Review of the Guidance on Engaging Communities in Decisions Relating to Land

5. What We Learned from the Evidence

The below sets out what the evidence from Stakeholders and the Hutton research has told us, providing an overview of current practice, areas of progress, and the issues that may require further clarification or development in future iterations of the Guidance.

5.1 Awareness of the Guidance

Stakeholder responses and the Hutton research suggest that overall awareness of the Guidance appears to be relatively low. Both reported limited awareness particularly among communities, urban areas and non-land-based sectors, and noted that even within the land sector, knowledge can be limited. The Hutton research highlighted that:

“Most groups (including landowners, land managers, and communities) seem to have low awareness of the Guidance, and more awareness of the Scottish Land Commission’s relevant Protocols, and other tools.”

Stakeholder feedback suggests that landowners, land managers, well resourced community councils and stakeholder groups have greater familiarity with the Guidance. In contrast communities (including community landowners), agricultural tenants, urban landowners, public bodies, the commercial property sector, the planning and development sector, natural capital investment companies and other non-land based decision makers were described as having lower levels of awareness.

One Stakeholder reported that the perception persists that land reform and associated community engagement are primarily rural issues. They suggested that increasing engagement activity in urban areas could help improve awareness.

The Commission’s survey findings also report lower levels of awareness among communities than amongst landowners and managers. The Community Engagement Baseline Survey Report 2019 (“the 2019 survey”) and the Community Engagement Survey Results 2022 (“the 2022 survey”) set out the Commission’s findings from their surveys which explored landowner and community experiences of carrying out and participating in community engagement, and the benefits and barriers identified. Between the 2019 and 2022 surveys:

• community awareness of the Guidance increased from 34% in 2019 to 55% in 2022
• awareness among landowners and managers remained consistently high at 82% and 81% respectively

The Commission noted that landowners and managers had reported, through its survey work, that they became aware of the Guidance via the Commission’s website. The Commission also carries out wider activity to encourage and support landowners to act in line with the Guidance and continues to monitor how this is perceived through its Good Practice Programme. The Hutton research found that most groups, including landowners, land managers and communities, tend to have lower awareness of the Guidance than of the Commission’s Protocols and other tools.

Another Stakeholder noted that community engagement is already a central principle within their membership charter, and that members have a good understanding of the principles of good engagement. However, awareness and understanding of the Guidance among members remains variable.

One Stakeholder also highlighted the value of membership organisations disseminating and raising awareness of the Guidance, while another observed that their organisation’s resources, which are consistent with the Guidance, are often more likely to be used than the Guidance.

The Hutton research also identified that natural capital investors may follow engagement guidance relevant to the markets in which they operate and therefore may be less aware of the Guidance. While awareness could be increased further, the research did identify a positive shift in awareness since 2018, reflected in increased uptake of training on community engagement.

A light touch review of Scottish Government practice indicates that reference to the Guidance is not consistent across all policy areas involved in decisions relating to land. This mirrors the evidence from Stakeholders, who also reported variable awareness of the Guidance in the public sector.

Stakeholders additionally told us that community engagement activity is evident and, in some cases, increasing. This suggests that limited awareness does not necessarily mean engagement is not taking place, nor that it presents a barrier to improving practice.

Taken together, this evidence shows that awareness of the Guidance varies considerably across sectors and groups. Landowners, land managers and well‑resourced organisations tend to have a higher level of familiarity, while awareness remains lower among communities, urban actors, non‑land‑based sectors and natural capital investors.

Community engagement activity is taking place across Scotland and, in some areas, increasing. The available evidence also indicates a positive shift in awareness over time. This suggests that while direct awareness of the Guidance may be variable, its principles are nonetheless shaping practice through other mechanisms, including sector specific guidance and Commission resources. Overall, these insights provide useful context for understanding how the Guidance is currently perceived and promoted.

5.2 Use of the Guidance

Evidence gathered for this review indicates that the Guidance is used in a variety of ways, though its influence is often indirect. Stakeholders noted the Guidance is not, on its own, a primary influence of engagement activity.

Evidence suggests that the Guidance is frequently used in embedded or indirect ways. The Commission’s 2022 survey found that the Protocol on Community Engagement is widely used, with 83% of respondents identifying it as a resource they had made use of. The Protocol is, of course, derived from, and closely aligned with, the Guidance. As a result, many of those who are making decisions about land may be applying the principles of the Guidance without explicitly referencing it, particularly through routine or informal engagement with local communities. This reflects comments from Stakeholders who reported that users tend to draw on, or be signposted to, the Commission’s wider resources rather than the Guidance itself.

Stakeholders also described a preference among users for practical, accessible materials, such as the Commission’s Protocols, the routemap, webinars, workshops and tailored sector specific tools. In the Commission’s 2022 survey, 35% of respondents indicated they had used additional community engagement guidance alongside the Protocol. One Stakeholder explained that the Guidance “does underpin other resources that our members may be aware of”, while another noted that their own guidance does not reference the Guidance directly but remains consistent with it. Within the Hutton research, a key informant echoed this, with one interviewee observing that the Guidance has contributed to a “bedrock expectation” of what good engagement should look like.

The Hutton research also found that many landowners and managers make use of other community engagement tools, such as the Commission’s Protocols, reflecting the higher awareness of these resources compared with the Guidance. Approaches to engagement were also shown to vary depending on the landowner’s and manager’s motivations, with some primarily concentrating on meeting minimum statutory requirements, such as those arising in planning or forestry processes, rather than adopting the good practice approaches set out in the Guidance. At the same time, as natural capital investment and large scale land use change continues to expand, the Hutton research identified that natural capital investors are increasingly aware of the reputational risks associated with poor community engagement.

Taken together, the evidence suggests that engagement practice is more established and normalised than it was in 2018, but that approaches still vary, and the Guidance is not consistently used as the main reference point. While direct use and awareness of the Guidance may remain limited, its principles nonetheless appear to be shaping practice through a range of other mechanisms, including sector specific guidance, the Commission’s resources, and sometimes embedded informal engagement practices.

5.3 Quality of engagement

Stakeholders reported that the quality of community engagement varies across land use and decision making contexts, with challenges evident in situations involving significant land use change or longer‑term, phased developments. Community engagement is the most commonly raised issue in the Commission’s casework^[1].

One stakeholder noted that communities tended to report lower levels of usefulness, influence and impact from engagement, while landowners and managers were more likely to describe positive experiences of community engagement that is shaping decisions. This is supported by feedback in the Commission’s 2022 survey which indicated a clear perception gap: where 63% of community respondents reported that they felt their views did not have much influence; whereas 79% of landowner and manager respondents felt that community views had an impact on the decisions they made.

Alongside these perceptions, key informants within the Hutton research believe that community engagement has become more routine since 2018, reflecting a shift among landowners and managers from asking “why should we engage?” to “how can we do this better?”. This points to a wider cultural change in land management, with engagement increasingly recognised as part of good practice.

The Hutton research noted that there is no formal ongoing monitoring of how the Guidance is being used or of the quality of engagement taking place, potentially limiting understanding of its effectiveness. The research suggests that an increase in the amount of engagement does not provide evidence of the quality of engagement taking place.

The Hutton research also identified that some landowners and managers may not fully recognise the cumulative impact that ongoing or multiple land use changes can have on communities. As a result, communities can experience engagement fatigue due to the multiple developments and engagement practices potentially taking place simultaneously.

At the same time, Stakeholders noted encouraging signs, including that formal engagement is increasing, shaped by evolving land‑use practices, statutory obligations, greater awareness of the importance of community involvement and examples of emerging good practice. One Stakeholder noting that community engagement is improving, in forestry and natural capital projects. The Hutton research noted a clear shift in awareness, understanding, and willingness on the part of landowners and managers about the value of good practice community engagement, reflected in growing interest in training opportunities.

Stakeholders also emphasised that effective engagement often relies on a proportionate and relationship based approach and goodwill between parties. It was also noted that many landowners and farmers continue to engage informally and routinely with communities, and this remains valued at a local level.

Improvements in engagement may not necessarily be directly linked to the Guidance as several other influences were identified, including increased statutory obligations for engagement, the need for landowners and managers to minimise objections, wider public and political expectations and gradually shifting attitudes among landowners and managers.

However, another Stakeholder noted that engagement done to meet statutory or regulatory requirements, or to gain funding, can lead to bare minimum levels of engagement that do not meet the principles set out in the Guidance and the LRRS. They felt this was due to statutory requirements often setting more limited standards of engagement and the scrutiny of it being too low. Some also expressed concern that increasing expectations and the need to evidence engagement can, at times, lead to more formalised but less personal processes.

One Stakeholder also observed a growing apathy towards engagement on forest plans and other areas of land use. The Commission’s 2019 and 2022 surveys showed a decrease in the proportion of respondents who had taken part in activities carried out in their community, with around a fifth stating that no engagement activity had taken place in their area.

5.4 Findings in relation to the content of the Guidance

The review has produced a range of evidence that relates to the content of the Guidance. This is summarised below.

5.4.1 Practice and context changes in community engagement since 2018

Since the Guidance was published in 2018, the wider policy and land use context in Scotland has continued to evolve. Evidence gathered, particularly through the Hutton research points to several shifts that shape how community engagement now operates.

The Hutton research identified that Scotland’s commitments to Net Zero by 2045 and a Just Transition are influencing patterns of land use and investment. Highlighting concerns about existing inequalities in rural areas, particularly where local people have limited opportunities to participate meaningfully in land use decisions.

The Hutton research noted changing patterns in landownership, including increasing concentration of ownership and the emergence of newer landowners, such as those involved in natural capital investment, carbon projects or investment driven models of land use, alongside some growth in community ownership. These shifts in land ownership can alter local power dynamics and influence how decisions are made, communicated and perceived, as some of these landowners and managers may have limited awareness of local culture and knowledge. This can further affect the quality of engagement and the ability to reach a wide and diverse range of community members. Stakeholders similarly emphasised the importance of maintaining an ongoing focus on a just transition and the importance of clear expectations in the Guidance on how communities should be involved as land use change continues.

They also identified changes in community engagement practice since 2018, with approaches such as co‑production, co‑design, lived experience methods and community mapping becoming more common. These approaches reflect a broader trend towards inclusive and participatory methods that seek to recognise diverse voices, including children and young people, and those of marginalised or less visible groups. The Hutton research noted a suggestion from key informants that protocols and good practice guidance for communities are developed, to provide information on their role and what is expected of them.

Despite this shift towards more inclusive practice, Stakeholders observed that participation can often remain concentrated among those who already engage, meaning wider community voices are not always represented. The Hutton research also points to evolving definitions and expectations within community engagement policy. Concepts such as “engagement” and “empowerment” have developed since 2018, and the researchers suggest that clearer, updated definitions could help support more consistent practice.

One stakeholder said there should be further clarity on how, when considering a Community Right to Buy Land to Further Sustainable Development^[2] the Scottish Ministers may take into account the extent to which in relation to the relevant community, regard has been had to the Guidance.

Taken together, this evidence illustrates a changing landscape of land use, ownership and engagement practice. Shifts in policy, landownership patterns and participatory methods all influence how engagement is carried out and experienced. These changes form an important part of the context for considering whether the Guidance continues to align with current needs, and where further clarification or development may be helpful.

5.4.2 Community engagement practices

Evidence gathered for this review shows that engagement practices vary widely and that several factors continue to shape their quality, effectiveness and inclusiveness.

The Hutton research found that landowners often have the power to set the terms for engagement and communication, and a lack of procedures for communities to proactively engage can make engagement feel like a “one‑way street”. They also noted that persistent barriers, in particular with regard to power inequalities can inhibit effective and good practice community engagement processes, which can lead to people being prevented from participating in community engagement processes due to society wide structural inequalities.

Stakeholders recognised that the flexible, non‑prescriptive nature of the Guidance can support proportionate engagement, particularly for routine land management activities. However, several Stakeholders highlighted that the Guidance does not always provide clarity on expected standards, or if and how community input should be recorded and fed back. They saw opportunities to improve the Guidance by providing clearer expectations around duties and improving transparency about how community views genuinely inform decisions, while still retaining flexibility for routine activities.

A consistent message from Stakeholders and research participants was the importance of early and proactive engagement. They emphasised the value in constructive, ongoing relationships between landowners and managers and communities well before decisions are made, so that trust, transparency and shared understanding are established in advance. The Commission’s 2019 and 2022 survey evidence shows that many landowners and managers who use its protocols tend to take a more proactive and regular approach to engagement. Engaging early gives communities a meaningful opportunity to understand proposals, raise issues and influence decisions at a stage when their views can shape outcomes.

Some communities reported feeling that the onus is on them to find information about plans, which relates to concerns that engagement may not be taking place early enough or supported by accessible communication channels. Findings from the Commission’s ScotLand Futures work reinforces that communities report they feel unable to influence land use decisions, particularly in relation to significant and long‑term land management changes.

Evidence from Stakeholders and the Hutton research shows that even when individual proposals appear proportionate, the cumulative effect of land use changes or long‑term developments can have significant combined effects on communities. This can contribute to engagement fatigue and undermine people’s ability to participate meaningfully. Some suggested that in circumstances involving cumulative proposals, there may be value in taking a more cohesive or strategic approach to engagement.

However, Stakeholders also noted that multiple projects can be difficult for communities to engage with fully, especially when engagement takes place at short notice or at inconvenient times. Reflecting these challenges, Stakeholders felt that the Guidance could encourage the use of a broader range of engagement approaches, including online or hybrid methods and techniques designed to remove barriers to participation. This view is also supported by key informant suggestions in the Hutton research which suggests that traditional engagement formats, such as “village hall” consultation events, can make open and honest discussion more difficult. The Commission has similarly highlighted from its 2019 and 2022 survey findings that there are concerns that consultation can feel meaningless, with some participants suggesting it can feel like a “tick‑box exercise” and a sense that those leading the engagement are not genuinely interested in local opinions. Participants also perceived that views shared through consultation style engagement are ignored by decision makers.

Finally, several Stakeholders felt the Guidance could be clearer about the responsibilities of intermediaries or agents acting on behalf of landowners. Some emphasised the need for transparency around roles and decision making responsibilities in these situations, so communities know who is accountable for engagement and who is making decisions.

5.4.3 Clarity and usability of the Guidance

A consistent theme across Stakeholder responses was the need for updated, clearer and more consistent terminology. Stakeholders noted that several important terms in the Guidance, including “landowner”, “community”, “significant impact” and “appropriate level of engagement”, could benefit from further consideration. For example, one Stakeholder noted they found the term ‘significant impact’ to be helpful but there may be merit in broadening its interpretation, to include disposal of land that is important to a community, while another Stakeholder said the term was currently vague and would benefit from a clearer definition.

The Hutton research drew attention to the definition of “community” as potentially needing to be broader than those in the immediate vicinity of a landholding, as some land use decisions, such as flood management across a wider catchment, or consideration of new windfarms in areas already hosting existing developments, may require engagement with wide geographical areas. The Hutton research also highlighted the need for consistent language throughout the Guidance, and greater clarity about who has responsibility for taking action. Stakeholders noted that the Guidance would benefit from updating references and terminology to reflect current practice.

Evidence from the Hutton research indicated the need to review how proportionate engagement is explained within the Guidance, ensuring expectations are realistic and that, in some circumstances, achieving “good” rather than “best” practice may be more appropriate.

Some Stakeholders also recommended that the Guidance provide more information and clarity on proportionate engagement and practical application of the Guidance. They suggested that placing this earlier in the document would also help users understand from the outset how the Guidance applies to them and what is expected of them. They also suggested that outlining expectations based on the scale of landownership or the nature of the decisions being made would support a clear and consistent approach.

Stakeholders emphasised that any clearer expectations should still allow for flexibility, so that engagement remains proportionate and tailored to the scale, context and urgency of different decisions.

The Commission’s 2022 survey also highlighted that making information more accessible is an important way to improve engagement. Stakeholders agreed that the Guidance could benefit from presenting information in more accessible formats. They expressed interest in more visual and practical tools, such as checklists, graphics, case studies and worked examples, to help illustrate how the Guidance applies across different types of land‑use decisions.

5.4.4 Relationship of the Guidance to other statutory requirements

Stakeholders highlighted that the wider landscape of community engagement guidance relating to land use decisions can feel cluttered and at times difficult to navigate. They noted that users often need to refer to multiple sources, which can make it unclear how different requirements fit together. Several Stakeholders commented that clearer signposting to the range of statutory engagement duties, and how these interact with the Guidance, would make it easier for users to understand how the Guidance applies in practice.

Stakeholders identified forestry and planning as examples where statutory consultation processes already exist. They felt the Guidance could make it clearer that statutory requirements do not replace the broader expectations it sets out. Some Stakeholders were concerned that, particularly in cases of significant land use change or long term developments, landowners and managers may rely on statutory consultations and deliver only the minimum standard of engagement, rather than the approaches encouraged by the Guidance.

As part of the Hutton research, key informants suggested that links in the Guidance to other key resources could be made more prominent (rather than including only in the Appendices). It also suggested that case studies could help landowners understand how engagement can work well when there are multiple requirements and expectations. Stakeholders also highlighted the value of linking to wider community led planning processes, such as Local Place Plans, and noted that future alignment with Land Management Plans could further help users apply the Guidance alongside other detailed resources.

Overall, Stakeholders felt that clearer direction, better explanation of how statutory and non‑statutory expectations fit together, and more practical examples would help people navigate both the Guidance and the wider landscape of land use decision making and community engagement, particularly in complex or multi‑layered contexts.

5.4.5 Skills and Training

Whilst not related to the content of the Guidance, Stakeholders and the Hutton research suggested that those involved in land based decision making would benefit from greater support to build confidence, skills and understanding of good practice community engagement. The Hutton research highlights that capacity building and training for landowners and managers and communities may support the use of the Guidance and includes suggestions of measures that could be taken. Stakeholders noted the importance of training and the Commission’s 2019, and 2022 surveys recorded a need for further training.

5.4.6 Support with conflict and contentious issues

Evidence gathered for this review shows that disagreement and conflict can arise during engagement processes, particularly where proposals are contentious or where communities feel they have limited influence. Stakeholders noted that the Guidance does not provide direction on how such situations should be handled or resolved. They felt the Guidance could be improved by including practical advice on managing disagreements, enabling constructive discussion and positive relationships, even where consensus cannot be reached.

Some Stakeholders described community experiences of hostility from landowners or local representatives who were reluctant to consider alternative viewpoints. Supporting this, the Hutton research reported that interviewees suggested that the Guidance could describe routes for recourse on the part of communities. It was also suggested that this should be accompanied with detail on managing community expectations, noting that the current Guidance does not provide clear guidance on what communities can do when they feel engagement has not met their expectations.

Stakeholders also emphasised the importance of being clear about what aspects of a proposal can genuinely be influenced, and when, to avoid unintentionally misleading communities or raising expectations that cannot be met. They suggested that clearer expectations about transparency, effective communication and respectful engagement would help establish shared understanding and build trust.

Conflicts of interest can arise within communities where different groups or individuals may hold competing priorities or expectations The Hutton research highlighted this issue and key informants suggested that training could support landowners and managers deal with diverging views within communities. Stakeholders agreed that clearer guidance on navigating these internal dynamics would be beneficial.

5.4.7 Recording community engagement

Some Stakeholders sought greater transparency and accountability for how engagement is recorded, emphasising the need for clearer expectations around formal documentation. They highlighted the value of keeping written records of engagement activity, noting that this helps demonstrate what has been done, how community views have been considered, and where further discussion may be needed. The Commission’s updated Community Engagement Protocol already recommends keeping records, and Stakeholders felt that setting clearer expectations within the Guidance could help support more consistent practice.