Nature Restoration Fund: interim evaluation

Annex 2: Additional detail on case study methods

The selection criteria for case studies in each strand were as follows.

Competitive Fund strand:

1. Successful project(s) fully delivering their intended outputs, on time and within the projected budget.

2. Project(s) that encountered challenges and with hindsight, may have done things differently

3. Project(s) that were impacted by Covid and were able to respond positively to the flexibility offered by NatureScot/SG

4. Multiple (and complimentary) project(s) delivering in the same geographical area e.g., at various sites along a river

5. Thematic projects that can demonstrate links to wider priorities and objectives in the Corporate Plan and Scottish Biodiversity Strategy – e.g., single farm or farm cluster projects telling a positive story for farming and biodiversity

6. Project(s) funded from development through to delivery, particularly where further/wider delivery is planned

7. Development phase funded projects

8. Project(s) that are innovative in approach with the potential to extend the current evidence base

9. Project(s) that attracted match funding (especially if nature finance) and/or new partners to nature restoration

Edinburgh Process:

1. Councils that had projects which contributed to a diverse mix of objectives, including NRF priority themes and/or goals from the Corporate Plan and Scottish Biodiversity Strategy – E.g., projects telling a positive story for biodiversity.

2. Councils that used the funding for multiple (and complimentary) project(s) delivering in the same geographical area e.g., at various sites along a river.

3. Councils that divided the funding to deliver projects that are varied in geographical spread (e.g. urban, rural, schools, rivers, invasive species) and/or employed different rural/urban measures in delivery.

4. Councils where multiple measures have noted to have been deployed within a project, but no additional information has been given.

Underpinning the above was the need for case study selection to account for:

• The eight different outcomes from the logic model in the evaluation framework (i.e. the selected list includes case studies that demonstrate delivery of most or all these outcomes).
• Different scale of projects, including geographic scale and higher and lower spend.
• Geographical spread (i.e. urban, rural, islands; different parts of Scotland/a range of regions or local authorities accounted for etc.)^[61]

Interviews took place between September 2024 and January 2025. Participants were provided with information and consent forms with details about how their data would be stored and used, in line with GDPR. Interviews lasted between 25 and 60 minutes. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. Different interview questions or follow-up questions were chosen (“routed”) depending on the reasons each case study was selected, according to the themes in the case study selection criteria. Questions were also pre-populated where this data was provided in advance (i.e. via existing project reports) and confirmed with the interviewee during the interview. Interview conversations were semi-structured and allowed to stray from the questionnaire to capture emergent themes and anecdotes on lessons learned. Key themes from the interview questionnaire and captured in individual case studies are given below:

Competitive Fund strand:

• Summary of project and anticipated outcomes, including delivery partners.
• NRF funds awarded, other project support (cash or in-kind), and delivery timeframe.
• Outputs delivered and extent to which anticipated outcomes are being/are likely to be achieved in the future.
• Other project successes (not covered by delivery of outputs).
• Project challenges – foreseen and unforeseen.
• Any unintended impacts and outcomes – positive and negative.
• Key learning points for nature restoration practice and NRF as a funding stream.

Edinburgh Process strand:

• Local Authority name, number of projects completed/funded by NRF in total, amount of total funding received per year.
• Project name, overview of objectives, timeframe, funds awarded, delivery partners, and area supported.
• Anticipated project outcomes, priority theme(s), and measures deployed (urban/rural).
• Project delivery: contribution to nature restoration, Nature Networks, collaborations with other projects, successes & challenges, unintended consequences, and key takeaways.

Long-term project delivery plans, contribution to nature restoration, partnership formation and community engagement, innovative methods, and learning points for nature restoration practice and NRF as a funding stream.^[62]