Local government and urban forest governance: insights from Scotland

Figures & data

Figure 1. Overview of relevant policies and instruments to urban forest governance in Scotland at national level and their translation into policies and instruments at the urban level.

Table 1. Change in local authority (LA) trees and woodland budgets over the past five years (controlled for inflation).

Direction of change	Number of LAs (% of LAs responding)	Mean % change
Decrease	4 (27%)	−21%
Static	9 (60%)
Increase	2 (13%)	+27%
Total	15 (100%)	−5%

Table 2. Budget per head of local authority (LA) population for management of public trees and woodlands.

Budget p/head (£)	No. of LAs (% of LAs responding)
≤ 0.50	4 (27%)
>0.50–1.00	4 (27%)
>1.00–1.50	3 (20%)
>1.50–2.00	2 (13%)
>2.00–2.50	0
>2.50–3.00	2 (13%)
Total	15 (100%)

Figure 2. Number of total officer full time equivalents (FTEs) allocated to the management of (urban) forest for each local authority (LA).

Figure 3. Percentage of total tree budget spent on contractors (incl. consultants) by different local authorities (LAs).

Figure 4. Percentage of maintenance work on the (urban) forest, in terms of required time, that was scheduled (as opposed to “on demand”) for each local authority (LA) at the time of surveying.

Table 3. Number of local authorities (LAs) that had carried out tree surveying of different categories of trees and woodlands, split by type of survey, in the past five years (% of LAs responding).

	Street trees	Woodland	Public open spaces	TPOs	Education premises
Full survey	4 (20%)	3 (15%)	3 (15%)	2 (11%)	5 (28%)
Partial survey	10 (50%)	10 (50%)	14 (70%)	6 (32%)	4 (22%)
Sample survey	2 (10%)	2 (10%)	0	1 (5%)	0
No survey	4 (20%)	5 (25%)	3 (15%)	10 (53%)	9 (50%)
Total	20 (100%)	20 (100%)	20 (100%)	19 (100%)	18 (100%)

Note: TPO = Tree Preservation Order.

Table 4. The key findings described with the urban forest governance framework.

(Sub)component	Summary
Type	Programme
Description	Local authority UF management programme
Spatial scale	Local authorities
CONTEXT
Environmental resource	Urban and peri-urban trees and woodlands; the exact size of the resource was unknown in most cases
Catchment population	Local authority population; varying from 21,700 to 606,000.
INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
Policies	The Scottish Forestry Strategy (2006) and associated policy tools. Most notably the Woods In and Around Towns programme earmarking funding and support for UFs and the “The Right Tree in the Right Place” policy guidance encouraging the providing advice on preparing trees and woodland strategies at local authority level.
Planning and regulations	The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006 informing preparation of Local Development Plan. This takes into account principles relevant to forestry of the National Planning Framework 2,. The National Planning Framework 2 also introduces the Central Scotland Green Network programme promoting and funding UFs in the Central Belt. Other relevant planning policy and regulation includes Scottish Planning Policy providing principles on woodland creation and conservation and informing preparation of Open Space Strategy with key role in setting UF budgets. There are also statutory requirements, most notably a Duty of Care and a Duty to make Tree Preservation Orders.
Ownership	A significant portion of the UF is owned and managed by LAs, but exact figures were lacking in most cases. Other prominent landowners include environmental NGOs and private parties.
Access and use rights	Scotland has a public right of way as guaranteed by the Land Reform (Scotland) Act
ACTORS AND COALITIONS
Primary stakeholders	Scottish Government; the Environmental Services (or Land/Neighbourhood Services) and (Development &) Planning LA departments
Other stakeholders	Other tree-owning LA departments (e.g. Housing, Roads); government agencies, professional bodies and NGOs influencing policy and providing guidance; community groups and contractors are involved in plan development or implementation
Partnerships	Some LAs have set up city-specific networks involving external organisations and urban foresters can regularly meet in the Scottish tree officer group
Power analysis	Externally, national government, government agencies, professional bodies and environmental NGO are powerful with decisions influenced to various extents by LAs. Internally, senior management and councillors make most decisions with scope for lobbying by individual staff members taking initiative.
RESOURCES
Funding	With a mean budget of £231,962, expenditure on tree management per head of population is £1.18. There is high variability between LAs in budget per head of population. Budgets had declined in a quarter of all LAs over the past five years with a few positive exceptions. Capital is mainly provided through core funding, government and other types of grants, staff outsourcing and community fundraising.
Knowledge and information	Nearly half of key LA urban forestry staff have a qualification with QCF-level 5 or higher; there is limited scope for learning and development. Very few LAs have a complete picture of the (condition of their) tree stock. Survey information is generally not publicly accessible without contacting a member of staff. There is a trend for assessing the socioeconomic value of the UF
Delivery mechanisms	Legislation, policy guidance and funding schemes. Citizen participation plays an increasingly important role.
PROCESSES
Discourses	Urban trees are perceived as dangerous and declining in quality due to disinvestment. However, people are also motivated to engage in UF activities to enjoy and support their benefits.
Participation	The majority of LAs involve citizens in at least some aspects of UF creation, maintenance and decision-making. Consulting citizens on plans and citizen involvement in care and maintenance were most frequently reported.
Monitoring and evaluation	Management plans and UF strategies are typically evaluated and updated every 5–10 years. Tree inspection regimes vary between LAs but very few regularly inspect all trees. Half of all LAs indicated to use a computerised tree management system for monitoring and evaluation.

Table A1. Overview of local authorities (LAs) providing different types of data (1 = yes, 0 = no) (% of all 32 Scottish LAs).

LA	Interview data (town)	Questionnaire data	Interview or questionnaire data
Aberdeen City	0	1	1
Aberdeenshire	0	1	1
Angus	0	1	1
Argyll & Bute^a	0	1	1
Clackmannanshire	0	1	1
Dumfries & Galloway	0	0	0
Dundee City	1 (Dundee)	0	1
East Ayrshire	0	1	1
East Dunbartonshire	0	1	1
East Lothian	0	0	0
East Renfrewshire	0	1	1
Edinburgh, City of	0	1	1
Eilean Siar^a	0	1	1
Falkirk^a,b	0	1	1
Fife	1 (Glenrothes)	1	1
Glasgow City	1 (Glasgow)	1	1
Highland	0	1	1
Inverclyde	0	0	0
Midlothian	0	0	0
Moray	0	1	1
North Ayrshire^a	0	1	1
North Lanarkshire	1 (Cumbernauld)	0	1
Orkney Islands	0	1	1
Perth & Kinross	1 [multiple towns]	1	1
Renfrewshire	0	0	0
Scottish Borders^a	1 [multiple towns]	1	1
Shetland Islands	0	0	0
South Ayrshire	1 (Ayr)	0	1
South Lanarkshire^a	0	1	1
Stirling	1 (Stirling)	1	1
West Dunbartonshire^a	0	1	1
West Lothian	1 (Livingston)	0	1
Total	9 (28%)	22 (69%)	26 (81%)

Note: N.B.: ^a= Only partial questionnaire data available; ^b= Questionnaire data derived from completed pilot questionnaire.