woods in and around towns commissioned report 11€¦ · background the scottish forestry strategy...

C O M M I S S I O N E D R E P O R T

Commissioned Report No. 011

Woods in and around towns

(ROAME No. F01AA112)

For further information on this report please contact:

Jeanette HallScottish Natural HeritageCaspian House, Mariner CourtClydebank Business ParkClydebank G81 2NRTel: 0141–951 0881E-mail: [email protected]

This report should be quoted as:

Edwards, P. and McPhillimy, D. (2004) Woods in and around towns. Scottish Natural HeritageCommissioned Report No. 011 (ROAME No. F01AA112)

This report, or any part of it, should not be reproduced without the permission of Scottish Natural Heritage.This permission will not be withheld unreasonably. The views expressed by the author(s) of this report shouldnot be taken as the views and policies of Scottish Natural Heritage.

© Scottish Natural Heritage 2004.

Background

The Scottish Forestry Strategy aims to use woodlands in and around towns (WIAT) to:

● contribute to a radical improvement in the quality and setting of urban areas (PCE6); and to

● provide woodland recreation opportunities near towns (ETWF1).

This report presents information on:

● the extent and use of WIAT, perceptions about them, and how they benefit Scotland’s people;

● current promotion and management of greenspace with trees and woods;

● the aims and methods of the main organisations concerned, especially Local Authorities; and

● opportunities for and obstacles to action.

Main findings

Work to support WIAT in Scotland is largely driven by other agendas – recreation, biodiversity, screeningof ugly buildings and provision of access. Much of the woodland resource is inherited from times when theobjectives of managing these woodlands were different and less community orientated.

The level and quality of management varies widely across Scotland. Some important work is being done,notably in central Scotland, East Ayrshire and the principal cities, where limited numbers of staff areachieving a great deal with often dwindling resources. Elsewhere, WIAT is often a low priority and worktends to be carried out on an opportunistic basis, by one or two enthusiastic individuals.

WIAT contribute to many current policies – biodiversity, access, health, education, social inclusion – and canact as an example of ‘joined up thinking’ by organisations. The Scottish Forestry Strategy provides a nationalfocus for these special woodlands, through which their quality can be raised and their champions encouraged.

Woods in and around towns

Commissioned Report No. 011 (ROAME No. F01AA112)Contractor: Penny Edwards (Yellow Brick Road) and Donald McPhillimy (Donald McPhillimyAssociates)

C O M M I S S I O N E D R E P O R T

Summary

For further information on this project contact:Jeanette Hall, Scottish Natural Heritage, Caspian House, Mariner Court, Clydebank Business Park,

Clydebank G81 2NR. Tel: 0141–951 0881

For further information on the SNH Research & Technical Support Programme contact:The Advisory Services Co-ordination Group, Scottish Natural Heritage, 2 Anderson Place, Edinburgh EH6 5NP.

Tel: 0131–446 2400 or [email protected]

Contents

1 INTRODUCTION 11.1 Background to woodlands in and around towns 11.2 The Scottish Forestry Strategy (SFS) 11.3 Background to the study and the brief 21.4 Policy context and other related work 2

2 APPROACH 42.1 Method 42.2 Research constraints 4

3 CURRENT ACTIVITY 53.1 Introduction 53.2 WIAT – Who is involved and what do they do? 63.3 WIAT – What project activities are engaged organisations

involved in? 143.4 The cities 213.5 Issues 24

4 CONTRIBUTION TO SFS PRIORITIES 264.1 Introduction 264.2 PCE6 (Woods In Towns) 264.3 ETWF1 (Woods Around Towns) 304.4 Contribution to other priorities 33

5 OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROGRESS 355.1 Introduction 355.2 Gaps in funding support 375.3 Potential delivery mechanisms 38

6 A PERSONAL VISION FOR WOODS IN AND AROUNDTOWNS 39

7 CONCLUSIONS 41

8 REFERENCES 42

Annex 1 Project brief

Annex 2 List of towns

Annex 3 Local authorities questionnaire

Annex 4 Project analysis

Annex 5 Summary analysis of the cities

Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No.011 (ROAME No. F01AA112)

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to woodlands in and around towns

Woodlands are a highly valued feature of Scotland’s 170 towns and cities. Virtually every Local Authorityhas special policies for their protection and management which helps to enhance the quality of life for localpeople.

Traditionally in Scotland, forestry has been a rural pursuit and large areas of poorer grade land have beenused for productive forestry as an alternative to agriculture. As environmental awareness has grown, thewider benefits of forestry have risen up the agenda and there is a growing appreciation that the value ofmany of these benefits to society is greatest in areas of high population in and around towns and cities.

The value of Scotland’s forests as a recreation resource has long been understood and many large ruralforests, especially those in public sector ownership, provide quality recreation opportunities for tourists andday visitors. The need for recreation close to people’s homes led to the establishment of a series of CountryParks close to Scotland’s largest populations by Local Authorities in the 1960s and 70s. Most of theseinclude a woodland element to help absorb recreational activity.

The wider recreation potential of woodlands lying close to towns and cities has only begun to be seriouslydeveloped in the last decade or so and this has now been boosted by the new access legislation whichrequires the development of ‘core path networks’ close to towns. Woodlands near towns are increasinglyviewed as the ‘jewels on the thread’ of local path networks often capable of providing quality leisureopportunities with minimal environmental impact.

There has also been a growing awareness that woodlands in highly populated areas can provide far morethan recreation opportunities, for example environmental amelioration, health enhancement and communitydevelopment and this led to a greater focus on urban and community forestry. Woodland creation becamea central feature in the planning of many new towns and initiatives sprang up across the UK, from vast newcommunity forests close to urban centres to the recognition of the ‘forest’ within city streets and parks. Thisthinking continues to be advanced in Scotland through the government’s flagship initiative to create theCentral Scotland Forest and through the work of many Local Councils, partnership projects and agenciesworking in urban areas. The imminent launch of the Greenspace for Communities Initiative by SNH shouldhelp to consolidate this effort.

1.2 The Scottish Forestr y Strategy (SFS)

Recognition of the management of woods close to settlements as an important branch of forestry came fullyof age with the publication of the Scottish Forestry Strategy (Scottish Executive, 2000). This states that:

“the presence of trees and woods can do much to improve the urban environmentand the countryside around towns and cities, making a valuable contribution to‘greenspace’ networks”.

Not only did the new strategy accept the profound effect that forestry can have on the lives of people inurban areas but it also made a real commitment to action.

1


The SFS identified five ‘strategic directions’ to realise the vision for forestry in Scotland, each divided into anumber of priorities for action. Two of these priorities are directly concerned with woodlands in and aroundtowns (WIATs):

● Priority PCE6 – Contribute to the radical improvement in the quality and setting of urban areas

The main emphasis of PCE6 is to improve the least attractive post-industrial urban environments and to reduceurban sprawl. Woodlands will make these areas more attractive to residents and businesses and encouragecommunity engagement.

● Priority ETWF1 – Provide woodland recreation opportunities near towns

The main emphasis of ETWF1 is to make local recreation trips to woodlands easier, reducing pressureelsewhere and creating links to health and education benefits.

1.3 Background to the study and the brief

This research has been commissioned by SNH and the Forestry Commission to gather information about thetwo relevant SFS priorities from the perspective of those organisations that are most active in the field. The full brief is provided in Annex 1. It is an initial stock taking exercise to gather information about currentactivity in greenspace in and around towns. The brief did not include an investigation of the resource itselfor consideration of the issues from the perspective of woodland users.

The aims of the study are to provide:

a. an overview of the current extent and use of woods in and around towns, perceptions about them andhow they benefit Scotland’s people;

b. an overview of the current promotion and management of greenspace with trees and woods;

c. a summary of the aims and methods of the main organisations (and especially local authorities)concerned;

d. an evaluation of opportunities for and obstacles to action.

For the purposes of the research, WIATs are defined as greenspaces with trees within five miles of settlementsof more than 3000 people (List in Annex 2). The focus is on the more informal projects that have somecommunity involvement rather than on areas of formal parkland.

1.4 Policy context and other related work

The Scottish Executive planning policy context for WIATs is minimal and is currently incorporated into theNational Planning Policy Guideline 11 on Sport, Physical Recreation and Open Space (Scottish Office,1996). This document recommends that local authorities carry out an analysis of the spaces in their areaand the different needs they serve, and develop local standards for open space provision. It encouragesLocal Authorities to safeguard open spaces and create new ones and to protect and improve access routes.It also promotes the provision of recreation facilities in the urban fringe including the establishment ofcommunity woodlands.

2


Research (Scottish Executive, 2001) shows that local authorities have not given high priority to theimplementation of the policies in NPPG11, particularly the need to analyse open spaces and develop localstandards. Moreover, valuable spaces, particularly greenspaces, continue to be lost to development througha piece-meal approach and the pursuit of capital receipts. A more systematic and better co-ordinatedapproach to open space provision and management is considered desirable. To this end, more detailedplanning advice was published in 2003 in the form of a new Planning Advice Note (PAN) on Planning andOpen Space (Scottish Executive, 2003).

Senior politicians have also put the spotlight on the quality of the environment in and around towns andcities. In a speech on Sustainable Development on 18th Feb 2002, the First Minister said:

“The reality is that the people who have the most urgent environmental concerns in Scotland are those whodaily cope with the consequences of a poor quality of life and live in a rotten environment close to industrialpollution, plagued by vehicle emissions, streets filled with litter and walls covered in graffiti”.

“… I believe that the biggest challenge for the early 21st century is to combine economic progress withsocial and environmental justice”

Urban and peri-urban woodlands can play a major role in this agenda helping to tackle issues ranging fromair pollution and noise pollution to healthy living.

At a UK level, the Urban Greenspaces Taskforce, set up in January 2001 by the Department for Transport,Local Government and the Regions to advise the government on improving urban parks, play areas andgreenspaces published its final report “Greenspaces, Better Places” in May 2002 (DETR 2002). This reporthighlights the decline in the quality of urban parks and greenspaces and calls for an urban renaissance todeliver many benefits to local communities. It also identifies the need for an additional £100 million capitala year for each of the next five years to reverse the decline of urban parks and greenspaces.

In Scotland a new initiative, Greenspaces for Communities, is being developed by SNH designed to makea significant step change in the quantity and quality of greenspace management throughout Scotland’ssettlements. An umbrella body, Greenspace Scotland, was established in 2002. Its role is to help co-ordinate and support the development of local greenspace initiatives throughout Scotland.

Finally, a study on “Case Studies of the Use and Abuse of Woodlands in Central Scotland” by Heriot WattUniversity (Ward Thompson et al 2002) seeks to understand the characteristics of woodlands that contributeto their use and abuse and sheds light on important issues relating to WIATs. Once finalised these findingswill assist managers to get the most from woodlands in populated areas.

3


2 APPROACH

2.1 Method

Information on the modus operandi of all known organisations with an active involvement in WIAT anddetails of actual projects was collected through a two-part electronic questionnaire. The organisationssurveyed were:

● all Councils with population centres greater than 3000 (32 Councils and 170 towns)

● departments within these Councils with an interest in WIAT

● all NGOs with a practical involvement in WIAT

● private sector initiatives with an interest in WIAT

● public agencies with an interest in WIAT

The first part of the questionnaire focused on the organisation and the role it plays (a slightly different formatwas used for the Local Authorities and the other organisations). The second part was the same for everyoneand focused on current WIAT projects and required detailed information on up to 10 projects perorganisation and a list of additional projects that they are involved in. Organisations were instructed tosupply project information only if they considered themselves to be the lead agency for the project.Recipients were given approximately two weeks to respond and a series of reminders was sent to encouragea strong response. A copy of the Local Authority questionnaire can be found in Annex 3.

Workshop meetings were held with the four main city authorities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen andDundee in order to get an in depth understanding of WIAT issues in the most populated areas of Scotlandwhere the benefits of woodlands are likely to be greatest and the issues most complex. The city workshopssought to explore, through the eyes of the city authorities, how the challenge is being met.

All the information was analysed in detail and this, together with the experience of the researchers, wasutilised in the preparation of the report.

2.2 Research constraints

The brief required the gathering of a large amount of detailed information held in many different formats.The vast range of pieces of information and types of information could not be worked with separately andhad to be summarised at every stage to reveal the most important features and issues where these werediscernible. This led unavoidably to considerable loss of information at each stage and distancing from themeaning and context of the original source material. Nonetheless, we believe that our finding are accuratewithin this constraint and present a sound basis for future work.

4


3 CURRENT ACTIVITY

3.1 Introduction

A total of 62 organisations were identified as having a possible contribution to make to this research andall these were sent a questionnaire. These included organisations in the following categories:

● local authorities – 32

● non-governmental organisations – 10

● private companies – 7

● Government agencies – 6

● Countryside Around Towns Projects – 10

A total of 32 (52%) organisations considered themselves to be both involved in leading WIAT projects andsufficiently engaged in this work to allocate time to fill in and return the questionnaires and the spread ofresponses received is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Responses to questionnaires

Generally a good response was received from Local authorities (59%), NGOs (66%), CAT projects (77%)and Forest Enterprise (which filled in project questionnaires for 11 different regions). A poor response wasreceived from private companies and the public sector although this appeared to be due mainly to a lackof involvement and therefore a lack of ‘anything to say’.

Local authorities were asked to return separate questionnaires for each department that is involved withWIAT. However, in no instance did we have more than one questionnaire returned by a Council althoughseveral departments often contributed to a single return.

5


CA

Ts

Private

Cos

Other

publicbodies

FE

NG

Os

LAs

No

of

resp

on

ses

Sections 3.2 and 3.3 report on the findings of the organisational and project questionnaire respectively.

Section 3.4 reports of the more detailed workshop meetings with the four city councils. Section 3.5

summarises the main issues arising from the survey.

3.2 WIAT – Who is involved and what do they do?

3.2.1 Which organisations and depar tments are involved?

Local Authorities

Local authorities do not have standard structures or approaches to WIAT and the complexity of their internal

arrangements for dealing with WIAT was clear. The single most common “engaged department” is the

Planning Department. However, many departments have a role although they are likely to defer to the

strategic competence of Planning to take a lead in this type of research. Other engaged departments

included Community Services, Leisure and Recreation, Contract Services and, to a lesser extent, Housing,

Estates and Education.

Other organisations

A wide range of other organisations with a possible interest in WIAT were surveyed. These ranged from

government agencies, through local authority partnerships such as the Central Scotland Countryside Trust

(CSCT) to independent NGOs such as RSPB and the Woodland Trust. The private sector which does play

an important role in WIAT was also surveyed but the results were disappointing, probably due to survey

fatigue.

3.2.2 How does WIAT suppor t the corporate themes and priorit ies of engaged

organisations?

Local Authorities: Figure 2 shows that the main themes supported by WIAT are biodiversity, recreation and

the quality of the urban setting. Some recognised a link with sustainable development. Only five authorities

made the connection with the social inclusion agenda and four mentioned health. A very small minority

mentioned the contribution of WIAT to education, active citizenship, derelict land and the arts. Virtually all

authorities returning questionnaires have policies in support of WIAT in Local and or Structure Plans.

Other organisations: All of the organisations, except the private sector, have recently taken on a strong

people theme in addition to their other raison d’être priorities. CAT style projects, for example, are very much

to do with improving landscapes and habitats in the urban fringe with a fundamental emphasis on the needs

of local people. Woods in, and particularly around, towns provide organisations with opportunities to

demonstrate their community credentials and to gain support in situations of high population pressure.

The benefits to local communities are clearly understood by most organisations (Question 17 in the survey).

6


Figure 2 Contribution to LA themes/priorit ies

3.2.3 How much WIAT are organisations involved in?

Local authorities: There is a huge variation in the scale of involvement. South Lanarkshire, Angus, Fife,Edinburgh City, Glasgow City and Stirlingshire lead the way with between 80 and 800ha of land andbetween 17 and 60 operational sites. Seven claim no (or very limited) project activity. The remainder fallin between.

Other organisations: The CAT style projects, led by CSCT (734ha over last two years) and East AyrshireWoodlands (300ha over three years) are by definition focused on WIAT. All other organisations operate allover Scotland and overlap with towns, cities and the urban fringe to varying degrees. For example, ScottishNative Woods has very little WIAT, RSPB has six sites covering 817ha, Scottish Wildlife Trust has 126 reserves, many of which have woodland interest and are close to towns, Woodland Trust has 1000haincluding woods in Livingston, the Water Authorities identified only one site near Falkirk. Finally, ForestEnterprise despite its preponderance of sites in very remote rural areas does have several forests, notably inthe Central Belt, close to communities.

In total, it is likely that there are between 5000 and 10000ha of WIAT, young and mature, scatteredthroughout Scotland.

3.2.4 What budgets are available for WIAT?

Local authorities: The cities, not surprisingly, have the largest budgets. Glasgow stands out with large capital(£1,000,000) and revenue (£375,000) budgets available at present. Dundee has a large capital budgets(£150,000) from a current Social Inclusion Programme (SIP) initiative and no revenue. Edinburgh has arelatively large revenue budget (£100,000) but has rather less capital (£20,000). Aberdeen City has muchlower levels of activity and matching low budgets. Three other councils reported small budgets for WIAT,typically £15,000–£20,000 capital and £3,000 revenue (Fife, Renfrewshire and Stirlingshire). Most other

7


Arts

Derelict land

Active

citizenship

Urban/com

munity

forestry

Education

Health

Sustainable dev

Social inclusion

Urban setting

Recreation

Biodiversity

No

of

resp

on

ses

Councils have little or no funds specifically allocated to WIAT and often have to go through an internalbidding process to win support against other Council priorities. With budgets tight in relation to projectcommitments most (but by no means all) councils try to attract and package up external funds for WIAT work.

Other organisations: Most found it difficult to identify funds available for WIAT unless that was the mainfocus of the organisation. CSCT was in this latter category and disclosed a capital budget of £850,000and revenue of £341,000. East Ayrshire Woodlands was a bit smaller at £250,000 capital and£400,000 revenue. Two other CAT style projects had capital budgets of £90,000 and £38,000 withrevenue budgets of £35,000 and £2,000. Other CATs and most of the NGOs found it difficult to bespecific. RSPB was the exception with a revenue budget of £12,000. FE Scottish Lowlands, which is themain FE District involved with WIAT has a revenue budget of £250,000 and capital ‘as funds becomeavailable through partners’. Costs per hectare for all organisations are very difficult to assess but are likelyto be higher than those of rural woodlands due to the additional items of footpath provision, interpretationand the use of less specialist labour.

3.2.5 Where does external funding come from?

Local authorities: The main sources of external funds mentioned were SNH funding and Forestry Commissionfunding through WGS. The National Lottery and Landfill tax were the second most important sourcesmentioned in the organisational questionnaire although success was not borne out in the projectquestionnaire. In addition, some are still using MFST funds, some have successfully attracted EU funds (LIFEand ESF were mentioned) and a few have tapped into the Scottish Power Rural Care scheme. Almost all useinternal council funds either from dedicated budgets or from general funds.

Other organisations: CSCT gets a large part of its funding from the Scottish Executive via SNH as a blockgrant. Other organisations with a strong interest in WIAT derive their funding from a range of sourcesincluding WGS, SNH, Lottery, Landfill Tax, New Deal, Social Inclusion partnerships, various Europeanfunds, trusts and sponsorship. Continual fundraising is a major headache for most organisations.

3.2.6 How is the funding managed?

Local authorities: Most councils involved in WIAT programmes package up funding on a project by projectbasis and have no special mechanism for holding and managing funds.

Two councils mentioned special mechanisms:

● Angus – holds a separate project account

● North Lanarkshire – has established the Greenhead Moss Community Trust (a fund-holding mechanismfor a single project site)

Four Councils identified the value of external trusts to assist with raising and packaging funds in the area.These include:

● Aberdeen City – use of Aberdeen Countryside Project

● East Ayrshire – use of East Ayrshire Woodlands

8


● North Lanarkshire – partnership with Central Scotland Countryside Trust

● Shetland – the Shetland Amenity Trust – an independent trust core funded by the Council’s charitable trust

Three councils express a wish for improved mechanisms:

● Dundee – for managing funds for their Urban Woodland Strategy

● Stirlingshire – for helping to overcome ‘annuality’ of Council funding – considering the establishment of

a Forth Valley Countryside Trust.

● Clackmannanshire – expressed interest in the potential use of the local Heritage Trust

Other organisations: Most organisations can hold external funds which they ring-fence for particular

projects. The CAT style projects often act as the conservation arm of the local authority, making projects more

manageable. Two reported that they could roll funds over financial year ends.

3.2.7 What is the repor ting structure?

Local authorities: Reporting is mainly through the relevant council committee (sometimes for information and

sometimes for approval, often depending on the size of the project). Larger partnership projects, or area

wide projects, also have reporting structures involving external steering groups and some funders require

regular monitoring reports and audits. In a few instances local projects are reported to Council Area

Committees or simply reported locally through a community representative or councillor. Where activity levels

are low and projects small or simple, reporting is minimal and is dealt with by officials.

Other organisations: CAT style projects report regularly to their board or Steering Group. Most produce an

Annual Report. Some have to report separately to their sponsors. NGOs have clear internal reporting

structures which they adhere to. FE reports to its partners in special projects.

3.2.8 What is generally repor ted?

Local authorities: Committee reports mainly deal with progress reports and financial reports. A few mention

the need to identify benefits in reports such as the contribution to LA21 and community benefits. Reports to

more local groups include detailed information on local issues. Countryside and arboricultural staff report on

tree health and safety and on problems such as vandalism.

Other organisations: FE Scottish Lowlands summarises the reporting structure most succinctly – financial,

practical and social progress against plans and milestones. All report on the financial expenditure and

practical outcomes, such as number of trees planted or length of path improved, but reporting on social

outputs is sometimes notable by its absence.

3.2.9 What operational work is under taken?

Local authorities: The responses showed a great variety in the types of work undertaken and councils found

9


it hard to determine what proportion of their efforts go on which activities. However the results showed the

following broad ranking of activity:

1. arboricultural work and grass cutting mainly done by council ‘commercial services’ or DLO;

2. path work – a medium to large element of most councils’ work;

3. litter clearance and removal of dumping – mentioned by many as up to 20% of their work;

4. woodland establishment – mainly identified in Angus and Edinburgh City although Edinburgh City is

moving through to the after care stage of its Millennium “Greening the City” project;

5. thinning, felling, restructuring and woodland management featured in many programmes involving up to

20% of activity;

6. interpretation, environmental education and ecological survey were identified as additional activities by

some councils.

Other organisations: In contrast to the Councils, other organisations seldom mentioned arboriculture, grass

cutting or clean-ups. Instead the emphasis is on woodland establishment and management, other habitat

management and path work. Of course, they may rely upon the Council for these other services.

3.2.10 What staf f resources are available?

Local Authorities: In most councils WIAT is not seen as a discrete area of staff responsibility and a number

of people, ranging from 1–10, allocate a proportion of their time to WIAT. This can be as small as 2% and

up to about 50% of an individual’s time. Staff with many different specialities are involved including

planners, LBAP officers, rangers, foresters and arboricultural officers. Edinburgh City suffered from lack of

staff security due to external funding of key posts. Some individual projects attracted a specific staff resource,

for example the SIP project in Dundee which includes a staff member for open space enhancement.

Other organisations: Organisations are divided between those which identify closely with WIAT where all

staff are involved and those which don’t and find it hard to allocate staff time. Of the former, CSCT reported

34 staff involved with WIAT. Smaller CAT style projects reported one or two FTE. NGOs found it difficult to

respond to the question. FE Scottish Lowlands reported four FTE, much higher than any other District.

3.2.11 How are WIATs used?

Local authorities: – Table 1 shows that virtually all councils identified walking and, more specifically, dog

walking to be the major use of WIAT. Family walks, picnics and lunch spots are similarly highly rated uses

of WIAT. Cycling was widespread but less intense along with nature watching. Jogging and riding are

slightly less significant uses and orienteering and environmental education are significant on some sites.

Negative uses mentioned include substance abuse, fly tipping, fire raising and motor bike riding and some

of these were given a high rating amongst Central Belt respondents.

10


Table 1 Uses of WIAT

Intensity of use Uses of WIAT

High intensity ● Walking

● Dog walking

● General leisure

Medium intensity ● Cycling

● Nature watching

Low intensity ● Jogging

● Riding

Site specific ● Orienteering

● Environmental education

Other organisations: Similar results were obtained from the other organisations. A further high intensity formof walking which may be worth highlighting is the use of WIAT as through routes to work, school, shops,etc. The other uses listed above varied according to organisation and were sometimes of medium, sometimeslow intensity. Abuse of woodlands was commented upon with vandalism, drinking, hanging out anddumping reported as being at medium intensity, mainly by the NGOs.

3.2.12 How does the community benefit from WIAT sites?

Local Authorities: – Most councils rated recreation and exercise, biodiversity, visual amenity and communityinvolvement as the most important community benefits from WIATs. The local environmental benefits ofwoodlands in providing shelter, ameliorating flooding, improving air quality and abating noise levels werealso widely recognised. Other benefits given significant mentions included environmental education, healthyliving, improving run down areas and property price rises. Some councils emphasised the additionalimportance of these benefits from woodlands in more deprived areas.

Other organisations: Many benefits scored highly-informal recreation opportunities, contact withnature, health, pollution absorption, education, quality of landscape with economic benefits attached.Other benefits were moderate-social cohesion, improved image, local climate amelioration and saferoutes. Habitat improvement scored only lowly with WIAT. Further away from towns the emphasis ison recreation and less tangible benefits, such as quality of life. All the groups had a clear focuson community benefits.

3.2.13 How are the community consulted?

Local Authorities: The councils with the most active involvement in WIAT generally have the most intenseand sophisticated community consultation methods. Edinburgh City, Glasgow City, Angus and SouthLanarkshire Councils stand out as having the highest consultation levels. Other Central Belt authorities such as North Lanarkshire and West Lothian are also well advanced. The most active councils use a widerange of methods for consultation. Often all interested groups are identified and notified of proposals through

11


letters, meetings, displays and questionnaires. Some use advanced “participatory appraisal” methods and

are very proactive.

Less active councils arrange consultation according to need with regards to specific projects. These councils

generally use existing channels for consultations including the statutory consultation process, planning

schedules, Community Councils, Council Forums and traditional routes such as residents associations and

libraries. A lack of resources for community consultation was identified as an issue for many councils. Levels

of consultation activity reported range from 50 per year (Fife) to one every three-four years (Renfrewshire).

Other organisations: The approach to community consultation is very varied with the NGOs in particular

confusing consultation with participation as shown by the types of participation they disclosed. They expect

to gain feedback in a non planned way through interface events and interpretation. The CAT style projects

are much more developed in this regard. CSCT is leading the way with 76 consultations and 111 events

using Participatory Appraisal techniques last year. Some of the smaller groups are very good at consultation,

others are reactive to requests from the community. FE has a well developed community consultation

procedure for its five year Forest Design Plans. Otherwise it is linked with interest groups and is responsive

to requests from the public. This is underwritten to some degree by FSC certification.

3.2.14 What practical community involvement oppor tunities are there?

Local Authorities: Where resources permit, many councils aim to involve the local community in all aspects

of a WIAT project from design through to implementation and use of the site. Edinburgh City reports a very

comprehensive approach of this type and other councils take this approach only on their most significant

projects. Most councils respond positively to ‘bottom up’ community initiatives and some encourage the

involvement of conservation volunteers. In addition most councils organise events designed to promote

understanding and care of the local environment although the number depends on staff resources and

budgets. Events are often organised by ranger services and promoted in in-house “Outdoor Diaries”.

Common examples include public tree planting schemes, walks, pond dipping, wildflower planting and

other practical tasks. The level of activity reported ranges from three events per year (East Renfrewshire) to

50 per year (Glasgow City).

Other organisations: A great deal of creativity is being used to involve the public – community fun days,

mini-orienteering, guided walks, spring cleans, themed events, tree-planting, talks, school visits, volunteer

work parties, honorary rangers etc. Better established groups are running 20–30 events per year, advertised

in local Outdoor Diaries. FE Scottish Lowlands organises around 20 events per year including meetings,

talks, school events and workdays. Many of these are posted on the Forestry Commission website. Treefest

2002 has seen a large increase in community events.

3.2.15 What are the main threats/barriers and strengths/oppor tunities to WIATs identif ied

by engaged organisations?

Table 2 summarises issues in order of the number of times they were mentioned.

12


Table 2 Threats/barriers and strengths/oppor tunit ies identif ied

Threats and barriers Strengths and opportunities

Local Authorities

● Lack of cash and staff.Identified by almost all respondents and theonly barrier mentioned by some. Includes:❍ matching external funding❍ managing existing woodlands❍ lack of dedicated long term staff

● Lack of political understanding/support● Development pressures and hope value● Lack of community interest in the natural

environment● Vandalism and fear of crime● Internal issues – staff responsible for WIAT

have different objectives from staff in landholding departments who may have acommercial focus

● Lack of national framework/guidance● Demands of partnership working● Physical issues – high quality of land

(agricultural preferences) or difficulty ofgrowing trees (Orkney and Shetland)

Other organisations

● Perceived high cost of establishing &managing WIAT

● Lack of management resources – revenuefunding

● Low priority for local people, Councils andthe Scottish parliament.

● Development pressure on Councils to sellland

● Hope value for owners of agricultural land.● Long-term nature of managing WIAT● Perception by the public of problems, eg

of tree felling.● Fear of personal safety (Red Riding Hood

syndrome)● FE forests ‘not in the right places’

3.2.16 Can any trends be identif ied?

Local Authorities

● An increase in the level and sophistication of community work● More partnership working● Changes in grass management to give greater attention to biodiversity needs● A change to low cost methods to reflect the decrease in funds available● More path work linking to new access legislation

13


● Opportunities for WIAT through planning gain.Eg the possible creation of a new settlementjust outside Stirling

● Better use of non operational land and existingopen space for WIAT

● Increased community and schools involvement● Enhanced path networks● Links to the wider agenda – health, inclusion

and education● Links to the environmental agenda – air quality,

surface water management, soil condition,noise abatement

● Political will/resources to develop a strategicapproach through urban forestry strategies

● A national policy framework for WIAT● More dedicated staff and the continued

employment of existing short term staff● Better partnerships in order to package up

enhanced funding

● Increasing community awareness andinvolvement, particularly through a strongcommunity woodland network

● Local access to the countryside via wedges,corridors & networks

● Increased emphasis on health – stress reduction,exercise, pollution reduction, microclimate

● Wider programme of enhancing communities asplaces to live and work

● Greening of redundant public open space.Reclaiming derelict land and brown field sites

● Biodiversity targets● Increasing recognition of benefits by policy

makers backed up by (mainly American) research● Farm diversification projects

● More attention to health and safety issues● More woodland management plans and more woodland management to reflect the long neglect of

many council owned woodland sites – in the case of North Lanarkshire grounds maintenance staff havebeen reallocated to woodland work over the winter

● Changes as a result of “best practice” including team working, contracting methods and efficiency werementioned by several councils

Other Organisations

● An increasing emphasis on the importance of local communities with all of the organisations, exceptprivate companies

● A shift away from establishment towards maintenance and management● Linked to this a shift from the number of schemes to the quality of those schemes● A move towards certification for larger organisations such as FE, NTS & WT● Perceived high costs of establishing WIAT, limited revenue funding and continuing development pressure

are the main obstacles● An increasing appreciation of the need for local access to the countryside● Increasing emphasis on health and communities as healthy places to live and work● Synergy with biodiversity initiatives● Increasing recognition of the benefits of WIAT by policy makers, backed up by research● Temporary greening or woodland establishment on brown field sites● Strong community woodland network

3.3 WIAT – What project activit ies are engaged organisations involved in?

3.3.1 Over view of projects submitted

Figure 3 gives an overview of which organisations submitted projects broken down into woodlands in towns(WITs), woodlands around towns (WATs) and additional projects submitted.

Figure 3 Over view of projects submitted

14


CA

Tprojects

Private

companies

Other public

bodies

NG

Os

FE

LocalA

uthorities

No

of

pro

ject

s

The Project Analysis (Annex 4) gives the full results of the project research and is the source material for allthe analysis.

3.3.2 What size are the projects?

Figure 4 gives an overview of the size of the projects submitted divided into WIT and WAT. The greatestpercentage of projects are medium sized with generally more small projects in towns and more largeprojects around towns. The vast majority of the large WAT projects (37 out of 41) are large FE projects.

Figure 4 Size of projects

3.3.3 How well established are the projects?

Figure 5 shows how well established respondents believe the projects to be. It is striking that local authorityprojects are better established than other projects. The projects that exist on paper only are mainly FEprojects (12) and CAT projects (2). The differences between WIT and WAT appear to be less than thedifferences between councils and other bodies.

Figure 5 Stage of establishment

15


No

of

pro

ject

sN

o o

f p

roje

cts

3.3.4 Who owns the land?

For each type of organisation identified as a project leader, Figure 6 shows how many of their project sitesthey own themselves and how many projects are owned by others.

Figure 6 Ownership of project sites

Figure 6 shows that local authorities tend to own most project sites themselves as do FE and certain NGOssuch as the Woodland Trust. By contrast CAT style projects and other NGOs are far more likely to leadprojects on land owned by others. The differences between WITs and WATs are minor and not shown in thegraph. However, the analysis shows that both FE and local councils are more likely to engage on landowned by others in WATs than in WITs.

3.3.5 How much par tnership working is there?

Figure 7 demonstrates the importance of partnership working in WIATs. In local authority led projects 85%of projects involve other partners with only 15% being undertaken solely by the Local Authority. EastRenfrewshire in particular, and Aberdeenshire to a lesser extent, tend to “go it alone” (5 out of 5 projectsand 4 out of 10 respectively). No other council reported more than one project with no partners. There isno significant difference between projects in towns compared to outside of towns.

Figure 7 Level of par tnership working by involved organisations

16


CA

Ts

Private

companies

Other

publicbodies

FE

NG

O

LA

No

of

pro

ject

s

No

of

pro

ject

s

Notably, in every single case out of almost 60 CAT projects submitted, partnership working was undertaken.FE normally works with other partners although this was slightly less likely in woods around towns than intowns.

A wide range of project partners was reported and these are summarised as shown in the project summarysheet in Annex 4. By way of example Table 3 shows the partners most often mentioned by local councilsand CAT style projects.

Table 3 Par tners involved with WIAT projects

Partners LA partners mentions CAT partners mentions

Councils 32

Forestry Commission 25 29

Scottish Natural Heritage 21 16

Communities 16 8

Millennium Forest for Scotland Trust 10

Scottish Wildlife Trust 9

Private sector 9 32

Local Enterprise Companies 6Landfill Tax 1 5

Forest Enterprise, British Trust for Conservation Volunteers and Central Scotland Countryside Trust (now theCentral Scotland Forest Trust) were also reasonably significant for councils and many other partners werementioned by all organisations that did not fall into the above categories.

3.3.6 How deeply is the community involved?

Four levels of community participation were identified for the purposes of the analysis, loosely linked to theArnstein “Ladder of Participation” (Arnstein, 1969). Figure 8 shows the level of community involvementcollectively reported by all organisations.

Figure 8 Level of community involvement in all projects

17


Figure 9 compares levels of community involvement by different organisations. NGOs and CAT style projectsperform particularly well in terms of pushing up the ladder of participation.

Figure 9 Levels of community involvement by organisation

The Aberdeen Countryside Trust and South Lanarkshire Council have been the most successful in promotingcommunity ownership. An investigation into their respective approaches might prove worthwhile.

The differences between WITs and WATs are marginal although it appears that community involvement intowns is slightly higher up the ladder of participation than community involvement around towns.

3.3.7 What type of greenspace do projects take place on?

Figures 10a and b show the type of greenspace on which projects occur in towns and around townsrespectively.

Figures 10a and b Greenspace type

18


CA

Ts

Private

Other

public

FE

NG

Os

LAs

No

of

pro

ject

s

Mature woodlands feature rather more strongly around towns than in towns. This is largely at the expenseof projects on amenity land and on green corridor land.

3.3.8 What are the main features of the project sites?

Figure 11 shows the main features that have been developed in projects in and around towns respectively.While some differences are apparent, most notably the focus on mature woodland around towns and newwoodland in towns, it is clear that projects are being developed with a wide range of interests and thatsimilar types of activity are taking place in all areas.

Figure 11 Main features of woods in and around towns

3.3.9 How much do suppor ting organisations wish to develop WIAT sites?

Figures 12a and b summarise the responses to a question on aspirations for further site development on WITsand WATs. Clearly there is a massive desire to develop most sites further and this appears to be true for allthe main players.

Figures 12a and b Aspirations of woods in and around towns

19


Pe

rce

nt

of

pro

ject

s

3.3.10 What are the costs of projects?

Figures 13a and b show the capital and revenue costs per project for woods in towns and Figures 13c andd show the capital and revenue costs of woods around towns. The story is largely the same for both. Itappears that revenue budgets are less generous than capital budgets and that projects may be suffering frominsufficient funding for maintenance. The cost per hectare to establish or maintain WIATs is higher than forrural woodlands due to the additional costs of footpath provision, interpretation and other items.

Figures 13a – d Costs of woods in and around towns

3.3.11 What are the perceived project benefits?

Figure 14 summarises the benefits that those questioned perceived to arise from their projects. These showthat there is really very little difference in the benefits of woods in towns and around towns. In both casesaccess and recreation is a key benefit of around 90% of all projects and landscape and amenity featureshighly, particularly in towns.

20


Figure 14 Perceived benefits of woods in and around towns

3.3.12 What are the perceived problems?

Figure 15 summarises the range of perceived problems identified for WIT and WAT. Not surprisingly theproblems of social issues and rubbish feature more highly in woods in towns and it appears that partnershipand funding issues feature more highly in woods around towns. General neglect is a problem with 30 –40% of all projects.

Figure 15 Perceived problems with woods in and around towns

3.4 The cit ies

Workshop meetings were held with the four main City Councils in order to get an in depth understandingof WIAT issues in the most populated areas of Scotland where the benefits of woodlands are likely to begreatest and the issues most complex. These meetings brought together representatives of different

21


Pe

rce

nt

of

pro

ject

sP

erc

en

t o

f p

roje

cts

departments. Relevant documentation was provided by each Council to embellish the information providedat the meetings. Notes of these meetings were approved by participants.

A summary of the findings is given in Table 4, and the results of the SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weakness,Opportunities and Threats) is given in Table 5. Full details of the city surveys are in Annex 5.

Table 4 Findings of the four workshops

Glasgow

The Resource. There are 640ha of woodlandwithin the boundary of Glasgow City Council.Most of this is healthy but either mature or veryyoung. Most is owned by the council. In additionthere are many formal parks with wild unmanagedareas and there is1570ha of vacant land TheCouncil area has to be seen in the context of theurbanised land and greenspace surrounding it.

The Key Players. Two Council departments plan andmanage the woodlands. Two CAT style projects(Kelvin-Clyde Greenspace and Carts Greenspace)work closely with the Council. The Wise Group isanother key player, leasing land and returning it tothe Council as established woodland.

The Plans. A number of planning documents coverthe city’s woodlands. These include the CityWoodland Initiative, still at a formative stage,which aims for long term sustainablemanagement, linking with other woodlandsbeyond the Council boundaries. GIS basedwoodland information is being assembled.

Implementation. Complete figures were notavailable but Kelvin-Clyde Greenspace has threeFTEs with 40% effort going into landscapeenhancement, 40% into access and 20% intoeducation. The Land Services Dept. has six FTEsgoing into WIAT plus 120 direct labour FTEs.

The Community. Engagement with the communitytakes place via the CAT style projects, Rangerservice, Parks Development Officers, LocalEnvironment Trusts, consultants and via 20–30community groups, including ‘Friends of’ groups.

22


Edinburgh

The Resource. There are about 900ha ofwoodland and greenspace in Council ownershipplus 2000ha of parks and substantial greenspacein private hands. The greenspace varies from largeinformal woodlands to small fragments of land.Some woods are very highly used – 700,000visitors were recorded at one site in one year.

The Key Players. There are three Councildepartments planning and managing Edinburgh’swoodlands. The Edinburgh Urban Forest Project isa large Millennium Project now coming to an end.The Edinburgh Greenbelt Trust works at arm’slength from the Council. The Scottish GreenbeltCompany plays an increasing role with ‘planninggain’ sites.

The Plans. The 1992 Urban Forestry Strategy(UFS) is still the key document supported by OpenSpace, Biodiversity and Access Strategies. TheUFS aims to increase woodland cover andimprove management.

Implementation. There has been more successwith establishment than management. There is asmall amount of selective felling and restructuring.There is a policy of non-intervention except for tree safety in small, underused woods. CityDevelopment have three FTEs involved with WIATand the Parks Division 22 FTEs. They work closelytogether.

The Community. Involvement is encouraged viaRanger led walks, Conservation Trusts, theMillennium Project, the Greenbelt Trust, LocalDevelopment Committees, Task Force officers andvia ‘Friends of’ or Action Groups.

Aberdeen

The Resource. Aberdeen is quite different fromGlasgow and Edinburgh in that it is responsiblefor a swathe of countryside around the built upzone making up about 40% of the area.Altogether there are 1760ha of woodland ofwhich ACC owns 138ha. FE manages somelarge plantations on the outskirts of the city. Thereare considerable areas of mown grass around theperipheral housing estates and the valleys of theDee and Don are important greenspaces.

The Key Players. Two Council departments arechiefly involved with WIAT with another threehaving a peripheral interest. There is a CAT styleproject and an increasing role for the ScottishGreenbelt Company.

The Plans. An Urban Forestry Strategy is proposedwhich will aim to maximise the multiple benefits ofthe city’s woodlands and this is supported in theLocal plan. There is already a CommunityWoodland Plan.

Implementation. The planning and managementdepartments between them have about 4 FTEsavailable for WIAT plus the direct labour squad.Most of the effort goes on inspections andadvising projects.

The Community. Consultation is well developed butlimited resources are available to involve thecommunity. Volunteer opportunities are beingdeveloped through a Tree Warden scheme and theinvolvement of oil company staff. There are five orsix ‘Friends of’ groups for Council properties.

23


Dundee

The Resource. Dundee is well endowed withgreenspace which occupies 28% of the urbanarea. Of this, 15% (282ha) is woodland.Most is owned and managed by the Council.Management is largely traditional for the formalareas and complaint led for the more informalareas. The age structure is skewed a little towards mature trees and the species are variedwith nearly 25% open ground. Almost all of thewoodland is managed with safety felling and litter picking high on the agenda.

The Key Players. Three Council departments nowmanage the woods with a split between formal &Country Parks and other types of woodland.

The Plans. There is an Urban Woodland Reportand an Open Space Strategy both of which feedinto an Urban Woodland Strategy currently beingdrafted. The joint Dundee and Angus StructurePlan recognises the importance of the woodlandson Dundee’s northern fringe. A Green Circularcycleway links many of the city’s greenspaces.

Implementation. One FTE planning officer plusabout 36 FTEs in implementation, including theRangers and the sawmill. A range of management activities take place.

The Community. Community involvement is sought through the Social Inclusion Project posts, a proposed Urban Ranger and proposed TreeWardens. There are several environmental action groups.

Table 5 Summar y of the SWOT Analysis from the four workshops

Strengths

All four cities recognise the size and distribution of the Council owned resource as a strength.There is a good level of protection and politicalsupport for the environment at present. The Council officers and workforce areexperienced and guided by a variety of planningdocuments. There is good co-ordination betweenthe various involved departments. The use of ITwas highlighted by Glasgow.

Opportunities

Several Councils see an opportunity to bring inadditional funding from private sources such asthe oil companies. Related to this is planning gain– new woods in new developments. Increasedawareness at all levels but especially in schools isan opportunity as is a more relaxed attitude toplanting on vacant sites (even if this planting issometimes temporary in nature) and on nonoperational council land. Three Council groupsmentioned Tree Wardens as a further opportunity.

3.5 Issues

The key issues identified from the analysis of threats & barriers, strengths & opportunities in 3.2.15, the trendsin 3.2.16, the project survey results in 3.3 and the City Council results in the previous section aresummarised in Table 6. They are organised in three sections: strategic, practical and community issues forcity councils, other councils and other organisations.

Weaknesses

The general complaint is of increasingresponsibilities and decreasing budgets.Partnerships can be time-consuming. Maintenanceregimes are inflexible ie there is too much grasscutting. Management and arboriculture especiallyare complaint led. There is a lack of native andsemi-natural woodland in Aberdeen and highpressure on the resource in Edinburgh. The cost ofestablishing woodland on brownfield sites is high.

Threats

Development pressure and decreasing funds,especially for maintenance, are the biggestperceived threats. Councils are being forced to sellland to raise revenue and reduce maintenancespend. Multiple sources of funding and partnershipsmeans more application forms, more meetings andless pro-active management. The awareness of thebenefits of WIAT is still low in some communitiesand individuals may feel threatened by them.Politicians may be focused on other moreimmediate concerns.

24


Table 6 Summar y of issues identif ied by this project

Issues City Councils Other Councils Other Organisations

● Value of strategic planning forWIAT

● Complexity of having severaldepartments active with WIAT

● Increasing responsibilities anddecreasing budgets

● Value of vehicles such as CATstyle projects to attract newfunds and link partners

● Value of special targetedprojects

● WIAT can be the jewels on thethread of access networks

● Lack of pro-active managementin less formal areas

● Workforce is available butmanagers are too thinly spread

● Planting on derelict land is seento be desirable

● New landscapes would benefitperipheral housing estates

● There is too much grass cutting● New planting in new

developments is a powerful tool● Awareness raising on the

benefits of WIAT is required

● Low awareness of the value ofWIAT in some communities

● Recognition of the value ofestablished community groupsto interact with

● There may be a future role forTree Wardens

● WIAT provides opportunities fordifferent sections of thecommunity to get involved

25


● Complex staff arrangementsmake external communicationdifficult

● Lack of dedicated staff● Need for stronger links to the

wider agenda – health,social inclusion, educationand environmental issues

● Limited financial resources,make ‘match funding’ difficult

● Partnerships are common● External trusts can be very

effective● Planning gain is a proven

mechanism● Development pressure and

hope values are importantconstraints

● Forestry strategies have beenvery helpful

● Need for national guidelines● Awareness that the value of

WIAT by decision-makersand some of the public islow

Strategic

Practical

Community

● Huge diversity of fundingand much effort needed toobtain it

● WIAT is significant for SWT,Woodland Trust & CAT stylegroups

● It is important also for FE butfrustrating as its “forests arein the wrong places”

● Low involvement of otherpublic agencies & privatesector

● Organisations find it difficultto distinguish between WIATand other work

● Obstacles are high costs,lack of revenue funding,negative public attitudes &development pressures

● Opportunities are access tocountryside, biodiversity,temporary greening ofbrownfield sites, health,community business andcommunity woodlandnetwork

● Most resources go to safetyand cleaning up leaving littlefor woodland managementor community/education

● Non-operational Councilland and open space aroundhousing estates areopportunities

● Rubbish, general neglect andsocial issues each affect over50% of the projects

● Management is replacingestablishment

● Quality rather than quantity isbeing emphasised

● Level of communityinvolvement in WIAT projectsis only moderate

● Local community engagementis an increasing priority formost organisations

● Walking with/without dogsdominates the use of WIAT

● The abuse of WIAT isvariable and related topopulation pressure

● FE, some NGOs and theCAT style projects aregaining experience incommunity engagement

4 CONTRIBUTION TO SCOTTISH FORESTRY STRATEGY PRIORITIES

4.1 What are the relevant SFS priorities and what are the links between them?

Woodlands in and around towns contribute substantially to five SFS priorities. Two of these, PCE6 and

ETWF1, are the main subject of this study and are considered in sections 4.2 and 4.3 below. The other

relevant priorities are considered more generally in section 4.4.

While PCE6 and ETWF1 are separated for this analysis, there is no hard-and-fast division between town

and countryside and the two will merge across the boundary with some woods inside towns (WITs) “acting”

more like woods outside towns (WATs) and visa versa. Recognition of the multiple role of all WIATs is

essential.

4.2 PCE6 – “Contribute to the radical improvement in the quality of the

urban sett ing”

4.2.1 Status of WIT projects

The research identified a total of 119 projects inside towns (WITs) with the most active organisations being

the Local Authorities and the Countryside Around Towns (CAT) style projects (Figure 3). Many Local

Authorities already recognise the contribution of WITs to the quality of the urban setting, partly this is a

response to the Biodiversity agenda (Figure 2). NGOs are less active with the notable exception of the

Scottish Wildlife Trust and the Woodland Trust which are pioneering the management of urban woodlands

in new towns. FE expressed frustration that despite policy alignment with this priority, their forests are “in the

wrong place”.

Projects in towns are likely to be smaller than projects around towns and the costs are slightly higher (Figures

4 and 13). More developments are planned to three quarters of all project sites (Figure 12) and grants are

likely to be sought for these developments in future years.

Mature woodland features strongly in project sites and the main forms of development are the creation of

new paths and new or additional planting. Conservation areas and interpretation are a little less common

and 14% of sites involve art projects (Figure 11). Landscape and access benefits arising from the projects

are perceived to be particularly high (Figure 14) and rubbish and social problems (litter and vandalism) and

neglect of woodland are the biggest problems (Figure 15).

4.2.2 How do WITs currently contribute to PCE6?

Table 7 sets out the main details of priority PCE6 in the left hand column. The right hand column makes some

simple observations as an aid to the analysis where appropriate.

26


Table 7 Contribution of WITs to PCE6

PCE6 – Contribute to the radical improvement Observations in relation to PCE6in the quality of the urban setting

27


Why is it a priority?● The post-industrial landscape of parts of

Scotland is bleak and unattractive● Woodlands can help define boundaries in

areas of high development pressure andurban ‘sprawl’.

● Most derelict land lies in the Central Belt(West Lothian, South Lanarkshire, Glasgow,Fife and East Ayrshire). A third of all projectssubmitted for review were in high derelict landLA areas

● Most towns experience a level of developmentpressure

What activities are identified for action?● Raise awareness of benefits by developing

educational and community links● Plant trees and manage woodlands to meet

identified local needs● Maintain support for the range of urban and

peri-urban woodland initiatives

● All these activities are ongoing to a greater orlesser degree with different partners focusingon different activities

● However, there are major gaps for examplemany towns lack CAT type mechanisms

● More action and more directed action willlead to greater benefits

Examples of success indicators● Improvements in the quality of priority areas

shown in local authority assessments● Development and implementation of plans and

green networks

● Priority areas have been established by someLocal Authorities. Existence of qualitymonitoring is unknown

● There is evidence that a few LAs have greennetwork plans or similar

● There is considerable scope for more strategicplanning

What are the benefits and costs?● Introducing natural processes to the man

made environment● Making areas more attractive to residents and

businesses● Creating links with recreation, community

activity and health promotion● Involving people in the environment● Promoting health-enhancing activities● Helping to create a more inclusive society● Helping to integrate the town and country● Contributing to land reclamation● Reducing the impacts of noise and pollution● Costs are likely to be high due to social

pressures and the cost of securing communityinvolvement

● Existing managers of WITs perceive that mostof these benefits are being delivered in currentWIT projects

● However, many constraints exist including alack of resources

● Essential work (eg safety work) eats intoresources available for high value work (eg community work)

● The scale of benefits may suffer from lack oftargeting

● The research confirms higher costs of projectsin towns than around towns

In essence it appears that there is already experience in Scotland of most elements required to achieve thepriority. However, delivery is patchy, it could be targeted more effectively, resources are limited and it willbe hard to know when success is achieved.

4.2.3 Strategic Analysis

Strategic Guidance and Planning – The current lack of strategic guidance to encourage the developmentand management of urban woodlands is felt to be a weakness by some planning officials and CATprofessionals. This could set standards and also help overcome the issues relating to development pressureand hope values. Creating a clear link in strategic guidance between all greenspace, urban woodlands andpath networks will help unify activity.

Urban forestry strategies – Some councils, such as Edinburgh, have produced “urban forestry strategies”and this has been considered a highly positive step. The development of such strategies provides amechanism for partnership action and might also help ensure co-ordination of effort among the many councildepartments involved. A themed approach to a UFS can help make links with agendas such as health,community learning and social inclusion. Strategic links between sites and out to the countryside beyond thecity can also be developed.

Targeting Action – The research shows some successful targeting of activity which could be increased furtherto maximise the impact of existing resources. This could be done through establishing national priority areas(eg areas with highest derelict land, poorest environment or poorest health record) and by local prioritisingthrough local strategies.

Information – Preparation of effective urban woodland plans will need to be based on sound informationon the existing woodland resource, patterns of urban land use, public land ownership, access links andsocial priorities that can be used to identify priority themes. Information and data collected by the authoritieswill need to used alongside views from within the community which is best collected using participatorymethods.

Developing roles – The findings suggest that an expansion in the role of CAT style projects (or someequivalent mechanism that is at ‘arms length’ from councils) in towns and cities could help develop capacityfor quality WIT programmes. They would be particularly valuable as a mechanism to gear up existingfunding and help overcome the lack of resources.

The research also shows that FE has the ability and interest to play a significant and high quality role intowns but the lack of availability of large sites is a constraint. This represents a key opportunity to transformurban areas, particularly those with high levels of derelict land or a poor environment. The private sectorand public agencies need to be encouraged to see their activities in and around towns as part of a greaterwhole.

Awareness of decision makers – The many benefits of woodlands in towns is well understood by relevantCouncil employees, CAT project staff and amongst the main supporters such as SNH and the ForestryCommission. However, the research suggests that greater awareness of the benefits amongst key decisionmakers in urban areas (including MSPs, councillors and senior council staff) could offer new opportunitiesfor further developments and improvements.

28


4.2.4 Practical Analysis

Land Release – Lack of available land is frequently cited as a major constraint to woodland development intowns. Particular opportunities include the allocation of non-operational Council land and existing openspace around housing areas for woodland and the release of land through planning gain. The researchshows that CAT style mechanisms are likely to deliver quality projects in such situations and the GreenbeltCompany has a unique role in delivery of “planning gain” projects. Major areas of derelict land have stillto be addressed in a number of Central Scotland Locations, most notably Glasgow City. This is not a newissue and it is one that receives much attention. However, a possible enhanced role for FE might be worthfurther exploration.

Management culture – Expansion of woodlands in towns represents an increased management burden andexisting resources are already thinly stretched with many sites suffering neglect. Evidence shows thatorganisations are increasingly reluctant to take on new burdens when they cannot meet existingresponsibilities. Enlightened funding arrangements will be needed to take greater account of the value of thewider benefits of woods in towns eg education, inclusion, health etc. More flexible land maintenancepractice will also be required to allow a shift of resources from traditional forms of management eg grasscutting and horticulture, to woodland care and community work.

Fear and Safety – Within towns woods can feel threatening and this was frequently identified as an issuein the survey. Good site design can help overcome this but perhaps as important is the need to ensure thatthe site is well used and ‘someone’ is looking out for any trouble. The move into Tree Warden Schemes incities is a recent development and more support in this area to hasten and develop their impact may paydividends.

Support Structures – The high costs of establishing and managing urban woodland projects compared toother woodlands is a key issue. Further steps to develop support structures to take account of non marketbenefits such as community development are to be encouraged.

4.2.5 Community analysis

Increasing the emphasis on community Involvement – The considerable potential social benefits arising fromcommunity involvement is perhaps the fundamental value of WITs. There is some evidence that communitiescan take high levels of responsibility for caring for trees and woodlands and that this can assist with themanagement burden. However, successful community engagement almost always requires communityanimation and support, plus a fall back option should the community fail. With existing resources forcommunity engagement already stretched there is a need to consider whether communities can be “gearedup” further by new methods of working and/or new investment. Investment in models that utilise mainlydecentralised support and voluntary effort are likely to be most appropriate and cost effective. Ultimately astrategic shift of emphasis from corporate to community land management in urban areas, backed up by asupport network, would be an exciting development.

Education – Many of the issues identified in the research related to a lack of interest and respect forwoodlands and the environment. Education often falls off the end of the agenda for WIAT organisations andit remains a weak area that that needs to be strengthened with a key opportunity to develop schools andother institutional use of sites.

29


4.3 ETWF1 (WATs) – Provide woodland recreation oppor tunit ies near towns

4.3.1 Status of WAT projects

The research identified a total of 121 projects around towns (WATs). FE, with its massive land ownership inScotland, is by far the most active in this priority followed by NGOs, Councils and CATs. Councils haverecognised recreation as the second most important policy to which WATs can contribute (Figure 2).

WAT projects are generally slightly larger and slightly cheaper than their urban cousins and there is anaspiration for more developments on a huge majority of sites (Figure 12).

By far the majority of sites involve existing mature woodlands with paths and interpretation being the mainadditional features that are developed. New woodlands and conservation areas are somewhat lessimportant and art features in just 8% of these sites (Figure 11). Access and amenity benefits are particularlyhigh for these sites and rather fewer physical problems are recorded than for WITs (Figure 15). Funding isidentified as a much bigger problem issue for these sites than for sites in towns.

4.3.2 How do WATs currently contribute to ETWF1?

Table 8 sets out the main details of priority ETWF1 in the left hand column. Relevant observations to aid theanalysis are made in the right hand column.

Table 8 Contribution of WATs to ETWF1

ETWF1 – Provide woodland recreation Observations in relation to ETWF1opportunities near towns

30


Why it is a priority?● Some groups of people do not visit woods

because of travel difficulties● Many leisure trips are taken by people who

live in towns● It provides an opportunity for people to learn

about forestry

● There is a clear perception that woods aroundtowns create access and recreation benefitsfor local people

● Education is a feature of some sites. Theemphasis is mainly on woodlands, crafts andconservation

What are the benefits and costs?● Helping more and different people to enjoy

woodland recreation and healthy exercise● Shorter journeys for leisure trips● Less pressure on heavily used areas● Costs include path establishment and new

path provision

● Woodland recreation is cited as a key benefitby WAT providers

● Research would be needed to demonstratedisplacement from honey-pot destinationsfurther away. Perhaps recreation close tohome should be seen as “as well as” and not“instead of”.

ETWF1 – Provide woodland recreation Observations in relation to ETWF1opportunities near towns

4.3.3 Strategic Analysis

A number of the points for woodlands in towns also apply to woods around towns and these points will notbe repeated. The following additional points are more strongly relevant outside towns:

Strategic Guidance and targeting – With their high recreational value woods around towns need to bestrategically integrated with planning for the access network both at a national and local level. Local AccessForums are an ideal mechanism for co-ordinating action. In addition strategic priority areas need to beidentified to target national resources where health and quality of life benefits are likely to be most stronglyfelt. Strategic targeting would need to be based on sound geographic and social information.

Demand for Woodland Recreation – Existing statistics show that day visits to forests in Scotland are moreor less static. The most recent figures that show that very few more Scottish adults visited woodland in 2001(62%) than did in 1995 (59%). These statistics suggest that an increase in recreation opportunities aroundtowns could simply mean that individuals would have more options to choose from and would meet lesspeople at each site visited. While this research was not able to identify how many further unexploited“woodland around town” opportunities could be available, it is possible that, if demand does not increase,a point will come where there is an oversupply of such land and that the additional costs of providingfacilities will not be justified.

Expanding woodland recreation for health and well-being – There is however an alternative and morepositive scenario exemplified by experience in rural Finland. Finland used to suffer poor health related tolack of exercise and poor diet but has fast become an outdoor society and halved death rates in 20 years.Considerable efforts were made to improve facilities for recreation in the form of a network of connectingpaths, cycle-ways and ski-tracks linking points of interest (woodlands and conservation areas, geological

31


What activities are identified for action?● Create responsible right of access (through

land reform)● Identify priority areas for targeted assistance● Develop networks of walks

● Land Reform is moving ahead under differentprocess

● Some strategic, regional and local priorityareas exist but not connected with SFS. Verylimited targeted external assistance but moreof this would help maximise benefits

● Walks networks being developed in manyareas but many still embryonic

Examples of success indicators● Increased accessibility of woodland recreation

to all social groups● Identification of priority areas and recreation

improvement in these areas● Increased contribution of trees and woods to

wider path networks

● Some efforts are being made to raiseawareness of all social groups, especially incities. Far more could be done

● Explicit SFS priority areas for targetingnational resources would be unambiguousand help focus benefits

sites and historic sites) and a range of facilities. Summer berry picking is also strongly promoted on the TVand Internet. This work has gradually increased demand for outdoor recreation and appears to betransforming Finnish culture and health.

This example demonstrates that further investment in woodlands and the recreational infrastructure aroundtowns can be justified for social reasons and a similar model appropriate to Scotland can easily beenvisaged. However, this would be wasted if it was not linked to an effective campaign to encourage use,particularly by a target audience.

Integration and promotion – The formula for success in releasing benefits from woodlands around towns islikely to be the development of a high quality, integrated, well promoted and accessible access network,peppered with interest for a range of users. Woodlands are particularly well suited to house recreationalfacilities and this represents an opportunity for all WIAT organisations. This will require serious strategic intentfrom the highest level and high levels of partnership working and policies for improved path networks andhealthy living need to be backed up by solid cash. Strategic community based initiatives might be wellplaced to attract major funding packages.

Developing roles – The study demonstrates the highly active role that FE is currently developing in woodsaround towns and suggests it could become a major catalyst for further integrated development along withother key partners such as the Local Authorities. In addition the current weak contribution of the private sectorand private landowners could be a significant opportunity. Improved farming and forestry support structuresto favour leisure and recreation diversification near towns could help enhance entrepreneurial effort indelivering quality leisure opportunities.

4.3.4 Practical Analysis

Site Development and Management – The main practical issue for woods around towns appears to be theneglect of existing mature woodland. Future aspirations to develop existing sites are also very high and thistoo will require resources. There is no easy answer to finding resources for work in woods around towns.There may be scope for a diversion of resources from other types of countryside management (as ishappening in North Lanarkshire) or to work up new funding packages. In the long run the sites are likely tobe most viable if they:

● Provide demonstrable community benefits

● Are accessible and physically linked to other sites of community and recreation interest and to centresof population, preferably by paths and cycle ways

● Have opportunities for community or private enterprise

● Have been managed using low cost methods with the production of appropriate forest products in mind

Safety and voluntary rangering – Fears associated with being vulnerable in a deserted woodland is a keyissue that needs to be addressed. A community approach might be taken to this, along the lines of the treewarden scheme. A voluntary ranger scheme might for example be established with patrols covering thewider path network.

32


4.3.5 Community analysis

Community Involvement – Community involvement appears to be harder to achieve in areas away fromtowns although FE appears to do well and NGOs are well placed to mobilise a “community of interest”(nature conservation, their members, woodland interest groups etc) that may live some distance away fromsites.

The immediate benefits of community involvement are considered to be smaller in woods outside of townsthan woods in towns. However, where high level community involvement can be achieved in the form ofparticipation or ownership some WATs may lend themselves well to multi objective community projects. Sitesin priority areas might be well suited to community enterprise, for example in the form of education,recreation and social development projects that will bring benefits to their local area.

4.4 Contribution to other priorit ies

4.4.1 FFR4 – Exploit non timber outputs and benefits of woods and forests

This priority mainly relates to recognising the non-timber values of woodlands, including recreational valuesand seeking ways to exploit these values in the local economy. It is particularly linked to ETWF1.

There are significant opportunities for furthering this priority through the development of recreationalwoodlands linked to the local path network. While requiring payment for woodland visits would not beacceptable or possible, it is entirely possible to develop “additional services” that visitors might purchase.Examples include access to an aerial walkway, cycle hire, binocular hire or car parking. In addition localbusinesses such as cafes and pubs might benefit from an increase in visitors. The potential for picking wildmushrooms and berries also exists although opportunities and awareness are underdeveloped compared toScandinavian countries. These considerations need to be built into future plans

4.4.2 ETWF2 – Improve information about the availabil i ty of oppor tunit ies

In most areas the information about where people can walk in the countryside is not easily availablealthough it is improving all the time as work towards the access legislation develops (including essentialmapping work). The provision of information and promotion of countryside recreation opportunities is acritical element to expanding demand for countryside recreation and realising benefits and this benefit istherefore also particularly relevant to ETWF1. Improving information must go hand in hand with thedevelopment of path networks and resources must be made available as part of a development package.The use of Web based information is becoming a major opportunity.

4.4.3 CB2 – Increase oppor tunities for community consultation

The main rationale of this priority in the SFS is to promote the exchange of information and knowledgebetween forestry professionals and local people to encourage mutual understanding and enhance decision-making. It appears to mainly relate to productive forestry. However, it is no less important in urban areaswhere trees and woodlands are highly valued for the many benefits they provide and major interventionscan cause considerable community stress if consultation is weak.

33


4.4.4 CB3 – Provide oppor tunit ies for greater community involvement benefits

While this priority appears to be strongly orientated toward rural communities it is of at least equalimportance in urban areas and is strongly related to the woods in towns in terms of raising awareness ofthe environment and sustainability issues and in community learning and development. Work to developwoodlands in and around towns must incorporate a high level of commitment to community involvement.

4.4.5 CB4 – Suppor t Community Ownership where this wil l bring local benefits

The SFS highlights the benefits of local communities being able to determine their own priorities through siteownership and it specifically identifies the potential it gives communities to unlock local economicdevelopment. While site ownership is not a major feature of WIAT, a total of 11 projects involvingcommunity ownership were identified. This demonstrates that both communities and supporters believe thatcommunity ownership in urban areas has significant benefits and it should therefore be included in futureconsideration of WIAT.

34


5 OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROGRESS

5.1 Introduction

All of the organisations which responded to the survey are achieving some good results from currentmanagement structures and practices despite limited manpower and resources. However, given thesignificance of WIAT as identified in the Scottish Forestry Strategy, primarily its potential to produce a largenumber of benefits for a large number of people, some development of current efforts is likely to increasethe flow of benefits. These opportunities for progress are arranged by sector according to how clearly theyemerged from the survey and analysis. They are shown in Table 9 under the headings strategic, practicaland community.

Table 9 Oppor tunit ies for progress

35


Strategic

● Better focused planningpolicy guidance on WIATwould enable LocalAuthorities better to developand utilise the WIATresource

● Communication between thevarious council departmentsinvolved in WIAT is crucial

● A clear ‘gateway’ to a keymember of staff is neededfor individuals and groupsconcerned about woodlandissues

● Budgets and staff,particularly managers,should be maintained orincreased to deliver morebenefits of WIAT

● Decision-makers should bemore fully informed of thebenefits of WIAT

Practical

● Opportunities for (sometimestemporary) woodlandestablishment on non-operational Council land,derelict land and openspace around housing

● Opportunities for newlandscapes with less grassand more community areas,natural landscapes andwoodlands for peripheralhousing estates

● Planning gain is a keymechanism. Councils andthe Scottish GreenbeltCompany should seekgreater gains, linked to otherwoodland where possible

● Community & privateenterprise have a role indelivering recreation benefitsfrom woods around towns

● More active management ofless formal woodland areasis needed. This is oftenlimited to complaint-ledsafety felling and litter pick-ups

Community

● The increasing emphasisplaced on communityengagement should beaccelerated as the socialbenefits of WIAT areparamount

● Communities should begiven responsibilitieswhenever possible

● This will require communityanimation and a fall backoption should community‘burn-out’ occur

● New mechanisms forcommunity engagement andsupport need to be explored

● Negative social behaviourshould be tackledholistically, linked to othercommunity developmentinitiatives. Woodlandscannot solve deep-set socialproblems but can provide afocus for positive behaviour

36


Strategic

● Stronger links should bemade between WIAT andthe wider agenda – health,social inclusion, educationand the environment

● Strategic planning forWIATs, involvingpartnership organisations,landowners and localpeople will help to forgethese links and improveco-ordination betweenCouncil departments

● Gaining an understandingof, and recording, theresource is crucial. Eg workin Glasgow, Dundee andEdinburgh

● Understanding local people’sneeds and aspirationsthrough participatorytechniques is vital

● Special projects (eg theStirling Maxwell Forest Parkin Glasgow) are powerfulmechanisms for progress

● Greenspace with aperceived low intrinsic valueshould not be sold off fordevelopment. It has a muchgreater value as a part ofthe total resource than as asmall neglected site

● CAT style projects areeffective in targetingresources, raising additionalfunds, linking partners andinvolving communities. Thenetwork should be expandedinto new areas of highpopulation where there ispressure for development

Practical

● NGOs and CAT styleprojects’ emphasis onmanagement rather thanestablishment, quality ratherthan quantity should beencouraged

● In some areas theestablishment of new woodsstill needs encouraging

● Enlightened fundingarrangements should linkmore closely to the widerbenefits of woods in towns –education, social inclusionand health

● Awareness raising on thebenefits of WIAT is required

● A high quality, integrated,accessible and wellpromoted access network,with interest for a range ofusers, should be developed

Community

● All of the benefits of WIATshould be promoted to localpeople through interpretationand involvement of allsections of the community

● Environmental education hasa crucial role in shapingbehaviour. Local woodlandsused as outdoor classroomscan increase the relevanceof environmental messages

● There is a need to try andinvolve all sections of thecommunity. Whilst regularusers appreciate the benefitsof woodland, most peoplehave neutral or negativeattitudes

● Established communitygroups provide easy accesspoints to the community andshould be a first target

● Where high levels ofcommunity involvement canbe achieved, WIATs maylend themselves to multi-objective community projects

● The Tree Warden systemoffers valuable lessons andshould be expanded toother areas as appropriate

● Community businessesshould be encouraged toform or expand to take onsome of the management orfacility provision in WIAT

5.2 Gaps in funding suppor t

Organisations have had to be opportunistic and adapt their priorities to fit in with the funding mechanismswhich were available, for example the Millennium Forest for Scotland, New Deal and the Landfill Tax. It hasalso taken a huge amount of effort to attract and keep on attracting funds, effort which could be betteremployed in designing and implementing projects. Funders should consider whether it wouldn’t be moreefficient to negotiate with a group of projects for longer-term funding rather than negotiate with individualgroups on an ad hoc basis.

The Woodland Grant Scheme was key in the development of woods in and around towns but was targetedat encouraging the establishment of new woodlands, hence the emphasis on new woodlands by CAT styleprojects. The Community Woodland Supplement is not available for existing woodlands. The new SFGS islikely to shift the balance of funding a little from new to established woods. This will assist in bringing existingsites to a higher standard but may leave a gap in support for new projects. This comes at a time when theorganisations are also beginning to shift their emphasis in the same direction.

37


Strategic

● Forest Enterprise should beencouraged to provide alead in relatively large scaleafforestation on derelict orother land in and aroundtowns & cities

● NGOs and CAT styleprojects need support fortheir fundraising activities forestablishing and managingWIAT

● Private companies anduninvolved public agenciesrequire encouragement tobroaden out from theircurrent narrow objectives, inand around towns

● A strong promotionalmessage is required (cf.Finland) that healthy exercisecan be taken in aninteresting and excitingwoodland resource

● This message could betargeted at priority areaswhere health and quality oflife benefits are especiallyneeded

Practical Community

● Community ownership or fullparticipation should beencouraged where this willbring local benefits

● Community rather thancorporate land managementwill be an appropriate longterm aim in some places

Seed corn funding will be required for extending the Greenspaces for Communities network and employingCommunity Facilitators to work with communities to enable them to participate fully with organisationsinvolved with managing WIAT. Providing training and support for woodland wardens will be a very costeffective way of linking communities to local wood and greenspaces.

5.3 Potential deliver y mechanisms

Action is required to raise the profile and deliver the benefits of Woods in and around Towns. The ScottishForestry Strategy gives an ideal opportunity to identify and monitor these actions. We recommendconsideration of the following seven delivery mechanisms for the next two years. These are examples ofmechanisms covering the range of strategic, practical and community opportunities, listed above.

1. The establishment of two or three new CAT style projects in appropriate locations and the involvementof Forest Enterprise with the establishment of one new flagship woodland within a town or city.

2. Two awareness raising seminars (in north and south Scotland) with a representation of all of the keystakeholders, from decision-makers to local communities.

3. The publication of a WIAT Support Pack – a ‘how to’ manual with sections on surveying the resource,mechanisms for management, linking with access, health, social inclusion & education and communityinvolvement.

4. Development of a WIAT Interpretation Plan with generic material on publications, guided walks, panels,etc which can be easily adapted to local circumstances.

5. A pilot Community Animateur scheme employing and supporting an Urban Forest Ranger to work as acommunity facilitator with all sections of the community, linking them with the local resource.

6. A Woodland Recreation pilot area, co-ordinating and developing recreational opportunities in thewoods surrounding one town or city, with involvement by the public, private and community sectors.

7. Support and development of a national Tree Warden initiative in association with the Tree Council andthe involvement of the Greenspaces for Communities initiative.

38


6 A PERSONAL VISION FOR WOODS IN AND AROUND TOWNS

Woods in Towns – for sustainable communities

In a future vision, woodlands are an essential element in all towns of over 3000 people in Scotland andthey make an important contribution to “sustainable communities”. The benefits they provide are recognisedby residents and decision-makers alike and include recreation and leisure use, community development,mitigation of air pollution, noise pollution and flooding and landscape enhancement. Resources areallocated to ensure they are adequately planned for, and managed.

Woodlands in towns are seen as just one (very important) element of community urban greenspace includingparks, nature areas and community gardens. All this community greenspace is linked together with an off-roadpath network suitable for the wide range of urban users including walkers, cyclists and mothers withpushchairs. There is a well-developed “partnership greenspace plan” for the urban area underpinned by highquality information on woodlands and greenspace held on GIS. All organisations with a role to play ingreenspace and woodland management are fully engaged in the planning and delivery of this plan.

Each urban area is served by a local ‘greenspace trust’ which has strong connections with the Council andother players in the area. The trust helps to initiate, ‘package’ and manage woodland and other greenspaceprojects and has a key role in working with communities at a sophisticated level to help them work on theirown priorities. Instead of the community being cast in the role of complainant, the organisations involvedwith WIAT have encouraged local communities to take on greater responsibility for the greenspaces aroundthem which enrich their lives in many ways. This starts with consultation, develops through participation andleads eventually to a greater degree of responsibility. Many communities are benefiting from pioneeringwork in places such as the Water of Leith Trust in Edinburgh, Gala Policies in Galashiels or Townhill Woodsin Dunfermline.

Following reviews of greenspace, mown grass in the towns and cities is limited to the most formal areas. By taking opportunities as they arise, areas that used to be mown grass have become meadows, shrubareas, or community woodlands and gardens. Many of these new community greenspaces have beendeveloped round existing housing schemes lying on the edges of towns and cities. Some are only temporaryand awaiting future developments but still contribute to the landscape. Many brand-new housingdevelopments are surrounded by young woodland that was planted when the houses were built and arenow cared for by the Greenbelt Company. The savings from replacing grass management with lower costmethods have been ploughed into the care of the woodlands and paths and the involvement of local people.

Woodlands in towns are safe and well managed and their condition is improving. Each town orneighbourhood area has its own community tree warden with links to the Council, Community Council andgreenspace partners. Tree wardens help bridge the gap between local people and professionals helping toresolve local tree issues and encouraging community involvement. Greenspace partners allocate effort toensuring that this valuable resource is not only well managed but is also well used by towns-people from allsocial groups – for education, community projects and woodland events. Timber may also be extracted forlocal use in the town.

The Council still owns a number of woodlands in the town but some larger areas, and some areas that usedto be derelict, are now owned and managed by FE with very strong community involvement. Both the

39


Woodland Trust and SWT also own or manage land within the urban area with the involvement of localpeople and a number of sites are owned by local communities themselves.

The greenspace within the urban areas of all Scottish towns, with its rich woodland infrastructure, is a realasset helping the town move towards a more sustainable future and providing many integratedenvironmental, social and economic benefits.

Woods around Towns – for recreation and health

In a future vision the countryside around towns has become more and more popular as a recreation resourceand, as more people take regular exercise in the countryside, there has been an improvement in the healthstatistics of some of the areas of poorest health in Scotland.

Following the access legislation in 2002, all councils began to develop core path networks and to connectup existing recreational areas and places of interest around the towns, facilitated by local Access Forums.Local paths and cycle-ways from within the town now give easy access to countryside resources without theneed for a car. The emphasis within the woodlands around towns is on providing ‘access for all’ for a rangeof recreational activities, mainly the popular trio of walking, cycling and horse riding as well as for moreformal forms of recreation such as orienteering, rallying, four wheel drive events, archery and paintball.Woodland art is also becoming increasingly popular.

Each Council has developed recreational facilities in its own area while national resources, andorganisations such as SNH and FE, have prioritised areas with the poorest health record. Work onimproving facilities has gone hand in hand with community and educational work to ensure that newdevelopments are locally relevant and well supported

The challenge of encouraging more people, from all walks of life, to get out and use the countryside aroundtowns has been met through the provision of high quality and accessible choices for activities together withgood co-ordinated promotion along the lines of the Finnish model. Local papers, events, information centresand the Web are all valuable tools in encouraging people out. Although it has taken a while to changepeople’s behaviour there is a growing culture where people see outdoor recreation as an important elementin their quality of life and overall well-being.

Many different organisations own and manage high quality recreation sites near to towns including ForestEnterprise, public bodies, NGOs, private companies, Councils and CAT style projects. Country parksremain good examples of multi-benefit land management. Forest Enterprise and NGOs are fully embracingsocial issues and FE is leading the way in woodland areas. Farmers are also increasingly contributing to therecreational resources around towns, supported by diversification grants. Both local communities and‘communities of interest’ are involved in managing the sites.

High quality recreation facilities are available to the public free of charge. However new businessopportunities are being developed, linked to the recreational resource, by the private, public and voluntarysectors including bike hire, open air theatre and sales of woodland products. This is adding to the range ofopportunities and is generating income to help with management costs.

The countryside around towns has developed into an attractive, well managed and linked up system ofwoodlands and recreational space. This resource is well used by local people who are both healthier andhappier as a result.

40


7 CONCLUSIONS

There is a great deal of work going on throughout Scotland in support of woods in and around towns. Thisis largely driven by other agendas – recreation, biodiversity, screening of ugly buildings, access provision.Much of the resource is inherited from the past when the objectives of management for the woodlands weredifferent and much less community orientated.

Unfortunately, the level of management input and the quality of that management varies widely acrossScotland. Some excellent work is being done, most notably in central Scotland, East Ayrshire and theprincipal cities. Here there is a focus and limited numbers of staff are achieving a great deal with oftendwindling resources. Elsewhere, the priority for WIAT is often low and any work which is carried out is onan opportunistic basis, by one or two enthusiastic individuals.

Woods in and around towns do contribute to many current policies – biodiversity, access, health, education,social inclusion. They can act as an example of joined up thinking by joined up organisations. By providinga national focus for these special woodlands, through the Scottish Forestry Strategy, the quality of all of thewoodlands can be raised and their champions encouraged. This will benefit everyone living and workingin and around Scotland’s towns and cities.

41


8 REFERENCES

Arnstein, S. (1969). Ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association. 35(4):216–224.

Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions (2002). Greenspaces, Better Places:Final Report of the Urban Greenspaces Taskforce. London: Department of Transport, Local Government andthe Regions

Scottish Executive (2000). Forests for Scotland: the Scottish Forestry Strategy. Edinburgh: ScottishExecutive.

Scottish Executive (2001). Re-thinking Open Space: Open Space Provision and Management: a WayForward. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

Scottish Executive (2003). Planning and Open Space. Planning Advice Note 65. Edinburgh: ScottishExecutive.

Scottish Office (1996). National Planning Policy Guideline 11 on Sport, Physical Recreation and OpenSpace. Edinburgh: Scottish Office.

Ward Thompson, C., Aspinall, P., Bell, S., and Findlay, C. (2002). Local Open Space and SocialInclusion: Case Studies of Use and Abuse of Woodlands in Central Scotland. Edinburgh: OPENspaceResearch Centre Report to Forestry Commission.

42


ANNEXES



Annex 3 Local Authority questionnaire


Annex 5 City repor ts

43



1 Background

Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and Forestry Commission (FC) are funding a partnership project to gatherinformation about two Scottish Forestry Strategy (SFS) priorities for which SNH is lead agency. The relevantSFS priorities are:

1. Contribute to a radical improvement in the quality and setting of urban areas (PCE6).

2. Provide woodland recreation opportunities near towns (ETWF1).

The project will comprise of an initial stock-taking exercise to gather qualitative information about currentactivity in greenspace in and around towns; an exploration of the degree to which the promotion andmanagement of trees and woodland may contribute to SFS priorities; and the identification of whatopportunities for and obstacles to action might exist.

2 Aims

An overview of current use of woods in and around towns, perceptions about them, and how they benefitScotland’s people.

(a) An overview of the current promotion and management of greenspace with trees and woods.

(b) A summary of the aims and methods of the main organisations (and especially local authorities)concerned.

(c) An evaluation of opportunities for, and obstacles to, action.

3 Definit ions

a) For the purposes of the project, woods in and around towns are defined as greenspaces with trees inor within walking distance of settlements of 3,000 inhabitants or above.

b) These will include woods, parks, areas around housing and communal gardens, as well as linearfeatures with trees, such as paths, disused railways, canals or rivers.

c) Trees may be of any age, from newly-planted to senescent, and the contractor will describe differencesin public perception, where they exist.

d) The definition of ‘walking distance’ will be agreed with the contractor – current suggestion covers areaswithin buffer zones of three miles (for PCE6) and five miles (ETWF1) of populations greater than 3,000.Some mapped information could be provided to the contractor from SNH and FC.

4 Methodology

a) The emphasis will be on evaluation of the current use, the management activity, and the players, not theextent of the woodland resource itself. The format of the report will be as specified in the enclosed Annex B.

b) The summary information on the main organisations involved will include:

44


● Local authority, or other type of organisation/partnership & list of other partners;

● Length of establishment (if appropriate);

● Geographic/thematic areas of work;

● Mission statement/goals;

● Type of community involvement practised (ie methods used to find out what people want; to informpeople what is happening/planned; working with communities using some participatory approach;partnerships of informal or formal kind; etc.);

● Scale of operations;

● Fundholding capacity;

● Reporting structure;

● Nature of information reported

c) An overview of current and recent activity will be made. Along with a brief description of each project,an evaluation of the following features will be made:

● Type of community involvement & community profile;

● Perceived benefits;

● Perceived negative effects;

● Age of project;

● Anticipated future development of project over next 15–20 years

d) From this information, and from the interviews, the contractor will produce an evaluation of:

● The level and ways in which communities use greenspace & woods in and around towns in Scotland;

● The level and nature of management activity in greenspace and woods in and around towns inScotland;

● The main benefits derived from these woods;

● The types of organisations involved, the barriers they perceive, the benefits they consider arise from thesespaces, the opportunities and funding sources available to them, perceived threats and their ownaspirations for the future;

● How the remits of the organisations and projects reviewed do or do not contribute to access andrecreation objectives;

● How the remits do or do not contribute to the two relevant SFS priorities;

● Contractor’s opinion of opportunities for action; threats; gaps in initiatives; and recommendations foraction.

e) An appendix will list those areas/projects/organisations encountered which did not meet the researchcriteria but which the contractor considers of potential interest.

f) As part of the submission, the contractor will produce a methodology as to how the information will begathered from organisations (especially local authorities) about current activity (by community and bymanagers) necessary for the evaluation, along with the development of criteria for the selection oforganisations/local authorities. This methodology will be agreed with SNH and FC before work starts.

45


5 Project Timetable

The indicative timescale for completion of the project is as follows:

Late December 2001 Project awarded to successful contractorEarly February 2002 Outline draft submittedMid February 2002 Comments back on outline draft01 March 2002 Draft report produced and submittedMid March 2002 Comments back on draft report01 April 2002 Final report produced and submitted

An interim payment will be made on acceptance of the draft report with the balance being paid onacceptance of the final report.

6 Nominated Officer

The Nominated Officer for this project will be:

Helen GrayScottish Natural Heritage2 Anderson PlaceEdinburghEH6 5NPTel: 0131 446 2426Fax: 0131 446 2405Email: [email protected]

46


Council Area Settlement

Aberdeen City AberdeenPeterculter/Milltimber

Aberdeenshire BanchoryBanffEllonFraserburghHuntlyInverurieKemnayMacduffPeterheadPortlethenStonehavenTurriffWesthill

Angus ArbroathBrechinCarnoustieForfarKirriemuirMontrose

Argyll & Bute CampbeltownDunoonHelensburghObanRothesay

Clackmannanshire AlloaAlvaClackmannanTillicoultry

Dumfries & Galloway AnnanCastle DouglasDalbeattieDumfriesKirkcudbrightLocharbriggsLockerbieNewton StewartStranraer


Dundee Dundee

East Ayrshire AuchinleckCumnockDarvelGalston/NewmilnsHurlford/CrookedholmKilmarnockMauchlineNew CumnockStewarton

East Dunbartonshire Kirkintilloch/LenzieLennoxtownMilton of Campsie

East Lothian CockenzieDunbarHaddingtonNorth BerwickPrestonpansTranent

East Renfrewshire EagleshamNeilston

Edinburgh EdinburghQueensferry

Eilean Siar Stornoway

Falkirk Bo’nessBonnybridgeFalkirkHallglen

Fife AnstrutherBallingryBuckhavenBurntislandCardendenCowdenbeathCuparDunfermlineInverkeithing/Dalgety BayKelty

47



Source: General Register Office for Scotland, settlements with a population of more than 3000.


Fife (continued) KennowayKincardineKinghornKirkcaldyNewport-on-TayOakleySt AndrewsTayport

Glasgow Glasgow

Highland AlnessBallochDingwallFort WilliamInvergordonInvernessNairnTainThursoWick

Inverclyde GreenockKilmacolm

Midlothian DalkeithGorebridgeLoanheadPenicuik

Moray BuckieElginForresKeithLossiemouth

North Ayrshire ArdrossanBeithDalryIrvineKilbirnieKilwinningLargsWest Kilbride


North Lanarkshire ChrystonCumbernauldEastfieldHarthillKilsythMoodiesburnOvertownShotts

Orkney Islands Kirkwall

Perth & Kinross AuchterarderBlairgowrieCrieffKinrossNew SconePerth

Renfrewshire BishoptonBridge of WeirErskineHouston

Scottish Borders EyemouthGalashielsHawickJedburghKelsoPeeblesSelkirk

Shetland Islands Lerwick

South Ayrshire Ayr/PrestwickGirvanMayboleTroon

South Lanarkshire Blantyre/HamiltonCarlukeEast KilbrideKirkmuirhill/BlackwoodLanarkLarkhall

48



South Lanarkshire Lesmahagow(continued) Motherwell

StonehouseStrathaven

Stirling DunblaneStirling

West Dunbartonshire Dumbarton

West Lothian ArmadaleBathgateBlackburnBroxburnFauldhouseLinlithgowLivingstonStoneyburn/

AddiebrownhillWest CalderWhitburn

49


Annex 3 Local Authorit ies Questionnaire

Woodland in and around towns is defined as woodland or partially wooded open space on which projectactivity takes place in a town (more than 3000 people) or within five miles of the boundary of the town.

There are two parts to this questionnaire. Part 1 is about your Authority and your role in WIAT. Part 2 isabout your current projects and those that you have been involved in over the past two years.

Please type your answers in the relevant boxes and return you completed questionnaire either electronically(preferred) or by post by 15th Feb 2002. (See bottom of form for return address details).

If you can’t answer any question, just move on to the next one. Ring Penny Edwards (01324 623759) ifyou want to ask any questions.

PART 1 – YOUR AUTHORITY

Question Answer

1. Which Local Authority are you?

2. Which department are you?

3. Which other departments of the council have asignificant role in WIAT?

4. What are the main Council priorities/themes thatWIAT support?

5. Are there positive policies to support WIAT inLocal and or Structure Plans?

6. Describe your scale of operations for WIAT – egland area and number of WIAT projects.

7. Do you attract and hold external sources of fundsfor WIAT projects? If so, describe any specialmechanisms you have for this.

8. What are your main sources of funding for WIATprojects?

9. Describe your reporting structure for WIATprojects.

50


10. What type of information is reported?

11. Describe the range of physical operations thatyou carry out in WIAT projects – eg grasscutting, arboriculture, litter clearance, path worketc. Please give a rough breakdown in thepercentage of your effort that goes on each.

12. What staff resources do you allocate to WIAT?

13. What is your annual budget for WIAT? Split itinto capital and revenue if you can.

14. Describe any ways in which your managementpractices have changed recently and explainwhy.

15. Describe the way that you think people useWIAT sites e.g. dog walking, cycling,environmental education, etc. Indicate high,medium or low (H, M, L) against each toindicate your perceptions on the levels of use.

16. What do you think are the main benefits to thecommunity of WIAT? Again use H, M and L toindicate which are the most important.

17. How do you consult the community aboutWIAT? If you can, give an indication of the levelof consultation activity – eg number ofconsultations per year.

18. How do you involve the community in WIAT?Give an indication of the level of activity egnumber of events per year.

19. What do you think are the threats or barriers todeveloping and promoting WIAT?

20. What do you see as the main strengths andopportunities for expanding WIAT work?

21. In an ideal world, what would you dodifferently?

51


PART 2 – YOUR PROJECTS – INCLUDING CURRENT PROJECTS AND THOSE YOUHAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH IN THE PAST TWO YEARS

Please provide details of all your projects up to a maximum of 10 projects.Use the code letters indicated and add comments if you wish.Use more than one code letter in each box if needed.

Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Name of Project

Project SizeS = <3haM = 3 – 100haL = 100+ha

LocationI = in townO = outside town (5 miles)

Establishment StatusW = well establishedE = established but needing supportR = rudimentary stages of inceptionP = paper existence/aspirational

Land Owned byS = selfO = other

Number of partners involvedN = noneS = some (please list them)

Level of community involvementM = minimalC = consultationP = participationO = ownership

Type of greenspaceS = semi naturalM = mature woodland/plantationA = amenity greenspaceC = green corridor – eg linear

features or buffer zones

Main features of the projectM = mature woodlandN = new woodlandP = pathsI = interpretationC = conservation areasA = art

52


Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Your aspiration for the projectM = more development plannedN = no further development planned

Approx capital costS = < £5,000M = £5,000 – £100,000L = £100,000+

Approx annual revenue costS = < £1000M = £1000 – £10,000L = £10,000+

Project BenefitsH = heritage conservationA = access and recreationE = economic and trainingC = community developmentL = landscape/amenity

Project problemsR = rubbishN = general neglectS = social issuesV = loss of visual amenityP = partnership issuesF = funding issues

If you have been involved in more than 10 projects over the past two years, please name all those notcovered above. For each of these, please indicate which of the 10 projects above it most resembles usingthe project number from the table.

Project Name Similar to project number:

Thank you for your help. We will send you a copy of the summary of results when it is ready.

Please now return your completed form, send it to the e-mail address you received it from ([email protected] ). Alternatively, if you prefer to print it out and fill it in by hand, please return bypost to Penny Edwards, Yellow Brick Road, Mavisbank Farm, Shieldhill Road, Falkirk, Stirlingshire. FK1 2AZ.

53


54



55


Annex 4 Project analysis – Projects in Towns

56


Annex 4 Project analysis – Projects Around Towns

Annex 5 Summar y Analysis of the Cit ies

WHAT HAPPENS IN EDINBURGH?

Overview

The parts of the Council which are most concerned with greenspace are: Department of Culture & Leisure(eg management and maintenance of key parks, key woods, Ranger Service), City Development (eg TPOs,policy, development, Edinburgh Urban Forest Project) and Environmental Consumer Services (eg generalmaintenance and litter picking of open spaces).

The Edinburgh Urban Forest Project is based in City Development but was externally funded originallythrough the Millennium Forest for Scotland.

The total area of greenspace in Council ownership is about 800ha. In addition there are about 100ha ofnew Millennium woods, 2000ha of parks and a substantial area in private hands – golf courses, sportsgrounds, etc. There is a big mix in types of greenspaces – from large informal woodlands to small fragmentsof land.

Small project sites for community involvement with establishment are increasingly hard to find, many havingbeen mopped up by the Edinburgh Urban Forest Project, which are all on Council owned land. There issome potential for community woodlands associated with bottom up initiatives such as the Water of LeithConservation Trust. Grants may be available through local Development Committees based on constituencywards.

Woodlands are managed for both amenity and timber (which is a minor source of income). There is a citysawmill although new arrangements are being sought for its management. Selective felling and restructuringare undertaken although resources limit the scale of activity. There is a policy of non intervention on smallareas of underused Council woodland except for tree safety work.

Projects are rarely carried out on private land although there is some provision of access.

The Urban Forestry Strategy was prepared in the early 1990s and is still current. Its main aims were toincrease woodlands and trees, identify deficiencies, address them and to improve the management of thewoodlands. Also, to increase public awareness and increase the use of Tree Preservation Orders. It includedsome compulsory purchase work. It has been successful but it is hard to dictate where land becomesavailable. It is hoped that the strategy can be reviewed with greater emphasis on existing woodlands.

A draft open space framework was produced in 2003, linking with NPPG11 – this is broad and includesformal areas and private gardens. An audit of all the city’s parks has been prepared and this will lead to aPark Strategy. There is also an excellent local Biodiversity Action Plan.

Planning Gain has been an important mechanism in new woodland creation. The City Council has takenon about a dozen new woods/greenspaces and mature woods through this mechanism although the overallscale is small. The main cost burden is establishment and the developer has to meet the cost of establishmentto year five. For grass areas with higher maintenance costs the requirement would be an endowment of 18 times the annual maintenance cost. The Scottish Greenbelt Co has an increasing role and takes on abouthalf the planning gain sites, about 2ha per year.

57


The Edinburgh Greenbelt Trust (see organisation analysis) is mainly advisory and helps to organise fundingfor amenity projects. It supports a Community Woods Action Group.

The Culture & Leisure Department’s (formally Recreation Department) Local Development Officers, supportedby Local Development Committees, operating in constituency wards, liase with local people about a rangeof issues including greenspace. This liaison may take the form of working with ‘Friends of’ or Action groups,such as the South Queensferry Environmental Forum. This group and others like it appear to be quite stableand have been around for some time. Others appear in reaction to a crisis and die away again.

The Department of Environmental Consumer Services has 18 Task Force officers (with a Cleansingbackground) working in the peripheral housing areas, such as Pilton and Craigmillar and other open spaces(eg cycle paths, disused railway lines, parks). They are responsible for general maintenance and litterpicking.

Access is an increasingly important issue which has the potential to lead to the management of greenspace.An Access Officer has been appointed and capitalising on Access – an Access Strategy for the city ofEdinburgh has been developed. New purchases of land are allowing access links to be made. There is anemphasis in linking the built up parts of the city with the surrounding countryside. An important example isthe SE wedge where forward thinking enabled Craigmillar Castle and 200ha of private land to bepurchased.

The most important of the external sites is the Pentland Hills Regional Park which has counted 400,000visitors per year. The usage of woodlands in the city is even higher with a count of 700,000 visitors peryear having been recorded at the Hermitage of Braid.

Vision

There is no overall vision for the development of greenspace in and around Edinburgh. The setting up ofnew projects has to be opportunistic as sites become available.

Benefits

A wide range of benefits were cited by the group: recreation (walking, dogs, cycling, orienteering, etc),health, green filters, pollution barrier, sound barrier, look good, property value, inward investment, shelter,educational and interpretation resource.

Promotion

Promotion of the greenspaces takes place through the varied activities of the Countryside Rangers, TheEdinburgh Urban Forest Project, the Biodiversity Officer, the Education Department and on the City Councilwebsite and Edinburgh Urban Forest website. In many situations promotion leads on to involvement.

Community Involvement

The Rangers carry out guided walks, run curriculum orientated projects and produce leaflets as well asupdating a website. The Education Dept. through organisations such as the Water of Leith Conservation Trustinvolve local people in activities. The Edinburgh Urban Forest Project involves considerable communityconsultation and involvement in the practical aspects, for example through the Craigmillar Plantathon.

58


There are now 11 Friends groups in existence with at least as many showing an interest. There is a network

group for the Friends groups which meets quarterly. Some Local Nature Reserves have their own band of

volunteers and special interest groups such as the North Edinburgh Cycleway Group exist. Small grants are

available to community groups from the Council or SNH. Many raise funds for significant projects and look

after planning and implementation with Council support.

Management Resources

This was again a difficult exercise, as it was for all of the cities, as budgets do not have greenspace as a

heading. What was unexpected was the overlap in interest between the two groups. There is a good

synergetic relationship. The results for the Parks Division were:

● six task force workers (out of 140)

● four arboriculture workers (out of eight)

● two elm & woodland workers

● one FTE seasonal worker

● three FTE Rangers

● five FTE Rangers in the Pentlands Regional Park

● one FTE Development officer (out of five)

● 0.2 FTE senior management (out of two)

Total 22.2 FTE

In the City Development Department, the situation is equally complex with proportions of seven officers’ time

ranging from 5–100% being allocated to greenspace. This amounted to three FTEs but the two Edinburgh

Urban Forest posts are currently under review.

When pressed, the Parks Division broke down its staff time as follows:

● maintenance operations 48%

● education & interpretation 20%

● development 16%

● management planning 16%

About 25% of the budget goes on each heading.

City Development on the other hand, broke down its staff time and budget as follows:

● establishment & maintenance 30%

● tree protection 25%

● community work 20%

● planning 20%

● biodiversity 5%

59


SWOT Analysis

60


Strengths● size of the resource not developed as housing● well distributed● areas already protected● skilled work force● coordination within the Council● strategic approach● staff interest/commitment● public interest/support

Weaknesses● limited resources – budgets & staff● pressure on the resource – damage through

erosion & vandalism● no longer a dedicated unit looking after the

woodland resource● short contracts for key staff (need external

match funding)● resources spread more thinly, long term

sustainable?

Opportunities● improve staffing levels & woodland

management (dedicated forestry team)● increased community engagement – tree

wardens● more mixed age woodland● education to improve behaviour in woods● private funding to supplement existing sources

Threats● no additional funding● loss of political support● long time scales v short term budgets● development pressure

WHAT HAPPENS IN ABERDEEN?

City Profile

Aberdeen City Council is responsible for 182km2 which includes not only the built up area but also asignificant swath of countryside around the city making up about 40% of the land area. The total woodlandresource is quite low at just 9.5% or 1760ha of which ACC owns 138ha, much of which is plantationforest. FE owns some large plantations on the outskirts of the town that are well used as recreation forestsand resources include a sculpture trail.

The main housing areas in the city are very dense with few opportunities for greening projects. However,large housing schemes form an arc around the periphery of the city and these schemes, built in the 50s,60s and 70s, include a great deal of open space with mown grass and little development pressurerepresenting a major opportunity for community woodlands and gardens.

The Don and the Dee Valleys are important open space resources for the city. The Don in the north has steepwooded sides where Danestone and Woodside Country Parks serve the north of the city and the newhousing areas north of the river. The Dee in the south of the city is set in a wider flood plain and the councilhas less control over recreation opportunities. Some small burns penetrating the city provide opportunities forlinear parks.

There are few new planting schemes in the council area – just three in recent years plus around three–fiveprivate Woodland Grant Scheme applications per year.

A number of different Council departments are involved in WIAT. The most active are the PlanningDepartment which is involved in policy, advisory and developmental work and the Arts and RecreationDepartment which undertakes practical management and has a Ranger Services covering all ACC land. Anindependent Direct Labour Organisation tenders (and has recently won) the maintenance contract althoughexternal specialist contractors are also used. Other Council Departments involved include Environment andProperty (which owns, manages and administers land), Education (which holds education land) andCommunity Development (which has community rangers for schools education activities).

The Aberdeen Countryside Project (ACP) serves the City Council area and operates on both Council andprivately owned land. ACP partners include the council, SNH, the landfill tax company, FC and thecommunity. ACP has two–three staff and is funded through the landfill tax. It is able to attract and packagefunds and contribute to the costs of Council management projects, for example thinning and restructuringcouncil woodlands.

The Greenbelt Company plays a role in taking over development land as part of Section 75 planningagreements. The cost to the council of adopting new land is considerable and therefore the role of theGreenbelt Company is likely to increase.

Strategic intent

While there is no current overarching strategy for urban trees and woodlands in Aberdeen, there is a currentproposal to produce an Urban Forestry Strategy (UFS) and this intent is included in the Local Plan. The UFSis to include all issues affecting trees. It will aim to maximise the environmental, social and economic benefits

61


and enhance the natural heritage of Aberdeen’s trees and woodlands and promote the principles ofsustainable land use. It includes the objective to double the city’s existing tree cover.

The ACC Corporate Strategy and Community Plan both include broad policies for the protection of theenvironment and the enhancement of open spaces. A landscape character assessment also includes anenvironmental programme and often refers to recommendations for tree planting. The Local Plan includes adesire to link existing recreation areas, for example nature sites, woodlands, paths and disused railways.

A Community Woodland Plan was prepared for the city in 1992. This pointed to specific areas of the cityfor planting priority and expressed general support for community woodland initiatives but contained nomechanism for implementation.

Involving the community

The following methods of involving the community were identified:

● The democratic structures such as the Community Plan and City Forum are considered to be importantconsultative mechanisms

● Aberdeen has made a strong commitment in the Community Plan to develop volunteering. A TreeWarden Scheme, which is being set up mainly through Community Councils, will help to contribute tothis aim. To date12 tree wardens have been identified out of a total of 26 Community Council areas

● Five–six “friends” groups exist for certain council owned properties. The council supports these withadvice and grants. At Denmore Park ownership has been taken on by the residents

● Oil companies are part of the Aberdeen community and many like to support countryside projects andinvolve their staff in practical projects as a part of staff development

● The LBAP process provides additional opportunities for community engagement

● Proactive involvement of the community is planned when a new project is proposed. The main methodsused include public meetings, involvement of local schools and consultation papers

Management operations

The following breakdown in resources allocated to the management operations was identified:

62


Planning Department

Total man years spent on WIAT – 1.5

Division of effort● Policy – 10%● Implementation (inc TPOs) 55%● Advice and projects (inc tree wardens) – 35%

Total budget● £5000 on small management grants

Arts and Recreation Department

Total man years spent on WIAT – 2.6

Division of effort● Health and safety – 10%● Management of mature woodland – 5%● Inspections – 50%● Drawing up recommendations – 25%● Timber sales – <1%● Volunteer work 10%

Total budget● £3000 on Health and Safety● £6000 on woodland management

(one off sum)

SWOT

The following issues were identified in a SWOT analysis:

Key issues to be taken forward

The following key issues arising from Aberdeen were identified:

● the complexity of staff and departmental responsibility for WIAT;

● lack of Council control over key land resources – for example strategic corridors and linkages;

● the value of an external ‘trust’ which can provide additional mechanisms to tap into new resources;

● the major opportunity to enhance the setting of peripheral housing areas;

● the value of a strong strategic plan for urban woodlands;

● the value of democratic and community structures to engage local people;

● the importance of providing support (eg grants) to local groups wishing to be proactive;

● the very small capital budgets available and the management focus on maintaining the existing resourcerather than creating new resources;

● the lack of WIAT opportunities in dense urban areas;

● low awareness levels about the green environment amongst the general public

63


Strengths● The council has a significant land holding● Good political commitment to environment

among members● Good policies for WIAT in Corporate and

Local Plan● Community Plan well advanced with strong

focus on environment● Staff knowledge and skill in woodland

Weaknesses● Lack of resources● Poor neighbourhood links – some areas have

no Community Council● Lack of staff time (particular pressures in

Planning)● Lack of understanding of political statements● Lack of native and semi natural woodland –

mainly sycamore, lime, beech● Low tree cover (below average) and mainly in

large blocks● Density of urban space and high land values

Opportunities● Jack McConnell speech of 18.02.02● Landscape Strategy and Urban Forestry

Strategy● Environment as part of implementation of

Community Plan● Tree Warden Scheme● Planning Gain (Section 75)● Oil money and opportunity to be carbon

neutral (oil companies may increasingly targetoperational areas)

Threats● High land value and hope value● Enforced land sales of Council – to get

revenue● People’s perceptions of trees as threatening

(especially in deprived housing areas)● Loss of political leadership● Lack of public awareness of benefits

(eg clean air)● Quality of Aberdeen environment is already

high

WHAT HAPPENS IN GLASGOW?

City profile

The Glasgow City Council area is highly urbanised with the boundary running inside, or very close to, thebuilt up area. The land outside the boundary is part of the setting of the city and the city must be seen inthe context of this adjoining land and the green corridors which penetrate the city. In the city there areapproximately 1570ha of vacant and derelict land, the greatest concentration in any Scottish Authority.Over 50% has been vacant or derelict for over a decade.

Within the city boundary is a remarkable 430ha of established woodland plus an additional 210ha ofdeveloping woodland. The overall condition of the woodland is considered to be “vibrant” although notideal in terms of species and age class (either very old or very young). The bulk of these woods are in GCCownership and need to be managed by the Council in the long term. The remainder are private or in otherpublic ownership (eg the Health Board). In addition there are many formal parks that include wild and semimanaged areas.

Two main departments of the Council are involved in the woodland resource. The Development andRegeneration Department is concerned with planning, design and the environment and landscape. LandServices is concerned with the management of parks and open spaces and the direct labour teams.

The Development and Regeneration Department is also responsible for two key project initiatives, the Kelvin-Clyde Greenspace that covers 3/4 of the area and the Carts Greenspace that covers the other 1/4 of the area.The Wise Group is also a key player, leasing land on a 10-year basis and returning this to the council asestablished woodland. Negotiations are taking place on the possible extension of these leases.

Two large strategic projects initiatives exist in the City. In the South West, the Stirling Maxwell Forest Parkwill create a network of 41 woodland areas, open spaces, country parks and nature reserves linked by28km of paths and cycle routes. It will also result in reclamation of 30ha of derelict or vacant land. In theSouth East the South Lanarkshire Access Working Group area (around Croftfoot, Castlemilk andCarmunnock) has a strong health focus. An access strategy and interpretive studies are underway and theuse of the visual arts helps raise awareness.

Strategic intent

The vision for open space and WIAT is described in a number of overlapping documents including:

● City Plan

● Landscape Strategy

● Parks and Open Space Strategy

● City Woodland Initiative

● Glasgow Local Biodiversity Action Plan

● Wildlife and Nature Conservation Policy

● GCC, Land Services 2020 Vision

The City Woodland Initiative is still at a formative stage although considerable work has been devoted todeveloping a GIS based woodland information. The Initiative is a partnership between the councildepartments and SNH, SE Glasgow, the Forestry Commission, Treewise, the Greenbelt Company and

64


Kelvin–Clyde Greenspace

Total man years devoted to WIAT – three

Division of effort● Education – 20%● Landscape enhancement eg conservation

work and tree planting – 40%● Access – 40%

Total budget● Capital – £50,000● Revenue – £85,000● Leverage of x5 gives £250,000 pa

Land Services Department

Total man years devoted to WIAT – six (includingan estimated 30% of ranger time) plus 120 DirectLabour FTEs (10% of 1200 workers)

Division of effort (the exact split was notavailable)● Ranger work● Management● Arboriculture● Conservation● Biodiversity

Total budget● This information was not available

Greenspaces for Communities. It will help to mesh together all the other strategies from the perspective ofwoodlands.

The aim of the City Woodland Initiative is to achieve the long term management and development of thetree resource consistent with the aims of sustainable development and to maximise the economic, social,environmental and health benefits. No additional funding is proposed for the initiative.

At present there is no geographic plan for the City Woodland Initiative although a set of objectives isagreed. However, physical aspirations for the city include linkages from the city to the eastwards to theClyde Valley woodlands, further development of the Kelvin Walkway and links beyond the city through thegreen network concept in the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan.

Involving the community

The City council has the following types of arrangements for community consultation:

● Staff resources for community consultation exist in Kelvin-Clyde and Carts Greenspace, in the Rangerservice and through the Parks Development Officers

● Consultants such as Scottish Participatory Initiatives (SPI) are sometimes asked to do larger consultationseg Cathkin Braes

● There are Local Environment Trusts for some of the peripheral housing areas such as Drumchapel,Castlemilk and Easterhouse. Woodlands are an integrated part of their concerns about the quality oftheir external environment

● There are 20–30 ‘bottom up’ community groups with an interest in the environment or specific sitesincluding a number of “friends groups”. Those from affluent areas eg the West End are generally mostvociferous but equally vibrant groups exist in areas like Govan and Easterhouse.

Management operations

By way of example, the following staff allocation and budgets are available to the Kelvin–Clyde Project andthe Land Services Department of the Council for WIAT work. This is clearly only a small fraction of the totalresources available:

65


SWOT

The following issues were identified in a SWOT analysis:

Key issues to be taken forward

The following Key issues arising from Glasgow City were identified:

● the complexity of managing WIAT within a City Council where it is not recognised as a separatefunction and many different people and disciplines are involved – in fact coordination betweendepartments appeared to be remarkably good;

● the value of special “vehicles” such as the Wise Group and the Greenspace Projects to generate newopportunities and activity;

● the opportunity for new WIAT projects on derelict land;● the value of creating a geographic focus in order to concentrate efforts on local priorities such as the

Stirling Maxwell Forest Park;● the potential for the City woodland Initiative to act as a catalyst for collection of information,

development of agreed goals and establishing partnership and action;● the enormous capacity for many different sections of the community to get involved;● the general lack of understanding about the value of urban woods and the potential to convert high

maintenance grassland to low maintenance woodland;● the difficulties and burdens of managing partnerships;● the lack of resources to deal with all the priorities.

66


Strengths● Joining together like-minded people who

believe in public service commitment● City Woodland Initiative● Use of IT to capture, analyse and use data● Shared information● Transparency● Best Value and CCT (the former has replaced

the latter) and good budgetary management

Weaknesses● Lack of resources● Local Government cutbacks● Misapplication of resources – too much

amenity grass management/wrong kind ofgrass management (more education/awareness needed)

● Increased responsibilities, decreased funds● Bureaucracy and communication needs of

partnerships is a burden – can be timeconsuming

● Enterprise Companies tend to have a differentagenda to communities.

Opportunities● Environmental Education 5–14● Environmental awareness● Better targeting of limited resources● Partnerships● Publicity from Rio Summit has resulted in more

interest and resources for environment● Increased awareness of flooding and pollution● New woods as part of new housing

developments● Vacant and derelict land – 1400ha in

Glasgow City

Threats● Development pressure (housing and retail)● Continuing decrease in funds● Time spent in meetings● Multiple sources of funding means multiple

form-filling● Internal bureaucracy – time lost in process● Hope value for development sterilises land –

including City Council as land owner

WHAT HAPPENS IN DUNDEE?

Overview

Dundee is well endowed with Greenspace which occupies 28% of the urban area (Dundee’s Public Open

Space Strategy, 1999). Of this total, 40% is formal parks, 17% is Country Parks and 16% is in the grounds

of schools, colleges and the university. The remaining 27% covers sports grounds, cemeteries, allotments,

road corridors and small patches in industrial and residential areas. 75% of the area is owned by the DCC

and managed by the Leisure and Parks Department.

Management is traditional for the formal areas and largely complaint led in the more informal areas such

as scrub woodland. From April 2003, a new Leisure and Arts Department has managed the parks and

Country Parks while Dundee Contract Services manages all the other areas, large and small.

According to the Open Space Strategy, ‘Dundee has many important trees and woodlands, that add to the

quality of the city, provide invaluable wildlife habitat and supply timber products. A strategy is being written

to green the City by maintaining and increasing tree cover, promoting the recreational use of woodlands

where appropriate and promoting community understanding and the stewardship of trees.’

In preparation for the Urban Woodland Strategy, Planning and Transportation commissioned a consultant to

undertake an audit of existing woodland in Dundee and to evaluate the potential for creating new woodland

on a variety of land uses across the City. The Dundee Urban Woodland Report was finalised in July 2000.

The survey identified 282ha woodland over 0.2ha on 37 sites. This equates to 4.3% woodland cover for

Dundee or 15% of the Greenspace. Most of the woods are under DCC ownership with more under other

forms of public ownership. Only 5–10% are in private ownership.

The larger woodland sites were to the north and west of the city, mainly 19th century planting except for

the Technology Park which was planted in the ‘80s and ‘90s. 77% of the woods are less than 10ha in size

(half of those less than 1ha) but the remaining 24% of larger woods account for 80% of the total area.

The age distribution of the trees is:

● 11% young

● 41% semi-mature

● 36% mature

● 11% over-mature

The report suggests that 60ha of new woodlands be established over the next 10–20 years to balance up

the age classes.

The woodland type was also recorded as follows:

● 34% conifers (mainly larch)

● 25% native broadleaves (elm, birch, cherry, ash, oak & rowan)

● 18% exotic broadleaves (sycamore, Norway maple & beech)

● 23% open ground

67


The report suggests that 98% of the woodland area is regularly managed in some way. The management

work by area is recorded in the following order – safety felling, pruning, thinning, restocking, selective

felling, access work, litter picking, felling diseased elms, weeding. The major woodland areas such as

Camperdown are managed under WGS. In addition there are about 50 TPOs in the city.

Dundee’s Green Circular is a 26 mile long shared footpath/cycleway that encircles the city and provides

access for citizens and visitors for informal recreation, as well as commuter trips. The Green Circular passes

through or alongside several woodland areas, including Camperdown Country Park, Templeton Woods,

Clatto Country Park, Trottick Ponds Local Nature Reserve, and sections of the Dighty Burn. There is an

opportunity to enhance the environment along the Circular through new woodland creation, public art and

signage/interpretation. The Council will be liasing with the Forestry Commission and key stakeholders in

formulating the Urban Woodland Strategy.

Following Local Government reorganisation in April 1996, the City Council’s administrative boundary was

changed and a large area to the north of Dundee was transferred to Angus Council. Both Councils recognise

the opportunity to improve the urban fringe around Dundee through new woodland creation. It is likely that

cross boundary woodlands on the urban fringe are most likely to benefit the people of Dundee.

The Dundee and Angus Structure Plan was published in October 2002. The Environmental Resources

Chapter of this Plan states that “Dundee and Angus Councils will promote environmental improvements

to the urban fringes of Dundee and the Angus towns, including opportunities for access to the wider

countryside and coast, which support on-going regeneration and sustainability”. The Plan also recognises

that “Urban woodland can provide an effective and reversible land use treatment for vacant and or

derelict sites... The preparation of Urban Woodland Strategies... will assist urban renewal and

regeneration...”. Dundee has a surplus housing situation and the removal of unpopular housing stock as

part of the on-going regeneration of the City will give rise to opportunities for temporary or permanent

urban woodland establishment on many sites.

Angus had its own Millennium Forest project which was carried out well away from the Dundee urban fringe

with the exception of Monifieth. The new woodlands were established in and around the seven Angus

boroughs.

Vision

The draft Vision for the Urban Woodland Strategy is to create “a strategic yet flexible network of forestry

and urban woodland sites in Dundee that enhance the city’s image, diversity and distinctiveness in a cost

efficient manner, encourage economic prosperity, contribute to the quality of life of existing communities and

provide a civic legacy for future generations”.

Since the Urban Woodland Strategy is at an early stage of formulation, a Masterplan to guide future

management and expansion of Dundee’s urban woodlands has yet to be prepared. However, strategic

woodland sites are envisaged within the urban fringe, in the City Parks and on major development sites

across Dundee. Local urban woodland projects will be promoted on areas of underused greenspace and

non-operational land owned by the Council.

68


The vision statement in Dundee’s Public Open Space Strategy is to provide ‘Public open spaces that

contribute to a high quality of life throughout the City, and which help to deliver economic prosperity, a

sustainable future and Best Value for all citizens and communities in Dundee.’ A three year Action Plan sets

out a range of measures to take forward the vision, aims and objectives of the Open Space Strategy.

Benefits

The Open Space Strategy lists 17 environmental, social and economic benefits of Public Open Spaces

several of which accord closely with the two priorities in the Scottish Forestry Strategy with which this study

is concerned. For example, enhancing local landscape character and distinctiveness, providing

opportunities for sport, recreation and play, encouraging healthy lifestyles, promoting mental well being by

providing relaxing places and an escape from the city, and generating a positive image of urban areas.

Local stewardship, recreational opportunities, healthy lifestyles and enhancing the image of the City were

all emphasised by the workshop group.

Promotion

Although much of the Greenspace in and around Dundee is well known and there is considerable promotion

of the better known areas, more could be done to promote it. A key role is played by the five countryside

rangers (+ two/three seasonal) who give guided walks, events, talks and a full range of environmental

education activities throughout Dundee. They are soon to be based at Greater Camperdown Country Park.

The Angus rangers are more site based. In previous years Tree Council events have been the basis for

woodland events – National Tree Week, seed gathering, etc. In 2002 all five events were badged with

Treefest. Two very popular Flower Shows raise the profile of the Greenspaces and the Dundee City Council

website is seen as an increasingly powerful promotional medium. There is a map for the Green Circular

Route (50p) and further leaflets are planned.

A Healthy Walks programme is planned for next year.

Community Involvement

Several community groups such as the Middleton Community Woodland Group, the Dighty Environment

Group and the Broughty Ferry Environmental Project are involved through practical actions, such as clean-

ups and site enhancement activities.

In the four Social Inclusion Project (SIP) areas, communities are involved in drawing up of Area Action Plans,

which include proposals for enhancing greenspace. In non-SIP areas, the Council’s Neighbourhood Service

Teams deliver Neighbourhood Forums (at least one a year) within which greenspace issues can be

discussed.

A new concept is the Urban Ranger. A post is likely to be created at Baxter Park as a result of a successful

Heritage Lottery Fund application. Another may come from the Ardler Housing Development. The role of

these rangers could include improving local Greenspaces. Another aspiration is that of voluntary Tree

Wardens which have been pioneered in nearby Perth and Kinross.

69


Finally, the Access Forum is seen as another opportunity to involve local people in the management ofwoodlands and open space.

Management Resources

In Planning and Transportation, greenspace benefits from the efforts of 20% of a Transport Assistant (cycling),15% of a Planning Officer and 10% of each of two SIP Planners, a total of nearly one FTE + DevelopmentControl officers.

In Leisure and Parks (soon to be reorganised), an estimated 21 staff carry out substantial work in thewoodlands and less formal Greenspaces. This includes the Council sawmill. The Council staff take pride inthe fact that forestry covers the range ‘from seed to sawdust’. There are five rangers and two or threeseasonal rangers referred to above and five groundsmen in the Country Parks. A further four people areinvolved with design, nature reserves, golf course woods & grazing areas, bringing the total to about 36.

The principle management tasks are brashing, thinning, respacing of natural regeneration, pathclearance, litter picking, burnt car removal, early felling of exotic species, strimming, cutting wildflowermeadows, giant hogweed control, planting bulbs, monitoring Dutch elm disease and felling dangeroustrees. All hung-up leaning trees are regarded as dangerous and removed. Arboriculture is generallycomplaint led.

SWOT Analysis

70


Strengths● Well established woodland network to the

north and west of Dundee● The Country Parks are a significant woodland

resource● Full time professional staff involved in

planning, managing and maintaininggreenspace in the City

● Greenspace planning and managementactivities are closely linked

● Woodland management and maintenanceactivities are largely routine and cyclical

● Open Space Strategy (1999) and three yearAction Plan have been a great help inhighlighting and tackling greenspace issueswithin Dundee

● Draft Urban Woodland Strategy will providea framework for urban woodland projects inthe City

● The Council has its own sawmill● The budget has been good (but declining in

real terms)

Weaknesses● Declining budget● Inflexible greenspace maintenance systems● Arboriculture, particularly, is complaint-led● Loss of much of the rural area within Dundee

as a result of Local Governmentreorganisation in 1996

● Many greenspaces in the City have lowdiversity – homogenous sterile landscapes

● Costs of establishing woodland on brownfieldsites can be high, depending upon the extentof site preparation required and the type ofwoodland specification deemed appropriate

● Lack of ownership

71


Opportunities● Expansion of the woodland area by 60ha in

the next 10–20 years● Temporary planting on vacant sites that are

likely to have development potential in 10 +years

● Permanent planting on underused greenspaceand non-operational land, such as vacantsites that have no future development potential

● Potential for more co-operation betweenDundee City and Angus Councils inpromoting opportunities for the urban fringe

● Preparation of Management Plans for themore formal Parks will guide future woodlandmanagement and maintenance activities

● Tree wardens, Friends groups & CommunityPlanning will help raise awareness of citytrees and woodlands

● Tayside Biodiversity Action Plan will provide a focus for improving the biodiversity ofwoodlands in and around Dundee

● Partnership working with key stakeholders,including the Forestry Commission

● SNH funding?● Scottish Forestry Grant Scheme funding from

Forestry Commission?● Landfill tax funding?● European funding?● Reorganisation of Leisure and Parks

Threats● Reducing budgets● Lack of funding for the maintenance of

woodland areas● Lack of SNH funding for urban woodland

type initiatives● Service Departments may wish to dispose of

incidental greenspace to reduce expenditureon maintenance

woods in and around towns commissioned report 11€¦ · background the scottish forestry strategy...

Documents