Scotland's fourth land use strategy: consultation analysis

Analysis of Responses

Question 1: Do you find Map Figure 1 to be a helpful representation of current land cover?

Option	Total	Percent
Yes	40	51.28%
No	19	24.36%
Not Answered	19	24.36%

Question 2: How can we most effectively represent housing and renewable energy alongside current land cover maps?

Respondents overwhelmingly favoured interactive, layered, and scalable mapping tools that integrate areas like housing and renewable energy data with existing land cover maps. The most frequently suggested approach was to use GIS-based, interactive maps with toggleable layers for housing, renewable energy and land cover. Respondents believed that maps should allow users to explore overlaps, synergies, and trade-offs.

There is a clear desire for granular, locally relevant data, and for maps to support both technical analysis by professionals and be accessible to the public. Many responses highlighted the importance of reflecting multifunctional land uses and avoiding oversimplification. A few cautioned against data burdens and conflicts with existing planning frameworks.

Many respondents highlighted the difference between land use and land cover and noted that housing and renewables are land uses that may not be accurately reflected in land cover maps alone.

A number of existing maps or data sources were suggested for consideration:

• Local Development Plans
• Housing Land Audits
• Improvement Service spatial data
• Scottish Environment Website
• Scottish Government’s Urban Rural Classification mapping (also available on Scotland’s Environmental Web)
• Local Energy Scotland’s website
• Renewable Energy Planning Database
• data layers from the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivtion (SIMD) alongside data on long-term empty properties via Council Tax Services
• Ordnance Survey National Geographic Database provides the basic input, and Open Streetmap
• planning data from the Improvement Service

Question 3: What sort of information about current land use would you find useful? (and how would you use it?)

Respondents suggested a number of types of information that would be useful. These are summarised below:

• land capability
• land ownership and tenure
• environmental indicators – such as soil health, carbon sequestration, biodiversity, woodland condition, flood risk and erosion, deer distribution and woodland expansion pressures
• housing
• socio-economic and community data on jobs and rural economies, community ownership and participation, housing and infrastructure planning
• ecosystem services and natural capital
• recreation and access opportunities such as core paths, parks, and access routes, game and wildlife habitats

The following suggestions were made for use of this information:

• assessing the potential of land for different uses to inform decision-making
• quantifying land use needs for specific activities and requirements such as rural housing
• allowing the land-user to model the opportunity costs of land use changes they intend to make in order to optimise the benefits they and society can get from the land, for example by identifying where, on what land, which actions should best be taken to support food production or the environment
• identifying the benefits to biodiversity, emissions reduction and the economy of specific sectors or activities
• identifying opportunities for community acquisition, restoration, and sustainable management

While many respondents thought the map presented in the consultation was useful, a number emphasised the need for the use of mapping in support of the strategy to be developed much further. In addition to the suggestions made above, some respondents highlighted the benefits of mapping the potential impact of government targets, the need for information on the current and longitudinal dynamics on what is happening to land and the natural environment and the facilitation of opportunity mapping.

The important link between the historic environment and land use was noted.

Question 4: Do you agree that these are the key areas that need to be delivered by Scotland’s land?

Option	Total	Percent
Yes	38	48.72%
No	24	30.77%
Not Answered	16	20.51%

Question 5: Are there any important land uses that you feel are missing or underrepresented in this list?

Some respondents emphasised the need to take an approach that is not based on an overall headline figure such as number of trees planted, or peatland hectares restored but takes into account factors relating to the condition of the land and the optimum location. For example in relation to forestry, the type of woodland cover should be categorised, and productivity taken account of, or peatland, where sites that are most degraded or most important for local ecosystems should be prioritised.

Some respondents argued that the premise of the question was fundamentally wrong, suggesting that the strategy should focus more on a reciprocal relationship with nature, and not characterise land as primarily a resource to meet human needs.

Overall, respondents highlighted a number of types of land use that could be included in a list of Scotland’s key land uses and these are set out below. It was noted that the consultation listed policies affecting land use rather than specific land uses. However, the aim of the list below is to highlight categories of land use, while recognising that further granularity can be sought:

• crofting
• recreation and tourism
• historic environment, historic and cultural landscapes
• water resources
• agriculture, food production, livestock grazing
• energy infrastructure
• transport infrastructure
• community land use
• urban land use
• game and wildlife management
• soil health
• rewilding
• cultural and artistic engagement
• commercial
• climate adaptation
• forestry
• water and climate resilience
• housing and development
• integrated and strategic planning

Question 6: How do you think data and mapping can evolve to better support our understanding of future land use and national ambitions—including the impacts, benefits, opportunities and trade-offs of change?

A number of themes arose from the responses to this question. These are summarised below.

Integrated and Accessible Data Platforms

It was noted that a key challenge for working with data and mapping is how technologies are used in ways that open them up meaningfully to those living and working in the contexts of land use decision making. There were calls for centralised, open-access GIS systems that integrate environmental, social, and economic data, and a common standard of data. There was emphasis on removing data silos and improving interoperability in order to support integrated land use. Some respondents advocated for participatory mapping and citizen science to incorporate local knowledge and lived experience.

It was argued that to better support our understanding of future land use and national ambitions, data and mapping tools must evolve to reflect the complex, layered nature of land use and that this requires interactive mapping tools that allow users to toggle between layers.

Dynamic and Scenario-Based Mapping

There was support for real-time, high-resolution mapping and scenario-modelling tools to simulate future land use under various conditions and explore tradeoffs.

There was also support for mapping that could assist land managers in decision-making to contribute to national climate and environmental goals, by helping farmers, crofters, and landowners understand their environmental baseline. In particular, data and mapping should consider climate adaptation needs and the increasing effects of climate change on land use.

Strategic Planning and Policy Alignment

It was suggested that mapping should support landscape-scale planning and align with national and regional strategies, and support Regional Land Use Partnerships (RLUPs). It was also recommended that there should be a properly integrated data strategy incorporating national and where appropriate regional information, to ensure links between datasets in land use planning, transport planning and land use strategy as well as other data such as economics. It was argued that the Scottish Government needed to take an evidence-based approach to integrated land use, by using up-to-date data to target actions and incentives to where they can have the greatest impact, minimising trade-offs and maximising benefits.

Question 7: What tools, data, or approaches would help improve this understanding over time?

Respondents provided detailed responses to this questions. The list below summarises key themes and broad approaches that were suggested. This is followed by a list highlighting specific suggestions for sources of data. A number of suggestions were made by respondents. These are summarised below:

Integrated and Accessible Data Platforms

• strong demand for open-access, user-friendly platforms that integrate diverse datasets (e.g. land use, biodiversity, climate, ownership)
• calls for Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) and cloud-based systems to enable real-time data sharing and interoperability

Mapping and Visualization Tools

• emphasis on dynamic, interactive maps that show land use changes over time
• suggestions for predictive tools and scenario modelling to assess future impacts

Remote Sensing and Monitoring

• use of satellite imagery, LiDAR, drones, and IoT sensors for real-time environmental monitoring
• ground-truthing and longitudinal studies to validate and enhance remote data

Community and Participatory Approaches

• citizen science, youth-led mapping, and community GIS platforms to incorporate local knowledge
• participatory mapping and stakeholder engagement to ensure inclusive decision-making
• qualitative data exploring the experience of those in geographical locations, their needs and challenges through case studies

Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services

• tools to assess and value ecosystem services and natural capital
• integration of ecological and socio-economic data to evaluate trade-offs and co-benefits
• improved data on private conservation investment (e.g. moorland restoration funded by shooting interests)

Standardisation and Governance

• need for consistent data standards, regular updates, and cross-sector collaboration
• suggestions for national coordination and governance structures to manage data infrastructure
• learning from RLUPs local and holding scale cases about how tools, data and approaches would help improve understanding about the future impact, benefits, opportunities, and trade-offs in an area

Cultural and Arts-Based Approaches

• innovative ideas like ‘deep mapping’ to integrate cultural, historical, and artistic perspectives into land use understanding

The following specific tools and approaches were suggested:

Mapping and Visualization

• crofting land use dashboard
• interactive time-slider maps (e.g. Google Earth-style)
• deep mapping (arts-integrated spatial tools)
• landscape character assessments
• nature network mapping

Remote Sensing and Monitoring

• LiDAR (National LiDAR Map)
• Sentinel-2 / Landsat (Optical Satellite Data)
• SAR (Radar Data)
• thermal imaging
• drones
• field sensors (soil moisture, air quality, etc)

Data Platforms and Integration

• OpenStreetMap
• National Biodiversity Atlas
• APIs for spatial data layers (e.g. LPIS, aerial photography, livestock density)
• integrated dashboards (e.g. farming, forestry, housing)

Modelling and Decision Support

• peatland triage tool (RESPECT project)
• Ecoforest and Rivertool (James Hutton Institute)
• InVEST and ARIES (Ecosystem Services Valuation)
• Quantitative Story Telling (QST)
• scenario-modelling tools
• Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

Data Sources and Infrastructure

• Crofting Register
• Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), NatureScot, Historic Scotland, Forestry and Land Scotland
• NHS Scotland (health data)
• Skills Development Scotland, Lantra (workforce data)
• Improvement Service (planning data)
• North East Scotland Biological Records
• Scottish Biodiversity Information Forum review recommendations

Question 8: Do you think the description provided captures what is meant by 'integrated landscapes'?

Option	Total	Percent
Yes	44	56.41%
No	23	29.49%
Not Answered	11	14.10%

Question 9: Do you agree that integrated landscapes are the most effective approach to addressing Scotland’s land use ambitions ? Please give reasons for your answer

Option	Total	Percent
Yes	57	73.08%
No	5	6.41%
Not Answered	16	20.51%

Respondents were asked to given reasons for their answer, and these are summarised below.

Broad Support for Integration

Many respondents agreed that integrated landscapes are essential for achieving Scotland’s land use goals and balancing competing demands such as:

• food production
• biodiversity restoration
• climate resilience
• community wellbeing

A number of respondents particularly highlighted the importance of integration to climate goals and Net Zero by 2045. It was suggested that nature-based solutions (e.g. peatland restoration, agroforestry) offer co-benefits and that climate resilience should be embedded in land use planning.

Many elaborated and set out views on how integrated landscapes could be achieved, including through RLUPs, which were frequently cited as: crucial for delivering locally sensitive and ecologically coherent strategies; a mechanism to align national targets with regional priorities and in need of more support, funding, and clearer roles.

Community and cultural considerations were highlighted as significant within the context of integrated landscapes which, it was argued, should reflect place-based values and lived experiences. Community-led approaches and participatory planning were strongly supported as was the need to recognise cultural, historical, and linguistic connections to land, and the importance of access for recreation.

Strategic Policy Alignment

Some respondents suggested that ‘integration’ does not solely mean the physical integration of land uses on the ground but should also involve integration at the level of planning and management of land use to ensure that these align with national targets and strategies. These respondents argued that integration should be supported by joined-up policy and that funding a holistic, long-term strategy is needed to guide implementation

Challenges and Issues

Although supportive of the concept of integrated land use, many respondents highlighted challenges and issues to be addressed in order to achieve further integration. It was noted that integration may not be feasible everywhere, for example irreplaceable habitats which should be spared from other forms of land use. It was also argued that some landscapes are currently prevented from integration by the dominance of particular land uses within that landscape. The existence of financial and statutory barriers for land managers was also noted.

While most respondents were in favour of integrated landscapes, and broadly supportive of the approach outlined by the strategy, some noted that this was a well-established concept and one expressed surprise that it had been presented in the consultation as a new concept. Many respondents suggested that the strategy should explore the complexities and challenges of achieving integrated landscapes.

Several responses highlighted confusion around the term ‘integrated landscapes’, suggesting a clearer, more practical definition is needed. It was suggested that integrated land use is a clearer, more commonly used term.

While a significant majority agreed with the proposition that integrated land use is the most effective approach, dissenting views included that farmland should be reserved for food production. It was also suggested that the strategy’s focus on integrated landscapes had limited applicability to urban, peri-urban or suburban areas.

Question 10: Have we identified the right factors influencing land use integration?

Option	Total	Percent
Yes	32	41.03%
No	28	35.90%
Not Answered	18	23.08%

Question 11: Which of these factors do you feel are the most influential? Question 12: Are there any important factors we have missed?

While some respondents highlighted particular factors listed in the consultation paper as among the most influential, many elaborated and identified a number of other factors that affect land use integration. This anticipated question 12 and there was a degree of crossover in the factors highlighted in these responses. Consequently, the analysis of responses has been combined, and the list below highlights factors cited in response to both questions.

Some responses were critical of the approach outlined and, in particular, suggested that the diagram at Figure 2 in the consultation paper used to illustrate influential factors did not adequately capture the complex and inter-related nature of the system or the multiplicity of factors. The majority, however, responded to these questions with many suggestions for consideration. A summary of the most cited factors and the key themes emerging in replies is provided below.

Finance and Economic Viability

• widely cited as a fundamental factor
• includes grants, incentives, agricultural support, and profitability
• financial pressures shape land management decisions and willingness to adopt integrated practices
• natural capital markets and cost-benefit analyses should inform land use decisions

Nature and Climate

• includes climate change, ecological restoration, biodiversity, and environmental resilience
• frequently mentioned as both a driver and constraint
• seen as underpinning all other factors and requiring long-term strategic focus
• soil fertility, habitat connectivity, pollinator networks, and carbon cycling are fundamental
• integration must be regenerative and adaptable to future shocks
• nature-based solutions

Jobs, Skills, and Education

• education is seen as a gateway to understanding and implementing integrated land use
• emphasised for enabling sustainable land use and community resilience.
• includes training in green and traditional skills, peer-to-peer learning, and public awareness
• youth participation and intergenerational stewardship are critical

Community, Culture, and Equity

• includes rural identity, crofting traditions, historic environment, and cultural values
• community aspirations and participation are vital for successful integration
• equity and inclusion were highlighted, especially for remote and deprived areas

Land Ownership and Management

• ownership patterns and tenure systems influence access, decision-making, and community-led initiatives
• concentrated ownership patterns and lack of land reform were frequently cited
• tenant barriers and lack of collaboration across ownership boundaries hinder integration
• calls for community empowerment and succession planning

Policy Coherence and Government Leadership

• lack of integrated policy frameworks is seen as a major barrier
• strong leadership and strategic alignment across government departments are needed
• RLUPs and Regional Land Use Frameworks (RLUFs) are mentioned as mechanisms for localised integration
• planning
• fragmented or conflicting policies across sectors (agriculture, forestry, climate) limit progress

Food Production and Agricultural Practices

• sustainable food systems, including plant-based transitions, are advocated by some respondents
• concerns were raised about the viability of traditional practices like sheep farming
• food production should be a standalone theme, not just part of nature and climate
• timber security and sustainable forestry are also important

Social and Structural Barriers

• resistance to change, lack of regulation/enforcement, and sectoral polarisation (e.g. agriculture vs. conservation) were noted
• integration is hindered by siloed approaches and unclear communication tools (e.g. diagrams in the consultation)

Water and Hydrology

• water availability, flood risk, and sustainable water management were highlighted
• peatlands, wetlands, and slow water storage areas are crucial for climate resilience

Housing and Infrastructure

• lack of rural housing for future rural workforce
• infrastructure-first planning (e.g. electricity networks, transport) is essential

Recreation and Public Health

• land use for walking, wheeling, and outdoor access supports health and wellbeing
• recreational access should be integrated into land use planning
• role of private sporting investment in conservation

Innovation and Technology

• smart farming, green technologies, and digital connectivity are key enablers
• innovation should be recognised as a standalone factor

Social and Behavioural Factors

• attitudes, motivations, and behavioural change among land managers and communities matter
• public engagement and participatory governance are essential

Question 13: Would the inclusion of case studies help to illustrate the practical delivery of integrated land use?

Option	Total	Percent
Yes	62	79.49%
No	0	0.00%
Not Answered	16	20.51%

Question 14: Would the inclusion of information on ecosystem services and opportunities for increased benefits help to illustrate the wider value of integrated landscapes?

Option	Total	Percent
Yes	59	76.62%
No	2	2.60%
Not Answered	16	20.78%

Question 15: Do you agree that the role of LUS4 should be to influence policy makers and regulators in order to create an enabling environment that incentivises and/or supports land managers, communities and partnerships to further integrate land use/management?

Option	Total	Percent
Yes	62	79.49%
No	3	3.85%
Not Answered	13	16.67%

Question 16: Are there other ways in which LUS4 could support alignment and integration?

There was broad agreement with the approach of seeking to create an enabling environment and some support for the two-phased approach although respondents emphasised the importance of ensuring that the proposed delivery plan is a living document. A number of specific policy suggestions were made; these are not listed here because the question primarily concerns the broad strategic approach to alignment. However, these will be considered during the development of the delivery plan. The list below highlights the suggestions for the overall strategic approach and the broad policy themes which will help inform the development of a framework within which the delivery plan containing specific policy actions will be developed.

Strategic Clarity and Delivery Planning

• develop a clear strategic vision with spatial and temporal dimensions, setting out how multiple targets are reconciled or tensions addressed
• follow LUS4 with a delivery strategy or action plan to ensure objectives influence decision-making at all levels
• clarify roles and responsibilities across government departments and agencies
• embed LUS4 within planning systems, including NPF4, Local Development Plans, and RLUPs
• to ensure clearer direction on the mechanisms required to deliver its ambitions, the strategy should provide explicit guidance on how integrated land use outcomes are to be achieved

Policy Coherence and Cross-Sectoral Integration

• strengthen links between LUS4 and other policies (e.g., Climate Change Plan, Biodiversity Strategy, Land Reform Bill, agriculture, forestry, energy, housing, marine)
• set out Scottish Government’s available policy mechanisms for delivering the LUS vision; such as land use policy, tax and fiscal policy, sectoral budget accountabilities and data coordination
• use LUS4 as a reference point for emerging land use policies
• include consideration of how LUS applies to urban environments
• ensure that targets are assessed for potential synergies and conflicts to promote coherent and integrated outcomes
• achieve cross policy buy-in through an agreed national land-use framework to enable Ministers to make bold decisions needed to tackle the twin crises and support a just transition
• introduce financial incentives for integrated practices (e.g., agroforestry, peatland restoration)

Community and Regional Empowerment

• support RLUPs with funding and flexibility
• promote participatory governance and bottom-up decision-making

Education, Capacity Building, and Communication

• strengthening collaboration between public bodies, the private sector, and local communities, promoting transparency in decision-making and providing clear guidance

Data, Mapping, and Monitoring

• improve granularity and accessibility of datasets on land cover and use
• use integrated and dynamic mapping tools to support decision-making
• establish monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to track progress
• embed ecological and social metrics

Innovation and Adaptive Management

• encourage experimentation with new land use practices and financing models
• support adaptive management to respond to changing conditions
• engage arts and culture to explore futures and communicate complexity

Addressing Specific Land Use Challenges

• recognise the role of housing in enabling integrated land use
• consider marine-terrestrial integration, including nature-based coastal protection

Question 17: Do you agree with the proposed approach to developing a new vision and integrated set of objectives for the Land Use Strategy?

Option	Total	Percent
Yes	44	56.41%
No	12	15.38%
Not Answered	22	28.21%

Question 18: Which approach would you prefer for LUS4?

• Removal of the land use principles
• Establishment of a refreshed set of principles (if this is your preference, please tell us what you think they should cover and how you envision their application)

Option	Total	Percent
Removal of the land use principles	1	1.28%
Establishment of a refreshed set of principles	46	58.97%
Not Answered	31	39.74%

While a significant majority of respondents were in favour of establishing a refreshed set of principles, there were differing views on the degree to which the principles should be revised. A number of responses favoured a minor update or clarification and cautioned against a fundamental review which could be time-consuming, suggesting that the current principles were effective. It was noted that there was no option to vote for maintaining the principles in their current form.

Many respondents emphasised the need to modernize the principles to reflect current challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and social equity. Many respondents made suggestions for themes that should be reflected in refreshed principles. These are summarised below.

• Climate and Nature:
• prioritise climate-smart land use (e.g. peatland restoration, urban greening)
• emphasise biodiversity enhancement, carbon storage, and nature-based solutions
• Community and Equity:
• embed community empowerment, social justice, and equity of access
• recognise rural and island challenges, and support youth participation
• Integrated and Holistic Approaches:
• promote multifunctional land use (food, nature, carbon, community)
• encourage systems thinking and cross-sector collaboration
• focus on spatial aspects of integrated land use
• should link to strategic planning at national and regional level
• circular economy
• use research to inform principles that recognise trade-offs
• Cultural and Historic Value:
• acknowledge the historic environment and landscape identity as part of land use decisions
• Economic and Food Security:
• ensure food production, economic resilience, and natural capital markets are considered

Practical Implementation

Respondents also commented on the overall approach to the principles and the intended audience.

Some felt principles should target policy makers and regulators. Others argued for broader accessibility, including land managers, communities, and the public. It was recommended that the principles should include measurable targets and clear guidance in order to encourage land manager engagement.

Question 19: To what extent do you agree that the draft indicators provide a strong basis for measuring progress toward improved outcomes under the Nature and Climate theme?

If you selected "Disagree" or "Unsure", please tell us why

Option	Total	Percent
Strongly Agree	1	1.28%
Agree	26	33.33%
Disagree	16	20.51%
Strongly Disagree	3	3.85%
Unsure	10	12.82%
Not Answered	22	28.21%

Overall Approach

A number of respondents commented on the overall approach to monitoring and evaluation. Some suggested that it was necessary for the indicators to be clearer about what objectives they were measuring; SMART indicators were proposed. Some respondents expressed concern that the proposed indicators are too output-focused (e.g. hectares planted) rather than outcome-based.

Others suggested that the approach placed too much emphasis on quantitative indicators such as area or number (e.g. hectares of woodland), when more qualitative measures (e.g. condition, resilience) could be considered useful.

Some respondents highlighted the need for contextualisation, suggesting that indicators should reflect regional variation, land use pressures, and local priorities, noting again the importance of nuanced and qualitative targets not a blanket quantitative approach.

A number of comments on specific aspects of the proposed indicators were received. These are summarised below.

Woodland

• strong emphasis on distinguishing between native and non-native woodland - calls for indicators on woodland condition, not just area
• ‘right tree, right place’ principle recommended

Climate

• indicators should reflect both emissions and carbon sequestration
• suggestions to include indicators for renewable energy, GHG savings, and climate-smart agriculture

Integration

• concern that indicators are siloed and do not reflect integrated land use
• desire for indicators that reflect multifunctional landscapes and joined-up policy

Biodiversity

• species abundance seen as too narrow an indicator
• suggestions to include habitat condition, connectivity, and nature networks

Water

• requests for indicators on water quality, flood management, and catchment health to reflect vital part of ecosystem resilience

Soil

• soil health and land contamination mentioned as gaps - suggested indicators: soil organic carbon, vacant/derelict land

Community

• suggestions to include community-led initiatives, youth engagement, and job creation
• equity and local context seen as important factors to consider when measuring success

Peatland

• concerns that ‘hectares restored’ is too simplistic
• need for indicators on peatland condition and GHG savings

Question 20: Are you aware of other data sources that could be used to monitor progress towards these outcomes? If yes, please highlight them

Option	Total	Percent
Yes	33	42.31%
No	14	17.95%
Not Answered	31	39.74%

Respondents suggested a number of other data sources, which are set out below under relevant thematic headings.

Environmental and Ecological Monitoring

• NatureScot: Protected Area Condition Monitoring, SSSI site data
• UK Biodiversity Indicators (DEFRA/NatureScot): trends in species, habitats, ecosystem condition
• habitat condition
• air pollutants from other sectors in rural Scotland, not just agriculture
• Scotland’s Biodiversity Information Forum (SBIF): Includes distribution data for plants, fungi, invertebrates, and other taxa
• regional biological recording centres such as NESBeC and UK-based Biological Records Centre
• River Basin Management Plans - water quality and hydrology
• dynamic coast data - coastal erosion vulnerability
• peatland and woodland datasets - including mapping from James Hutton Institute
• National Register of Ancient Woodland
• flooding indicators (suggested examples: numbers of properties and businesses at risk as derived from Strategic Flood Risk Assessments/ Potentially Vulnerable Areas or SEPA flood maps; length (km) of coastline vulnerable to coastal erosion (derived from dynamic coast data)
• Scottish Land Cover Map / UKCEH habitat maps

Soil, Carbon, and Climate Data

• Scotland’s Soil Monitoring Network: soil health indicators
• Land Use Carbon Accounting (SEPA, UKCEH): soil carbon, peat stocks, sequestration
• Land Use and Land Use Change and Forestry datasets - carbon fluxes from land use change
• Agrecalc and CarbonExtras - farm-level carbon accounting
• Environment Outcomes Hub - biodiversity, emissions, peatland, woodland data

Agricultural and Land Use Data

• Scottish Agricultural Census - land use patterns
• Farm Business Survey: income, diversification, viability
• National Sheep Association Next Generation and Breed for CH4nge – low-carbon livestock systems
• Agri-Environment Climate Scheme (AECS) - land under environmental schemes
• Vacant and Derelict Land Register - land availability and condition
• Crofting Register

Community and Citizen Science

• Community Land Scotland datasets - ownership and stewardship
• local biodiversity records and Community Woodland Association member data
• citizen science schemes - open-access monitoring
• qualitative data and case studies for place-based insights
• Scottish Outdoor Access and Recreation Survey - measures public use and wellbeing benefits of green spaces

Remote Sensing and Mapping

• LiDAR and satellite data: land cover and condition
• UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Habitat Maps and Scottish Land Cover Map
• James Hutton Institute smart farm platform - field and farm-scale data
• artificial intelligence for land cover interpretation: linked to EU MAES project

Water and Nutrient Indicators

• SEPA water environment datasets - flood risk, water scarcity
• agricultural runoff datasets – nitrate, phosphate, sediment loads
• waterbody condition as a direct indicator
• River Basin Management Plans - water quality and hydrology data for Scotland’s rivers and wetlands
• agricultural runoff / nutrient datasets - tracks nitrate, phosphate, and sediment loads from land use

Climate and Emissions

• UK National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI): could be combined with SEPA greenhouse gas emissions and methane monitoring for finer resolution

Socioeconomic and Policy-Linked Data

• National Planning Framework 4 and National Transport Strategy 2 datasets
• Food Standards Scotland - dietary and affordability reports
• Scottish Government food system and waste statistics
• Environment Strategy monitoring framework - existing indicators and dashboard
• energy targets and Green House Gas statistics - onshore/offshore wind, transport, buildings

Wildlife and Game Data

• British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) and Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust - wildlife counts and land management
• game bag records - long-term datasets

While many respondents identified the indicators listed above, one suggested that if integrated land use is being envisioned as a system then indicators should be developed consistently with this.

Question 21: To what extent do you agree that the draft indicators provide a strong basis for measuring progress toward improved outcomes under the Jobs, Skills and Economy theme?

Option	Total	Percent
Strongly Agree	1	1.28%
Agree	20	25.64%
Disagree	17	21.79%
Strongly Disagree	2	2.56%
Unsure	10	12.82%
Not Answered	28	35.90%

There was not a significant difference between the number of respondents who either strongly agreed or agreed (21) and those who either disagreed or strongly disagreed (19). While the question only sought written responses from those who disagreed or were unsure, a number of respondents did provide positive views on the list of indicators set out. The summary below highlights the concerns that were raised as these were specifically sought.

A number of respondents raised similar broad concerns to those raised in response to question 19, relating to the overall approach to indicators. The difficulty in isolating LUS4’s impact from other policies was noted. In addition, some raised concerns about the proposed approach to this theme, either questioning the focus of the indicators or their underlying policy aims

It was suggested that the indicators proposed under the Jobs, Skills and Economy theme placed too much emphasis on agriculture and crofting while other land-based sectors such as forestry, nature restoration, renewable energy, and heritage conservation were underrepresented. It was suggested that jobs should not be a priority compared to carbon reduction.

Concerns about the accuracy of employment data, especially in micro-businesses and informal roles (e.g. women’s contributions in agriculture) were expressed. It was noted that work done by women in agriculture is often hidden as a result of farms being owned by one person, with all work attributed to that owner.

Missing Themes

Respondents suggested the following themes that they thought should be covered by objectives.

• transport and digital connectivity
• housing and land access issues
• community empowerment and spatial aspects of land use
• education
• heritage
• need for more qualitative approach for example to track sustainability of youth employment
• youth engagement, succession planning, and protected characteristics
• quality, equity security, or fairness

The following suggestions for improvement were highlighted.

Broaden Sector Coverage

Include indicators for:

• renewable energy (e.g. ScotWind supply chain opportunities)
• nature-based tourism and restoration
• shooting sports and wildlife management
• cottage industries and land-based engineering
• heritage conservation jobs

Enhance Skills and Training Metrics

• track participation in formal and informal training
• include apprenticeships, community learning, and succession schemes (e.g. NSA Next Generation)

Improve Economic Indicators

Include indicators for:

• farm diversification
• green infrastructure investment
• community-led economic initiatives
• processing sector and supply chains (e.g. red meat industry)
• debt and tax burden on rural businesses
• nature friendly/regenerative farming
• timber
• metrics for green jobs in community led forestry

Strengthen Social and Spatial Dimensions

Include indicators for:

• access to land for community growing
• impact of holiday homes on housing and services
• transport accessibility and rural isolation
• remote workers’ contribution to local economies

Integrate Ecological and Innovation Metrics

• link economic activity to ecological outcomes (e.g. soil health, biodiversity)
• include innovation and digitalisation tools for land use monitoring

Question 22: Are you aware of other data sources that could be used to monitor progress towards these outcomes?

Option	Total	Percent
Yes	19	24.36%
No	21	26.92%
Not Answered	38	48.72%

Respondents suggested a number of other data sources, which are set out below under relevant thematic headings.

Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services

• Natural Capital Accounts (Office for National Statistics, BASC, etc.)
• Natural Capital Asset Index
• Eco-schools engagement
• SEPA datasets – water quality, soil contamination, diffuse pollution
• Scottish Biodiversity Strategy indicators
• soil monitoring networks – e.g. James Hutton Institute
• Scottish Greenhouse Gas Inventory
• remote sensing and earth observation – Copernicus, Sentinel satellites
• citizen science initiatives – butterfly conservation, Plantlife, iNaturalist

Employment, Skills and Economy

• regional skills assessments
• Scottish Agricultural Census
• Farm Business Income data
• Scottish Local Authority Economic Development indicators
• Lantra – apprenticeship and training data
• NatureScot skills action plan
• Skills Development Scotland datasets
• National Records of Scotland – labour market and population statistics
• Scottish Funding Council / Colleges and Universities graduate data
• Economic Accounts for Agriculture
• UK Innovation Survey 2023
• green jobs reports e.g. Warwick Institute for Employment Research
• business register and employment survey
• annual population survey
• local authority and community datasets
• digital innovation and adoption data – precision agriculture, renewables
• Public and Corporate Economic Consultants reports on the economic value of shooting
• QMS data, AgriCalc datasets on productivity and efficiency, and Skills Development Scotland and Lantra workforce statistics
• overall employment diversity in rural areas

Land Use and Community

• Crofting Register – demographic data
• local economic development bodies and community trusts
• annual housing land audits – from planning authorities
• land use groups – natural capital assessments, Local Place Plans
• community land owners / partnerships
• local enterprise networks / Scottish Agriculture Organisation Society co-operatives
• QMS and AgriCalc datasets – productivity and efficiency
• renewable energy generation statistics
• Historic Environment Scotland’s Heritage Skills at Risk Register

Question 23: To what extent do you agree that the draft indicators provide a strong basis for measuring progress toward improved outcomes under the Community, Places, People and Equity theme?

Option	Total	Percent
Strongly Agree	1	1.28%
Agree	23	29.49%
Disagree	15	19.23%
Strongly Disagree	2	2.56%
Unsure	8	10.26%
Not Answered	29	37.18%

Overall, 24 respondents were in favour (strongly agree/agree) while 17 were not in favour (strongly disagree/disagree) of the draft indicators, although when unsure respondents are added to the latter, this number rises to 25.

Some respondents, therefore, expressed positive views on the proposed draft indicators, noting that they were a good starting point. Community ownership and participation indicators were generally well received. However, as with questions 19 and 21, responses were specifically sought from those who disagreed or were unsure and this is reflected in the views summarised below.

A number of respondents raised similar broad concerns to those raised in response to questions 19 and 21, relating to the overall approach to indicators. In addition, some concerns were raised about the representation of the indicators, which were seen as skewed toward urban contexts and not reflective rural and island-specific challenges. It was suggested that issues like youth depopulation, housing affordability, and transport access in remote areas were underrepresented and that the experience of deprivation in island communities is often much more complex and hidden than what is captured in the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivations.

Equity and Accessibility Gaps were highlighted with concerns raised about inequitable access to nature-rich greenspaces and the failure to capture health benefits. Suggestions to address this included using tools like the Tree Equity Score and “Space for People” metrics.

Some respondents noted data limitations and suggested that some proposed indicators rely on datasets (e.g. Scottish Health Survey) with limited sample sizes, reducing their reliability. Difficulties in obtaining data in certain areas due to small populations was noted as a barrier.

Broad suggestions for improving the proposed indicators are summarised below.

• Transport and Connectivity
  • lack of indicators addressing transport and its role in access and equity
• Community Agency and Participation
  • indicators should reflect ongoing community influence over land use, not just ownership or one-off participation
  • community-led land use projects
  • Local Place Plan delivery
• Integration with Other Policies
  • some felt indicators were too generic and could be driven by other policies (e.g. child poverty), making it hard to attribute progress to the Land Use Strategy

In addition, specific suggestion for inclusion within the set of indicators were made.

These included:

• renewable energy benefits
• food growing and allotments
• youth employment and wellbeing
• disaggregation by age and other demographics

Question 24: Are you aware of other data sources that could be used to monitor progress towards these outcomes? If yes, please highlight them.

Option	Total	Percent
Yes	21	26.92%
No	22	28.21%
Not Answered	35	44.87%

Respondents suggested a number of other data sources, which are set out below under relevant thematic headings.

Public Sector and National Datasets

• Scottish Household Survey - widely recommended for data on wellbeing, community participation and access to services
• Scottish Health Survey - useful for disaggregated data on health inequalities, mental wellbeing, and physical activity
• SIMD - valuable for tracking socio-economic disparities at fine spatial scales
• Family Resources Survey - insight into rural and child poverty, food insecurity, and income inequality
• Public Health Scotland indicators, including mental health and wellbeing
• Improvement Service - place and wellbeing indicators, and guidance on mapping 20-minute neighbourhoods

Community and Local Authority Data

• Local Place Plans - suggested as a direct indicator of community participation and planning
• Open Space Audits / Play Sufficiency Assessments - data on greenspace, play areas, and allotments
• community ownership datasets - tracking land and asset ownership by communities
• local authority records - including housing, depopulation, youth engagement, planning and participatory budgeting
• citizen science and participatory monitoring - initiatives like Treezilla, iNaturalist, or local biodiversity projects
• community-led monitoring initiatives: e.g. Glenkens Community Council’s arts-based landscape monitoring

Environmental and Land Use Monitoring

• Tree Equity Score and Ordnance Survey Greenspace Layer - for assessing access to nature and canopy cover
• nature networks and green space plans - especially in areas of deprivation

Youth and Island-Specific Data

• Young Islanders Network reports - covering housing, transport, and wellbeing challenges unique to island communities
• education and youth engagement datasets on outdoor learning, school gardens, and land-based education

Transport and Accessibility

• walking and wheeling surveys - national attitudes and behaviours around active travel
• transport coverage and infrastructure data - for measuring equitable access to services and greenspaces

Energy and Infrastructure

• James Hutton Institute / EU GRANULAR project - data on renewable energy infrastructure by datazone

Food and Nutrition Surveys

• beyond fruit and vegetable consumption, datasets such as the Food Insecurity Experience Scale or the Family Resources Survey can provide richer insights into household food access, affordability, and diet quality

Other Suggestions

In addition to the specific suggestions set out above, the following broad areas on which to seek data were suggested:

• housing prices, second homes and neglected crofts
• ethnicity, language (e.g. Gaelic speakers), and income structures
• community venison schemes and shooting-related social benefits
• rural fuel poverty data
• number of green space plans within area of deprivation
• Scottish Government data on rural housing and broadband, local authority records on depopulation trends, and QMS supply chain infrastructure evidence would all strengthen monitoring in this area
• health and wellbeing apps / digital platforms
• aggregated anonymized data from fitness, walking, or wellbeing apps could provide insight into use of outdoor spaces and physical activity in local communities

Question 25: Are you aware of any ways in which the proposed vision and objectives need to consider the different experiences, both positive and negative, current or future, of the following groups?

• island communities
• young people, (children, pupils, and young adults up to the age of 26)
• those with protected characteristics (age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation); and/or
• groups or areas at socio-economic disadvantage (such as income, low wealth or area deprivation)?

A number of issues were identified by respondents relating to the different groups and these are summarised below under relevant categories. Cross-cutting issues are also highlighted.

Island Communities

Respondents highlighted challenges affecting island communities including geographic isolation, limited housing and job opportunities, higher living costs, transport barriers, and infrastructure deficits.

Suggestions for addressing these included:

• develop island-specific land use models (e.g. renewables, sustainable tourism, local food production)
• embed island-sensitive indicators to capture hidden deprivation not reflected in national datasets
• consider offshore renewables
• engage directly with islanders, especially youth, to shape policy
• recognise the fragility and distinctiveness of marginal island communities.
• support sheep farming as an important aspect of cultural identity especially in islands
• support for field sports

Young People

Challenges affecting young people include limited access to land, housing, training, and employment—especially in rural and island areas.

Suggestions for addressing these included:

• expand educational and apprenticeship programmes in sustainable land-based sectors
• include youth voices in decision-making
• address mental health and wellbeing through proactive engagement
• recognise long-term impacts of land use decisions on future generations

Groups with Protected Characteristics

Challenges highlighted include: barriers to participation due to disability, cultural bias, or lack of inclusive engagement.

Suggestions for addressing these included:

• ensure accessibility in consultations and land-based activities
• provide culturally sensitive outreach and materials in multiple formats/languages
• embed inclusivity and equity in all land use initiatives

Socio-Economically Disadvantaged Groups

Challenges highlighted include: limited access to land, funding, training, and decision-making; and risk of exclusion from benefits of land use change.

Suggestions to address these included:

• prioritise funding and capacity-building for disadvantaged communities
• ensure benefits from land use (e.g. carbon credits, renewables) are retained locally
• use SIMD and other indicators to track and address inequalities
• support community-led initiatives and equitable land ownership

Cross-Cutting Issues

Respondents also highlighted a number of issues relating to one or more of the groups identified. These are summarised below:

Consultation and Engagement

• avoid consultation fatigue by building trust and long-term relationships
• use inclusive and meaningful communication tailored to each group
• link with planning legislation to consider public interest
• allow broader input into planning

Equity and Justice

• embed equity-focused metrics in monitoring frameworks
• address power imbalances and ensure fair distribution of risks and benefits

Cultural Sensitivity

• recognise distinct land relationships (e.g. Scottish Gypsy Travellers, crofting communities)
• avoid overly restrictive policies that ignore local contexts (e.g. wood burning stoves in rural areas)

Question 26: Are you aware of any potential costs and burdens that you think may arise as a result of the vision and objectives within this consultation? If so please give details.

Respondents identified a number of potential costs and burdens that could arise as a result of the vision and objectives proposed by the consultation. It is important to note that the strategy does not impose any regulatory requirements or prescribe any actions. It was not clear from all responses what degree of prescription and regulatory intervention had been assumed when identifying costs and burdens. The potential costs and burdens which could arise in varying scenarios are summarised below.

Administrative and Compliance Burdens

• increased reporting, monitoring, and paperwork requirements
• challenges for small-scale land managers, crofters, and community groups in navigating complex systems
• need for simplification of processes like the Community Asset Transfer Scheme

Financial Costs

• upfront investment in infrastructure, training, and technology (e.g., soil testing, habitat restoration, renewable energy)
• risk of uneven funding distribution, disadvantaging smaller or marginal landholders
• concerns over duplication of efforts and need for cost-benefit analysis of existing frameworks

Capacity and Resource Constraints

• lack of funding and long-term budget certainty for RLUPs
• need for capacity-building and technical support for communities and intermediary organisations
• importance of government support to influence land use change effectively

Social and Opportunity Costs

• risk of land ownership concentration and reduced access for young entrants
• potential loss of rural jobs, especially in sectors like shooting and small abattoirs
• cultural resistance to change among traditional landowners

Market and Policy Uncertainty

• concerns about fluctuating prices in carbon and biodiversity markets
• unclear long-term policy signals affecting investment confidence
• risk of discouraging private conservation investment due to policy instability

Environmental and Strategic Considerations

• costs of inaction leading to greater long-term burdens (e.g., climate impacts, biodiversity loss)
• need to view costs holistically, not in silos
• recognition that integrated land use can yield long-term savings and resilience