Climate Action Hubs programme: evaluation

4. Programme implementation and delivery

Key points:

• The programme has been delivered as intended, with Hubs operating as locally rooted, flexible, community‑led structures that adapt activities to local priorities and work through strong partnership models.
• Hubs deliver a wide range of capacity‑building, engagement and climate‑action activities, including training, networking, seed funding, awareness‑raising events, toolkits, expert support and policy‑influencing activities.
• Engagement varies by area, with Hubs working to reach diverse audiences, applying place‑based approaches and using a mix of outreach methods. Participation can, however, be constrained by local context, capacity, and competing priorities.
• Hubs face common challenges, including annual funding cycles, administrative burden, limited staff capacity (especially in rural areas), and balancing differing expectations from national and local stakeholders.
• Enablers for success include skilled, passionate and experienced staff, the programme’s flexibility and support from various sources including the central Scottish Government team

This chapter presents findings from the process evaluation of the Climate Action Hub programme. It explores how the programme has been delivered in practice, including the diversity of Hub models, target audiences, engagement methods, and the challenges and enablers that have shaped implementation.

4.1: Hub design and delivery

The Climate Action Hubs were intended to be delivered as a place-based, community-led network model, with flexibility to respond to locally developed priorities, resources and approaches. At the outset, Hubs undertook an initial scoping review of existing activity in the area to ensure their work was informed by an understanding of local context, priorities and climate risks.

The programme has intentionally allowed each Hub to develop its own model of operation, and this flexibility has been a key enabler to the Hubs’ success. Hubs vary in terms of their geographical coverage, with some such as the Highlands and Islands, or Forth Valley Hubs, covering much larger, more diverse regions. The Hubs, therefore, have adopted structures that are appropriate for their locality, and activity is responsive to the unique geography, needs, and priorities of its local area. This has resulted in a wide range of activity being delivered via the programme, including initiatives aimed at flood resilience, food growing, active travel, nature, circular economy, and energy efficiency.

Flexible, responsive delivery models

Across the 24 Hubs, a range of delivery models are utilised. A shared feature across all Hubs is that they each have a set of activities designed in response to local needs and circumstances. This supports the intended delivery of a place-based approach. Some Hubs have evolved during the lifetime of the programme in response to opportunities, challenges or local context. Some Hubs are set up as independent organisations, for example, a Community Interest Company or a Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisation (SCIO), whereby they employ their own staff and are governed by their own boards. Others are hosted by an existing organisation, which often allows them to utilise a charity or community trust’s infrastructure, while delivering their own climate-related work. There are also membership or partnership models, which comprise of multiple partner organisations or network members.

Independent or newly established Hubs

Several Hubs operate as stand-alone entities, sometimes emerging from informal networks or steering groups that formalised to deliver the programme. Independent or newly-established Hub organisations have tended to emerge where there has been a strong community grassroots network or steering group, but an area has lacked an obvious or appropriate host organisation.

“We've got a really vibrant area. So we don't want action. We've got action. What we need is an identity together and a network. And I think it is exactly what we need, but it isn't what other areas need.” (Hub staff)

Establishing new organisations has allowed Hubs greater independence and flexibility to determine various aspects of their delivery, including:

• Greater flexibility to design governance, staffing and delivery models around local needs
• Stronger sense of ownership among founding community stakeholders
• A clear, distinct Hub identity that is easy for communities to understand and engage with

Some independent Hubs have, however, experienced challenges in having limited organisational infrastructure in their early stages, including HR, financial systems, and marketing. Some have also experienced greater organisational risk than Hubs hosted by other organisations, due to reliance on annual programme funding, affecting staff retention and capacity. By extension, this has also increased the workload for smaller staff teams, who are required to manage both delivery and administration simultaneously.

Hosted by established organisations

As described above, several Hubs are embedded within existing charities or third sector bodies. These types of models draw on various components of their infrastructures, including staff, systems, governance, and established reputations and networks. Hubs that are hosted by established organisations have typically emerged in areas where there was already a well-established environmental or community organisation and a stakeholder desire to build on, rather than replace, this existing activity. Association with existing organisations has provided a strong foundation for establishing Hub work, including:

• Immediate credibility and legitimacy with partners and funders, along with existing relationships with local authorities and national bodies
• Long-standing reputations and trust with community groups and members
• Access to established financial systems, reserves and fundraising capacity, increasing organisational resilience
• Ability to draw on specialist staff beyond the core Hub team
• Established systems and procedures, such as communications and marketing

“The Hub is sitting within a pre-existing system, but also an organisation that has really deep roots in the community, and established partnerships with our local authorities, our health partners, our third sector partners, and a little bit our business sector as well. And what's been really excellent is that the climate hub has really brought the umbrella family of all those thematic areas. It helps make sense of it all, which has been really a good driving force and it's helped us to join things and articulate who we are a lot better.” (Hub staff)

Despite these advantages, Hubs have also faced challenges from being hosted within an established organisation. Some have found that a tension can exist between the Hub priorities and those of the host organisation, requiring careful management; this has been particularly evident within more policy-oriented activity. Some Hubs also discussed constraints of working within a host system, where they might have less flexibility to radically reshape their governance or ways of working.

Consortium or partnership-led models

Other Hubs are delivered as an organisation within a group of other partner organisations, often with a lead partner coordinating delivery. Consortium or partnership-led models have been more common where climate action was happening across multiple organisations within an area, but where no single body had the mandate or capacity to act as a sole Hub. This pattern is seen in larger areas, such as Glasgow, where there might be diverse communities and a thriving voluntary sector.

Advantages of this model have included:

• Bringing together complementary expertise (e.g. energy, food, transport, community development)
• Allowing wider geographic or thematic coverage across multiple delivery partners
• Building on existing partners’ community relationships

“Those partners already have huge volumes of people that they work with. So, when the hub [was] set up, it may have taken to this point - or still be trying to - engage large volumes of people. But because we have that diversity of partners and who they reach, that work could go through them as well to reach a vast amount of people.” (Hub staff)

Hubs that are embedded within partnership models have, however, found that this model can present complexities with coordinating and governing partners, which can slow decision-making and prevent Hubs from being more responsive to need in their area.

“What we have right now is with a partnership model. You have to decide at the start of the year who does what, who gets what funding, and that all gets divvied out, which means the resources are kind of spoken for right at the start of the year. And it means that as a core hub, we can't necessarily be as agile to emerging things across the city.” (Hub staff)

Regular communication and transparent, democratic decision making were cited as important factors in supporting successful partnership approaches.

4.2: Hub target audiences

Consideration of what constituted a target audience varied across Hubs, reflecting the flexible design and delivery model. Some Hubs targeted activity based on individuals’ or groups’ current familiarity or association with climate action; example categories of the audiences Hubs sought to work with included:

• Community members who are part of a climate action network organisation.
• Existing community groups or third sector organisations that could play a role in climate action
• People who acknowledge the climate crisis but are unsure of what action they can take.
• Those with low climate awareness who are open to learning more.

“There’s the converted and active… and we want to keep them well-resourced and motivated. Then there's the converted but inactive; for them, we want to provide them opportunities to engage that are going to be fulfilling, whether that be joining one of the Climate Action Network organisations or some small thing that makes them feel like they're getting engaged. Then there's the unconverted people who we attempt climate literacy engagements with.” (Hub staff)

Target audiences have also been informed by place-based approaches, with Hubs considering how to work within the physical and socio-economic characteristics of their regions to maximise their impact. This includes working with people representing specific communities, industries, age groups or interest groups.

“Another is farmers and landowners. It's a huge agricultural area. And if we can change our land practices, that would make a huge difference to emissions locally.” (Hub staff)

While efforts to reach intended audiences were broadly successful, in some cases the numbers of participants from target groups were low. For example, one area said they had struggled to engage with all the community groups they hoped to work in partnership with, due to capacity constraints on the part of their intended targets.

“The organisations that it's been harder probably to engage with, it's because of their pressures. So everybody's heads are just down, trying to make everything work. Funding has been cut year on year for these organisations. So they've got like staff, less resource. Since COVID, there's less volunteers.” (Hub staff)

For other target groups, such as people living in areas of multiple deprivation, Hubs reflected that engagement may have been difficult because they were facing more urgent priorities, such as financial and social difficulties.

“People have more concerns for making a living, putting food on the table, paying rent. They might also have health problems. Maybe they've got obviously different problems, but also they don't see it as a priority.” (Hub staff)

Hubs also addressed the question of whether to include climate deniers as a target audience. Some had tried to target people who denied climate change, but felt it was futile and that Hub motivation, energy and resources were better targeted towards people who showed more potential to engage with learning or taking action.

4.3: Place-based approaches

The programme’s ToC set out a clear intention to deliver place-based, community-led approach to climate action. Across interviews, interpretations of a place-based approach across Hubs involved the consideration of many broad areas, including:

• Physical and geographical characteristics of a region, such as island communities, rural areas, coastal areas, rivers, forests, mountains, agriculture, urban areas; or the size of a region
• Climate risks pertinent to particular areas, such as flooding, storm damage, and coastal erosion, particularly in island or coastal communities
• Devising approaches and strategy based on community feedback and interests
• Population demographics of a region, including proportions of older people
• The current economic landscape, including the presence of major employers and local businesses
• Local governance and existing local authority and community planning priorities
• Socioeconomic challenges of an area, such as high levels of poverty on the index of deprivation, fuel poverty, or disenfranchised communities
• Local infrastructure, such as public transport availability
• Pre-existing local activity, such as community groups, third sector organisations, and volunteering opportunities
• Historical economic characteristics of areas, such as industrial heritage and the legacies of former coal mining communities

Local needs and priorities have been assessed through initial scoping work and contributions from steering groups or existing community stakeholders. This has then been continually monitored through ongoing evaluation, including feedback from community members.

“We listened, we took notes, and we asked questions like, what do you see a climate hub doing? What do you want your local climate hub to do? How can we help? And so to make sure that we were driven by the needs of the community organisations, as opposed to the just the requirements of the funder, and so... So we had about 50 of these meetings. We collated all their responses. We came up with a plan based on that.” (Hub staff)

Differences between rural and urban areas were frequently and explicitly acknowledged, particularly when considering the potential for collaboration across climate networks, or issues around transport and accessibility.

“[On cycling] It might be easy for you if you're based in Edinburgh, if you're based in Glasgow, but if you're based in the middle of nowhere in South Lanarkshire where you don't even have a footpath to get to the next village. then that might not be a very safe option. And it's 60 mile per hour road to get down to the next village as well.” (Hub staff)

In interviews, some stakeholders described efforts not to duplicate existing work by local partners on place-based issues; in these cases, Hubs focused on making the best use of resources, for example by signposting to existing activity, working in partnership, or delivering aligned work.

Overall, the evidence of place-based community action across the programme is wide-ranging and demonstrates that climate action has been tailored to local needs and priorities. Examples of place-based themes that have been covered by Hubs across the programme include:

• Adaptation and resilience work with communities at risk of climate impacts such as flooding, storm damage and coastal erosion, particularly in island or coastal communities, supporting communities to articulate their experiences
• Development of local initiatives in response to community feedback and interests; for example, growing groups in areas with space to grow food
• Developing activities based around local industry and geographical characteristics, such as targeted engagement with the farming community (for more detail see the Scottish Borders Hub case study in Annex 1)
• Just transition and community energy activity in areas with post-industrial characteristics and fossil fuel legacies
• Tailoring activities to practical local needs and the socio-economic context of an area, for example focusing on reuse, redistribute and recycle as a means of support for communities living in poverty and home insulation projects to tackle the cost of living crisis and rising energy bills
• Working with local established community groups and activities, such as sports clubs or faith groups, to connect with community members on climate issues

“We have a huge nature deficiency in East Lothian. So we have done on the ground work round about nature restoration. And that is because there's been a huge desire around about hedgerow planting, which is an incredibly important biodiversity corridor to allow many species to continue here. So that is some on-the-ground work that we've been doing. That's tailored to East Lothian's needs.” (Hub staff)

“The example of working with Buckie Football Club, which is really big in Buckie. You’re getting into a community that's got its problems and isn't really thinking about climate. They’re focused now.” (Hub staff)

4.4: Types of support, engagement and activity delivered

This section describes the types of support, engagement and activity that has been delivered by Hubs. Interviews, surveys, and monitoring reports demonstrated that the Hubs have played a key role in facilitating climate action: engaging and building capacity in their local communities; facilitating partnerships and collaboration; elevating community voices in policy and decision-making; and grounding activities in local contexts, priorities and identities through a place-based approach.

Building community capacity for climate action

To engage their communities, Hubs have focused on capacity building, facilitating community members or groups to take action. Hubs’ approaches to supporting capacity building have been multifaceted. A key focus has been the distribution of small grant ‘seed’ funding, but also the delivery of support and advice by Hub staff on other aspects of running organisations and delivering climate-focused projects. Methods have included provision of training and learning opportunities to enhance knowledge, confidence and skills; building and widening networks; and the development and distribution of resources and toolkits.

Small grants funding

The distribution of seed funding or microgrants has been a key part of Hubs’ approach to enhancing local communities’ ability to take action on climate change issues. In the first three quarters of 2025-26, Hubs awarded close to £1 million to community projects (including funds distributed on behalf of others).

Small grants have functioned as a key capacity‑building tool, enabling Hubs to support early‑stage ideas, small‑scale projects, and resource the continuation of existing community activity. Grants have supported a wide range of activity, including volunteer training and peer‑led skills development, across a range of project topics, including biodiversity, food growing, youth action, and sustainable travel. Examples of projects funded by grants from Hubs include:

• Community gardens
• River clearing and monitoring
• Bike repair workshops

In order to maximise the impact of small grants, Hubs have also focused on making funding accessible, by providing hands-on support with applications, widening eligibility for grants; making applications short and straightforward processes; and being flexible with application deadlines.

“The network has put a lot of effort into being able to spend some time with groups to help them develop their ideas before they submit them. Focusing on making the application forms as straightforward as possible so that it doesn't take up a lot of time, but still trying to leave enough space for people to express [themselves].” (Hub staff)

For example, Climate Hebrides have implemented a simple, one-page application process for their Ideas Into Action Fund. More detail on this is included in a case study in Annex 1.

Training

In addition to advice and support, Hubs also detailed climate and nature-based education and training they have provided to local individuals, community groups, and councils. These have included workshops on topics such as net-zero policies, biodiversity, adaptation, flood resilience, community energy, retrofitting, transportation, energy and water efficiency, and food growing. In the first three quarters of the 2025-26 reporting period, 14,767 participants took part in 1,097 formal training, learning or knowledge exchange events organised by Hubs.

“To have these training courses where you can jump on and go, okay, here's something that will take half an hour of your time. And it's really valuable stuff from beginning to end. But cumulative crop, this is what you need to know. So you don't need to pick it out. I think that's going to be, that's going to be a big game changer for businesses that don't have much time to learn what to do, I think.” (Community member)

Other non-financial support

As well as funding, Hubs have also provided non-financial support to community groups in order to facilitate them taking climate action. Submissions from Hubs show that they provided non-financial support to 1,476 community groups to date in 2025-26, including support to access additional local and national sources of funding. At the time of reporting, Hubs had supported 193 organisations in 2025-26 to develop funding applications which resulted in securing £1,378,162.08 of additional funding for climate action.

Other examples of non-financial support include help to write policies, assistance to carry out surveys of local populations, and advice with communications, event planning, and project design and management.

“[Hub staff member] coming in to see what we're doing, being so supportive of the work that we do, telling us about other things that are going on, I think has been really helpful.” (Community member)

“One of the things that I've done for one group is I've helped them write sustainability policy, which is something that they haven't done. And then I'm helping another group with their comms on their website. So it's about how they're communicating across their message of sustainability. So that's another thing that I've done. So yes, there's definite changes, but at the moment it is about sort of like trying to reach out to different groups and capturing the information by the survey.” (Hub staff)

Providing support for peer-to-peer learning has been another aspect of Hubs building capacity within their communities. For example, ‘Draughtbusters’ a project in which Dumfries & Galloway Hub used their demo materials to support community representatives and groups, to help people draughtproof their homes through low or no-cost, easy DIY methods, saving energy and reducing bills and carbon impact. The Argyll & Bute Hub has also overseen young people previously trained as Carbon Literate go on to lead the delivery of several climate science workshops at a multi-school learning event.

Festivals and events

Climate festivals, roadshows and public events hosted or attended by Hubs have been particularly effective as accessible entry points for reaching new audiences. Such events allow the public to engage with Hubs through practical activities (stalls, workshops, demonstrations) rather than formal discussions. For example:

• the Fife Hub ran three informative Climate Conversations in conjunction with the Fife Climate Festival. These allowed people to learn more about the global to local impact of climate change and how local communities can make a difference.
• The Scottish Borders Hub hosted the second annual Borders Green Summit event, with over 120 attendees and over 30 stall holders.
• Glasgow hosted an International Festival and Carnival where Hub partners were invited to engage with the local community.
• NESCAN helped Inverurie West Church to organise a 3-day ‘Climate Matters’ Festival, running a climate literacy workshop at the festival and providing seed funding to help with its promotion.
• The Lanarkshire Hub hosts an annual climate festival which includes locally hosted activities such as repair workshops, cycling events, creative sessions and family activities.

Hubs have also found success in having a presence at local events or festivals which are not primarily climate-themed. Such events present opportunities to engage with a pre-existing captive audience on climate issues. For example, the Angus Hub supported the Land x Sea Film Festival in Montrose; and Climate Hebrides used their attendance at HebCelt, a music festival in Stornoway as an opportunity to promote use of Electric Vehicles (EV).

“They took the electric car to HebCelt Festival this year and they popped in to see if I had… anything that they could run off of their EV. I actually had a Nintendo Wii. So they took the Nintendo Wii and well they bought the Nintendo Wii and Mario Kart to play at HebCelt. So there was footage of the kids sitting playing Mario Kart, which was being run off their electric vehicle. So it was kind of engaging the kids in knowing more about kind of electric vehicles, but also meant that they were able to talk to the parents while the kids were sitting playing and get the parents knowing more about what they were doing.” (Community member)

Creative engagement methods

Hubs have used a variety of creative community engagement approaches to engage a wider range of groups. These creative methods include filmmaking, photography, social media, storytelling, campaigns, and online networks. Across the Hubs, these approaches were most effective when they took a place-based approach, focusing on themes that made climate change feel locally relevant and personally meaningful, and creating accessible entry points for people who did not already identify with climate action.

For example, the Forth Valley Hub’s ‘Trees for Goals’ project has helped engage local football club members in 14 clubs across the Forth Valley region, linking their issues with pitch flooding to climate action and mitigation. The Hub has implemented a simple and scalable scheme of planting a tree every time a player scores a goal. This initiative demonstrates an example of a Hub taking an innovative approach to engagement on climate issues, and then successfully expanding it to reach new audiences. Further detail on FEL’s project ‘Tree for Goals’ is included in a case study in Annex 1.

“We've now got 7 football clubs that are working towards that. And then I started crunching some numbers, looking across Scotland, going, holy moly, there are like millions of football fans. And there are a lot of professional clubs, semi-professional clubs, community clubs. I'm like, this could go like viral. And, you know, be a beacon of hope around climate flooding and participation. in a way that works for people that perhaps would be a bit further away from wanting to do something.” (Hub staff)

Reflections from monitoring reports and interviews suggest that filmmaking and photography worked well when they captured lived experience and local identity, for example, documenting flood or storm impacts, or showcasing community-led solutions. These formats helped translate complex issues into accessible narratives, created shareable content for partner organisations, and provided a powerful evidence base that could form the basis of conversations with decision-makers.

Partnership working and collaboration

Partnership working has been a central feature of programme delivery, with Climate Action Hubs playing an active role not only in collaborating with individual organisations, but in building and strengthening local and regional networks to support community-led climate action. Evidence from Hub reports, interviews and surveys indicates that Hubs frequently act as convenors and facilitators, bringing together community groups, public bodies and other partners who may not otherwise have connected or collaborated.

In their local areas, Hubs have focused on creating spaces for peer-to-peer learning and collaboration between community groups. This has included facilitating networks or collectives around shared interests, such as food growing or biodiversity; hosting networking events; and supporting knowledge exchange through workshops and informal gatherings. These activities were often seen as particularly valuable in areas where community organisations were working in isolation, helping to reduce duplication, build confidence through shared interests, and inspire collaborative projects.

“Often you're on your own and you're often most of the time voluntary, doing it on the side of your desk. And it can be quite an isolating thing. And unless you network, you don't learn anything else that's going on around in your region. And there are others in other groups who are much more experienced in other areas. So the networking side has been brilliant… they hold these meetings and gatherings and things. And I met so many people who were like me and others who were just on their own. And that just fuels you to do more when you know others are in your region doing something.” (Community member)

4.5: Elevating community voices in climate policy and decision making

Different routes for communities to influence policy and decision-making were evident across the Hubs, including building community capacity in climate policy, acting as a trusted intermediary between communities and decision-makers, participating in formal advisory and partnership structures, and amplifying community voices.

Building community capacity in climate policy

There are many examples of Hubs building community capacity to shape policy on adaptation and mitigation of climate change. A key method of achieving this was by increasing knowledge among community members, for example, through the provision of carbon literacy training, building community understanding of national-level climate policy and resources, or by supporting local initiatives.

Another key element of building community capacity has been the support Hubs have provided communities to participate in local and national consultations. Examples of opportunities created by Hubs include bringing people together to discuss consultation questions, helping them understand complex policy documents, and supporting them to submit responses. Some Hubs have acted as delivery partners for consultations on climate change plans, by coordinating workshops and events, so community views can be gathered and formally submitted.

On a national scale, this has included Hubs submitting consultation responses on behalf of communities, such as Heat in Buildings, and the Wellbeing and Sustainable Development Bill. Other examples include:

• The Midlothian Hub hosted a discussion around the Community Benefits onshore/offshore renewables consultation. Four representatives from local groups attended and a response was submitted.
• The Fife Hub held online events to gather Fife Communities Climate Action Network (FCCAN) member feedback for the Local Heat and Energy Efficiency Strategy (LHEES), Active Travel, and Heat in Buildings Bill consultations.

In the first three quarters of 2025-26, Hubs submitted 41 responses to local or regional consultations and 39 to national consultations. Often, this involved gathering community members’ views and incorporating those in the response

Many Hubs have delivered workshops that allow communities to collectively explore policy issues and develop shared responses. To extend impact, some Hubs, including Forth Valley, Fife Climate, Argyll & Bute have created toolkits that enable member organisations and others in the community to run their own workshops in which they can explore issues or generate their own consultation responses.

Finally, Hubs enable and support coproduction of policy by involving communities in shaping local climate plans, adaptation strategies, and place-based plans. This gives communities a sense of ownership and a clearer route to influence long-term decision-making. For example, the East Dunbartonshire Hub supported local groups to influence the local food growing strategy and the Climate Action Draft Plan for East Dunbartonshire.

Some Hubs have even focused on building community skills in influencing policy. For example, NESCAN Hub hosted community training by “Hope for the Future” to enable community members to gain skills and confidence in speaking to decision makers. This has also included work to build community relationships with stakeholders and MSPs. For example, the Highlands & Islands Hub has been working with the Golspie community since 2022 in finding solutions to local flooding. The Hub worked with the community to secure a multi-stakeholder meeting led by Maree Todd MSP and the statutory organisations

A trusted intermediary between communities and decision‑makers

Hubs often function as a bridge between communities and local authorities via engagement with local authority staff, local councillors and community councils. Examples include training for staff and elected representatives on carbon literacy, attendance and representation at formal committees, policy influencing activity, facilitation of meetings between local government and other stakeholders, and developing relationships with elected representatives who could support and promote the Hub’s activity.

“[on regional adaptation partnerships] Local authorities and some public bodies and infrastructure operators all talking and working together to get a shared understanding of climate risks and priorities for what they're going to do … But sometimes they need to do that work with communities and they've used the hubs as intermediary organisations to get people's climate stories and a climate map. So people adding to a map about how severe weather has impacted them. Then they've used that data to help inform like these organisations' priorities.” (National stakeholder)

Hubs’ role as a trusted intermediary allows community perspectives to be communicated more clearly to decision‑makers and, in some cases, has enabled communities to be involved early in policy development processes. For example:

• The Forth Valley Hub holds regular meetings (every six weeks) with the Sustainability Team at Falkirk Council; these meetings have led to council-led activities including Falkirk Climate Festival, adaptation workshops, Tamfourhill Climate Action Plan and establishing a new Sustainability Action Group.
• The East Lothian Hub has been involved in drafting the East Lothian Council local biodiversity action plan and the delivery plan for the Local Heat and Energy Efficiency Strategy.
• The Highlands & Islands Hub has played a key intermediary role between the community and energy companies in terms of planning the delivery of community benefits clauses related to wind farms

Some Hubs had mixed success in engaging with local power structures. Barriers to collaboration included limited capacity and time, both within councils and within Hubs; a lack of buy in to Hub activity, for example, due to confusion about the remits and scope of different climate organisations within the local area,; and difficulties in making successful initial contact to build new connections and relationships. Some described engagement with community councils as particularly challenging and a missed opportunity; this was attributed to resource constraints and a resistance among some community council members to engaging with issues around the climate crisis.

Participating in formal advisory and partnership structures

Several Hubs sit on, or help to shape, formal panels, steering groups, committees, and partnership groups, such as sustainability committees or climate panels. Through these roles, Hubs contribute community perspectives to discussions about priorities, engagement approaches, and policy development. Monitoring data shows that Hubs have contributed to the development of 70 Local Place Plans in Quarters 1 to 3 in 2025-26.

Participation in formal structures such as panels and community partnerships has provided Hubs with an avenue to meet decision makers and communicate local climate priorities in a multiagency setting. Examples include:

• The Outer Hebrides Hub is represented on the Outer Hebrides Community Planning Partnership’s Climate Change Working Group, working alongside partners from the local authority, NHS and other stakeholders to decide how to spend the funds available to the Working Group.
• The Scottish Borders Hub has worked with Scottish Borders Council in launching and facilitating an Active Travel forum to improve the active travel options and network in the Borders. Three meetings have been hosted so far as well as creating a communications channel. The aim will be to represent community voices and shape and inform active travel policy in the Council’s forthcoming active travel strategy development.
• The Highlands & Islands Hub has been co-authoring elements of the Highland Climate Risk Assessment as part of Highland Adapts, a partnership with Highland Council, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Zero Waste Scotland, Adaptation Scotland, and others.

Amplifying community voices and local knowledge

Hubs have also focused on amplifying community voices and perspectives on local climate issues in public forums or in policy discussions. They have used their networks, newsletters, meetings, and events to circulate policy opportunities, share surveys, and gather feedback. Through their work with communities, they identify and articulate resource constraints, barriers to action, inequalities or geographic differences in need. For example, the Angus Hub presented films, a talk, and foyer displays on local personal experiences of severe flooding and storms to the annual Scottish Flood Resilience Conference in January 2025.

4.6: Approaches to monitoring and evaluation

In many cases, development or expansion of Hub activity has been underpinned by monitoring and evaluation activity. This not only feeds into the place-based approach of Hubs, by gathering community perspectives on relevant needs and activities, it also enables Hubs to capture evidence of impact and demonstrate the need for and value of their work.

Methods of monitoring and evaluation

Most Hubs have focused on gathering feedback from their members or event attendees through surveys, informal feedback gathering, and post-event feedback forms (both paper and online). Many hubs recognised that community members are often more willing to share views through informal methods and if there is an ongoing open channel. They have therefore utilised conversations at events, reflective discussions in workshops, and follow-up emails or phone calls with participants. Digital tools such as online surveys, QR code surveys, or post-event feedback links have also been used, particularly for larger events or online sessions; some Hubs have automated these processes.

Some Hubs have also embedded feedback-gathering directly into activities themselves. For example they have used interactive exercises such as sticky notes, comment walls, voting dots to understand what people found useful, what could be improved, and what they would like to see next. Scottish Borders Hub has found positive engagement in gathering views through interactive stalls at events, where they have used Lego and art materials to ask people about their future hopes for the climate in their area.

Many Hubs have also been tracking electronic engagement with their publicity and communication materials, including analysing social media metrics and statistics from their newsletters and websites. Some Hubs have reviewed click rates to understand what material their audiences are interested in and to restructure their websites and newsletters accordingly.

A few Hubs have made use of electronic, AI or CRM^[5] systems to track monitoring processes and data. These digital tools were described as being a helpful resource to centralise and streamline management of Hub data. For example, the Highlands and Islands Hub has been using Monday.com, and have also implemented automated systems for gathering post-event feedback from attendees. The Lanarkshire Hub has introduced digital operations platform Airtable to monitor and collate feedback, and have shared their learning with other members of the Hub network.

“I had advertised, ‘look, we've been using this in Lanarkshire and we think it's working really well. If anyone's interested, please get in touch.’ And Forth Environment Link did get in touch and I did a presentation with them and showed them how we use it. We've got different databases. We use it for surveys, for questionnaires, so that we get everything in the same place. So they've started using that as well.” (Hub staff)

Some Hubs are working with external partners to develop robust approaches to monitoring and evaluation. For example, staff from the Fife, Outer Hebrides and Forth Valley Hubs have taken part in sessions with CAG Consultants to develop the original monitoring, evaluation and learning framework for the programme.

4.7: Barriers and challenges

The following section describes some of the challenges and barriers faced in the delivery and implementation of the programme, with comments on how these challenges have been, or could be, addressed.

Annual funding

The programme’s annual funding cycle was described as a significant challenge in many interviews, with both Hub staff and national stakeholders reflecting on the disruption and uncertainty caused by the short-term nature of funding. This year a reduction in grant values alongside late confirmation of funding were noted to have exacerbated an already difficult situation.

Participants described adverse consequences which they attributed to the programme’s funding model. For example, it limited some Hubs’ ability to deliver long-term, strategic and impactful work; instead they focused on short-term projects which may have less sustainable impact.

Many stakeholders felt that the annual funding cycle created challenges in maintaining the Hubs’ place-based approach and emphasis on relationship building. They highlighted that relationships and community trust take time to build and can be impacted by staff changes and the inability of staff to commit reliably to future projects. This hampered the potential to build relationships with communities, and affected their ability to build consistent relationships with other organisations, including public sector, local authorities, and local business.

Another impact identified was difficulties with staff recruitment and retention. A lack of job security led to experienced staff moving on to more stable opportunities. It was also felt to have deterred people from applying for roles at Hubs. Staff reported negative impacts on personal wellbeing and financial security, reporting high levels of stress and impacts on their quality of life.

Many felt that increased funding stability could address this challenge and enable the Hubs to have greater impact. Long-term funding would allow the Hubs to recruit a stable and experienced workforce, plan further in advance and think more strategically, thereby increasing their reach and building more sustainable action. Stakeholders also emphasised that multi-year funding would support stronger alignment with local authority planning and budget cycles, creating more realistic timescales for joint design, approvals and delivery. In contrast, short-term annual awards and spend-within-year requirements can reduce opportunities to collaborate with councils and other funders, limiting the scope to develop co-funded or joined-up initiatives.

“You have these bursts of energy when the funding gets confirmed and they run off and they have to spend it because it has to be spent that financial year. And [they are] running faster than we can do things. Whereas if we had a three-year or a five-year funding round and vision, we could work together in tandem a bit more.” (Local authority staff)

Reporting requirements

The programme’s administrative and reporting requirements were described by some as burdensome and time-consuming. It was acknowledged that the Hubs expect this from a publicly funded programme, but that providing the data and materials at the frequency expected from the programme absorbed administrative capacity and staff time, diverting resources from delivery and driving impact.

A few interviewees referenced other funding streams with less frequent and more light-touch reporting requirements and suggested the Scottish Government should consider a similar model.

Scope and capacity

Many of the Hubs operating in rural and remote areas of Scotland described the geography of their area as an implementation challenge. Some Hubs cover larger, more diverse or rural areas, which pose difficulties with travel time and public transport availability. Challenges with geographical scope are also compounded by Hub resources and staff capacity, where the team size may not be able to provide the potential scope of support for an area.

Some Hubs have utilised online or digital approaches to overcome geographic barriers, while others have covered travel and accommodation expenses for Hub members to participate in in-person events.

Balancing priorities for the Hubs

Several Hubs raised the issue of competing visions, across stakeholders, of what the Hub should be. Many felt it was a balance between delivering Scottish Government aims, including involvement in national projects and policy, while also trying to meet the expectations of other groups, such as local authorities, community members, and local climate organisations. The struggle to balance priorities also extended to capacity, funding availability, and the timescales of annual funding. No clear solutions to this barrier were identified by stakeholders during their engagement with the evaluation, although it was felt to be a key issue for Hubs to be aware of when developing their workplans.

“There are so many different things that Hubs can do, and they get pulled in so many different ways, that focus can sometimes be an issue. It's very difficult to bottle down on what your priorities will need to be… they evolve over time.” (National stakeholder)

4.8: Strengths and enablers

The following section describes some of the key strengths which have enabled successful delivery of the programme.

Flexibility allowed by the programme

Many stakeholders have appreciated the flexibility of the Climate Hub programme, allowing the Hubs to determine their own delivery models and programmes of activities. Although guided by a broad set of key performance indicators, the freedom to take a place-based approach has enabled the Hubs to focus their business cases on the specific priorities of their regions and communities. This closer connection of the programme with community need has also enabled the Hubs to build stronger and more consistent local relationships.

“For me, what works well is that flexibility … the Hubs are able to focus on their own priorities, which is why it all looks so different nationally. And for me it's that role that they're able to play because they're fairly close to what's going on the ground, that they're able to do that connection and facilitation role that I think was otherwise lacking. So they're the two key things for me: the flexibility and approach that's very place-based and two, the facilitation and connection [work] that they do.” (National stakeholder)

Passionate, knowledgeable, and well-connected staff

A range of interviewees, across national stakeholders, community members and Hub staff praised the passion and knowledge of staff, along with their integration within their communities. Given the programme’s place-based nature and emphasis on relationship and partnership building, the commitment the staff have brought to the programme, along with their interpersonal skills engaging with their communities, have been strong enablers of successful delivery.

“Success of the Hubs is usually down to the skills of the development officers and their vision. So it's no good having somebody who is technically brilliant if they can't talk to people. And bring people on board. So it's very much, it has to be driven by a community development ethos in everything that takes place rather than, this is a brilliant technical solution. Yes, that's there, but you need the people skills to help drive that.” (Community member)

External stakeholder support

Support from the central Scottish Government team and other external stakeholders, including climate specialists, consultants, SCCAN, and Verture, has been instrumental to the effective delivery of the Climate Hub programme. Many Hub representatives reported feeling supported with learning and knowledge exchange, networking, and advice.

The central Scottish Government team received particularly strong praise for their responsiveness and integration within the wider Climate Hub network, with Hubs appreciating their proactive approach to offering tailored workshops and learning exchange opportunities for the Hubs.

“There's always been open conversation. There's always supportive conversation. And there's a feeling that if there was something that we had to check in with or go and ask about, there is somebody there who is willing to engage with us to do it. And that's very important, especially when you're dealing with a funder, because a lot of times Funders are not like that. So it's been very welcome to have that level of connection.” (Hub staff)