more general comments shared by a majority.

Similarly, all responses have an equal weighting. We recognise that this means a response from an individual carries the same weight as a response from an organisation, which may represent many members; however, this approach ensures that all views are presented.

Qualitative analysis of open-ended questions does not permit the quantification of results. However, to assist the reader in interpreting the findings, a framework is used to convey the most to least commonly identified themes in responses to each question. Given the wide range of views being expressed across the 126 respondents at each question, only a small number of themes were raised by a large number of respondents. As a result, the following framework has been used:

• Many respondents, 20 or more respondents, a prevalent theme.
• Several respondents, between 11 and 19 respondents, a recurring theme.
• Some respondents, between 6 and 10 respondents, another theme.
• A few / a small number, fewer than 5 respondents, a less common theme.
• Two/one respondents; a singular comment or a view identified in two responses.

This framework is used solely to present the prevalence of themes within consultation responses. When reviewing the prevalence, please note that “many respondents” refers simply to the frequency of mentions, not to any alignment of views. In other words, a theme being raised by “many respondents” does not necessarily indicate consensus, only that it was mentioned by 20 or more respondents. In a few cases, opposing perspectives could each be raised by many respondents. This framework also does not necessarily represent the importance of a theme, given the subjective nature of attributing importance and the self-selection of consultation respondents.