Research completed in September 2024

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7488/era/4915

This work was carried out in accordance with the requirements of the international quality standard for Market Research, ISO 20252.

Executive summary

This report sets out key findings from an exercise that mapped public engagement activities on the heat transition in Scotland.

The aim of the research was to help inform the delivery of the Heat in Buildings Public Engagement Strategy by addressing questions related to who delivers engagement activities and to whom, the type of activities and messages, and gaps in engagement.

We conducted a web search, interviews with experts from organisations involved in the heat transition and an online survey of organisations delivering public engagement activity.

Findings

Overview of ongoing activities:

• A wide range of organisations across the public, private and charitable sectors have been delivering public engagement activities on the heat transition in Scotland.
• The types of public engagement have also been varied, with the most common being advice services, workshops and information sharing online.

Target audience, messaging and accessibility as discussed by experts and organisations:

• Engagement activities were mostly open to the general public. There were also some specific target groups identified, including residents within a specific geographic area, homeowners, people in fuel poverty, low-income households and energy sector professionals.
• Despite attempts to engage a broad range of audiences, those actually engaged in the activities were typically more climate aware than the general public overall.
• Messaging that was focused on home energy efficiency and reducing energy bills, rather than the adoption of clean heating systems, resonated better with wider audiences in the context of the cost of living.
• Engagement on “simple fixes” (e.g. turning boiler temperature down) was therefore more widespread than messaging around bigger steps (e.g. installing a heat pump).
• Activities delivered through trusted messengers and existing local channels were accessible forms of engagement.
• Tailoring messages to the specific target audience was an effective approach to accessible engagement as it helped to improve understanding.

Gaps in public engagement identified by experts and organisations:

• Audiences under-engaged on the heat transition included private landlords, renters, professionals in the energy sector, young people and the digitally excluded.
• Lack of regulatory clarity on clean heat and energy efficiency was a key reason for the engagement gap among landlords and the energy sector.
• The upfront costs of transitioning were a barrier to widening reach among the general public, especially in the context of the cost of living crisis.
• Key messaging gaps in public engagement included:
  • A lack of public understanding of heating systems.
  • Insufficient practical and transparent advice on installing and operating clean heating systems.
    • Interviewees thought that certain aspects of the transition, such as what clean heating systems are and how to install them, were not successfully communicated to the wider public due to their perceived complexity.
    • They felt that communication about the efficacy of clean heating systems, based on real use cases, was lacking.
• There was a shortage of trusted messengers providing reliable, impartial advice, as well as a lack of tradespeople able to provide technical support on the practical aspects of the transition.

Conclusions

To ensure that public engagement on the heat transition builds on what has been done before and is effective in prompting action, consider:

• Prioritising the private rented sector, professionals in the energy sector and those who are digitally excluded:
• Firstly, engage with the energy and private rented sectors to drive engagement and action forward, for example by sharing information and practical advice among the wider public.
• Secondly, engage with the general public, emphasising the experiences of early adopters to build trust in the efficacy of clean heating systems.
• Tailoring messages to the audience:
• For industry professionals, provide clarity on the changes required and reassurance on the support available.
• For the general public, make it easier for those who are more highly motivated by the climate crisis to take action, so that there are more operational examples to encourage those who may be more hesitant to take action.
• Highlight the financial benefits and availability of grants and loans.
• Building trust:
• Improve the baseline public understanding of clean heating systems.
• Communicate transparently around the needs, benefits and risks of transitioning to a clean heating system.
• Use trusted messengers who are already embedded in local communities.
• Providing regulatory clarity, as organisations feel they cannot deliver effective public engagement activities without knowing if and when clean heat and energy efficiency regulations will come into force, and what specific changes will be required.

Introduction

This report presents the findings from research conducted by Ipsos on behalf of ClimateXChange and the Scottish Government, mapping public engagement on the heat transition in Scotland.

Background

Scotland’s climate change legislation sets a target date for net zero emissions of all greenhouse gases by 2045. The Scottish Government reports that domestic buildings account for around 12% of Scotland’s greenhouse gas emissions, and non-domestic buildings contribute another 7%. Urgently reducing emissions from Scotland’s buildings is therefore a crucial part of achieving net zero, and will require the majority of households in Scotland to change their heating systems. Plans for this are set out in the Scottish Government’s Heat in Buildings Strategy (HiBS). The process of transitioning heating from using fossil fuels to using clean heating systems, is often referred to as the ‘heat transition’.

To ensure success in decarbonising Scotland’s home heating, public engagement is key. Existing research by Consumer Scotland highlights a general lack of awareness among the Scottish public about the heat transition, clean heating systems, and low-carbon technology. Building on this, research conducted for ClimateXChange included recommendations about the ways in which messages around the heat transition should be communicated to the public, including making a positive case for change in a highly visible way, harnessing the influence of existing trusted messengers to deliver information consistently, and giving plenty notice in advance of any legislation being announce. The Existing Homes Alliance Scotland published a report in July 2023 which highlighted the need for clear and tailored messaging, backed up with accessible resources, to encourage action at the scale and pace required to reach net zero.

In this context, the Scottish Government published its Heat Transition Public Engagement Strategic Framework in December 2023 to guide its engagement work around clean heat and energy efficiency. The Framework aims to ensure the Scottish public are aware of and understand the changes required in the heat transition, know how to access support, can actively participate in shaping policy, legislation and delivery schemes, and importantly can take action in decarbonising their homes.

Research aims

ClimateXChange and the Scottish Government commissioned Ipsos Scotland to map existing public engagement on the heat transition in Scotland to help inform the delivery of the Heat in Buildings Public Engagement Strategy.

This public engagement mapping aimed to address the following research questions:

Who is delivering engagement activities?

What types of activities are being delivered?

Which audiences are being targeted?

What types of messages are being communicated?

How accessible are messages and activities?

Where are the gaps in engagement?

Method

The research involved three strands:

A web search to identify public engagement activities.

Interviews with 10 experts representing a range of organisations involved in the heat transition.

An online survey of organisations delivering public engagement activity.

A brief overview of each strand is provided below, and a more detailed methodology can be found in Appendix A.

Web search

First, a web search was conducted using defined search parameters and search strings (see Appendix B) in May 2024. The web search included a traditional search using Google and Google Scholar, and Ipsos’s proprietary social media listening tool, Synthesio.^[1]

Over 2,500 references to public engagement across social media channels were reviewed and, from those initial results, 62 instances of engagement matched the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The results from the web search also informed the sample development for the expert interviews and online survey, and the design of the interview topic guide and questionnaire.

Expert interviews

Interviews were conducted with 10 organisations involved in the Scottish heat transition from 30 May to 7 Aug 2024 (identified via web search and recommendations from the Scottish Government and ClimateXChange). The profile of expert organisations included a mix of charities/advice services, climate hubs, private companies, non-government organisations and industry bodies.

This strand of the research explored the different types of public engagement activities currently being delivered in Scotland in more detail. A topic guide was developed by the Ipsos research team and reviewed by ClimateXChange and the Scottish Government (see Appendix C). Interviews also helped to identify potential organisations for inclusion in the online survey sample.

Online survey

The third strand of the research involved a five-minute online survey with organisations delivering public engagement activities in Scotland to explore the purpose and nature of these activities. The questions were designed by Ipsos and reviewed by ClimateXChange and the Scottish Government (see Appendix D).

An initial sample of 78 contacts was generated by Ipsos through the web search and interviews, and the survey link was also shared by ClimateXChange and the Scottish Government, through various email networks and communications channels, to broaden participation.

The survey was live for five weeks, from 19 June to 24 July 2024, and 34 completed responses were received. Of these, 25 organisations reported that they had delivered some form of public engagement in the last three years.

Analysis

The data generated from the web search, interviews and online survey was used to map the range of activities (including details such as the type of activity, who delivered it, when it happened, who it was aimed at, and the topics covered). More reflective themes relating to impact, challenges and possible gaps in engagement were drawn from online survey results and the interviews.

Scope and limitations

The web search identified a wide range of public engagement activities across Scotland over a number of years. However, this search was not exhaustive, as it was limited to what was available online, and provided varying levels of detail depending on what was published. Data collected from interviews with experts provided more in-depth and reflective insights from a range of perspectives, but on a much smaller range of activities than that of the web search. Meanwhile the online survey provided insights on activities across a wider range of activities, but not in as great a depth, as those gathered from the interviews.

Using multiple data sources has enabled a more comprehensive understanding of public engagement activity in Scotland than any one source would be able to provide. However, it is important to acknowledge that the research parameters may have overlooked some forms of public engagement (particularly those at a small community level or those not promoted online). Furthermore, not all perspectives on the heat transition (such as those of the intended target audiences) have been captured.

The online survey was an open link and responses were gathered anonymously. This means that the data may contain multiple responses from the same organisation and duplication of responses between the survey and web searches. Interviews were also conducted confidentially, and so their views have been reported anonymously. Any examples or organisations mentioned in the report are taken from publicly available information and it should not be assumed that they correlate with organisations taking part in either the depth interviews or online survey. Where more detailed case studies are provided (e.g. in relation to Impacts), these have been shared with the permission of the main delivery organisation responsible.

Lastly, online survey results are based on a small sample and so should be read and interpreted with this in mind. Where percentage figures don’t sum to 100, this is due to computer rounding. Where counts do not sum to the base, this is due to questions allowing multiple responses.

Public engagement on the heat transition

This chapter provides an overview of the types of public engagement that have taken place in Scotland between October 2021 and May 2024 and the organisations delivering them. It addresses the following research questions:

• Who is delivering current heat transition-related engagement activities and messaging in Scotland?
• What types of activities are being delivered?

This chapter also explores awareness of the Scottish Government’s Heat in Buildings Strategy among the organisations delivering public engagement.

Key findings

• A wide range of organisations from across the public, private and charitable sectors, have been delivering public engagement activities on the heat transition in Scotland.
• The types of public engagement have also been varied, with the most common being advice services, workshops and information sharing online.
• Awareness of the HiBS is high among those delivering public engagement.

Who is delivering current heat transition-related engagement activities and messaging in Scotland?

The web search, survey and expert interviews identified a range of organisations delivering public engagement activities in relation to the heat transition since October 2021, including:

• Charities, such as One Parent Families Scotland, Age Scotland, Under One Roof, and Community Energy Scotland.
• Non-profit organisations and social enterprises, such as Nesta, Scarf and Energy Action Scotland.
• Community groups, such as climate hubs and local interest groups.
• Private sector organisations, such as UK energy companies.
• Advice and support bodies, such as Energy Savings Trust (who administer the Scottish Government’s Home Energy Scotland service).
• Collectives, consortiums, networks or member groups that include organisations representing a range of sectors (e.g. Built Environment-Smarter Transformation and the Poverty Alliance).
• Local authorities.
• Education and research institutes, such as the University of Strathclyde and the Energy Training Academy.

The Synthesio (social media listening) search provided an indication of the extent of activity and messaging from particular organisations, based on volume of online mentions (see Figure 1). This does not necessarily mean that these organisations have delivered more engagement, but rather reflects higher levels of posts on the heat transition by organisations directly or by other actors citing them.

Figure 1. Organisations delivering public engagement by volume of online mentions

What types of activities are being delivered?

The types of activities being delivered were broad, and included advice services, workshops and various types of information and knowledge sharing. The online survey data and Synthesio search provided a snapshot of this range (see Figure 2), which was also reflected in the interviews.

Figure 2. Types of public engagement activities

Among the most common types of public engagement activity were advice and support services, which have been delivered by a range of organisations (including non-profits, non-government bodies, charities and community groups). This was a broad category encompassing free impartial advice on energy saving measures and keeping homes warm, through to practical advice on installing renewable technologies and verifying providers of retrofitting work. A range of advice and support services were accessible online, in-person and via telephone.

Advice and support services example

Energy Saving Trust is an independent organisation supporting households and businesses towards decarbonisation, and is one of the Scottish Government’s main partners in addressing the climate emergency.

Their Green Homes Network connects those interested in low carbon heating with householders who have installed clean heating systems through a database. Households give permission to post case studies so others can find out about their journeys and contact them for further advice. Households may also be invited to speak at webinars or to the press about their conversion to a new heating system.

Workshops were delivered by a range of actors (including local authorities, charities, non-government organisations, social enterprises and community groups). Some were one-off events while others were run as a series of workshops. The aims of the workshops included: to generally increase knowledge and understanding around the Scottish Government’s heat policy, to help community groups and individuals reduce costs, and to inform individuals on the availability of grant funding for heat transition projects and energy efficiency improvements.

Workshop example

Transition Black Isle is a community group that aims to help Black Isle communities respond to the climate emergency and to encourage non-car travel, local food production and energy saving measures. The group organised a series of workshops in March 2022 on low carbon home heating which involved expert speakers and group discussions:

• Session 1 explored ways to make houses warmer and cheaper to heat without compromising air quality or risking damage to building fabric.
• Session 2 identified various low carbon methods of home heating and circumstances which suit each approach.
• Session 3 covered managing these changes, including financial support, choosing contractors and incorporated advice from those who had already been through the process.

Lectures and talks were delivered by organisations of all types. Some events were open to the public, either as stand-alone events or pop-ups as part of other events or festivals, and provided opportunities to learn about opportunities and risks in making properties more energy efficient. Others engaged industry professionals specifically and provided information on the Scottish Government’s energy policy, availability of funding, best practice for retrofitting schemes and challenges in heat pump deployment. There was also evidence of employee engagement, with organisations being invited to give talks to advise employees on ways to save energy at home.

Training and knowledge sharing were typically targeted at industry and policy makers. These took the form of panel discussions and events, as well as online networks/hubs to facilitate knowledge exchange and practical training modules on aspects of the heat transition.

Training and knowledge sharing example

HeatSource is a programme funded by Scottish Enterprise that aims to better equip companies involved in manufacturing, installation, training and the wider supply chain to deliver clean heating systems.

The programme seeks to support the decarbonisation of Scotland’s built environment through the creation of an online information hub to help industry maximise the opportunities around new zero carbon heating.

Various organisations have provided information online and delivered public information campaigns aimed at the general public, including:

• • Get a Heat Pump – a website that provides information on what a heat pump is, how to get one installed and the associated costs (Nesta).
  • Heat pump heroes – an annual awareness-raising campaign to promote conversion to heat pumps (Home Energy Scotland).
  • Money-saving boiler challenge – a public-facing campaign which aimed to raise awareness about how to use energy more efficiently and save on bills (set in the context of the cost of living crisis) (Nesta).

Other public engagement activities included:

• Showcases, including live demonstrations and trial installations of heat pumps in different types of homes to gather user feedback.
• Consultations, typically delivered by community groups to gather responses to the Heat in Buildings (HiBs) proposal and the Scottish Local Heat and Energy Efficiency Strategies (LHEES).
• Advocacy work, such as speaking up for consumers who have had issues with clean heating systems (e.g. increased energy costs) and opinion pieces published in media outlets to raise awareness and tackle myths around the heat transition.

Awareness of Heat in Buildings Strategy

Among organisations that have delivered public engagement activity and responded to the online survey, the majority (88%) reported knowledge of the HiBS, of which just under two-thirds (64%) said they knew a fair amount or great deal about it. Just over one in ten (12%) had either heard of the strategy but knew nothing about it, or had never heard of it (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Awareness of the HiB strategy among survey participants

Experts interviewed for the research also reported that their organisations had high levels of awareness and understanding of the HiBS. This was based on their existing relationships with the relevant policy teams in Scottish Government, involvement in the initial consultation process, and/or providing responses to it. Other ways in which experts mentioned becoming familiar with the strategy included through the introduction of new build heat standards and working with local authorities.

Target audiences and messaging

This chapter provides an overview of the types of public engagement that have taken place between October 2021 and May 2024 and the organisations delivering them. It addresses the following research questions:

• Who is the target audience of these activities?
• What types of messages are being communicated?
• How accessible are the activities being delivered?

Key findings

• Activities were mostly open to the general public, however, there were some target groups identified (e.g. residents within a specific geographic area, homeowners, people in fuel poverty, low-income households and energy sector professionals).
• Messaging focused on home energy efficiency and reducing energy bills, rather than the adoption of clean heating systems, was felt to resonate more with wider audiences.
• Engagement on “simple fixes” (e.g. turning boiler temperature down) was therefore more widespread than practical messaging around bigger steps (e.g. installing a heat pump).
• Activities delivered through trusted messengers and existing local channels were felt to be more accessible forms of engagement. Tailoring messages to the specific target audience was also a key consideration.
• However, there was a clear distinction between intended target audiences and those actually being engaged, who typically were those who were already more climate aware in any case.

Who is the target audience of these activities and messaging?

Public engagement activities were mostly targeted at a broad, general public audience. Evidence gathered from the Synthesio search, interviews and survey showed that activities were often advertised as open to all, rather than targeting a specific demographic. This was driven by the understanding that there are high levels of concern about climate change among the general public (an assertion supported by public opinion research), and that the environmental impact of energy use affects everyone, which requires a wide reaching approach to engagement.

However, the research highlighted a clear distinction between audiences being targeted and audiences actually being engaged.

Intended target audiences

While most engagement activities were targeted at the general public, the research also found evidence of some activities targeted at specific groups, including local residents of a specific geographic area, people in fuel poverty and low-income households, homeowners, and energy sector professionals (see Figure 4).

However, it should be noted that delivery organisations responding to the online survey often mentioned targeting multiple different groups rather than one group in particular.

Figure 4. Target audiences (number of mentions by organisations delivering public engagement activities)

Public engagement at regional or local levels was found to be happening across Scotland, with most events concentrated in Edinburgh and Glasgow and a smaller number of activities being delivered in East Lothian, Falkirk, Perth and Kinross, Dundee, West of Scotland, Fife, Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, and Highlands. There was some evidence of public engagement activities happening on the islands, highlighted by experts, however this was more limited (which could reflect the fact that engagement was more localised and less promoted online).

People in fuel poverty and low-income households were frequently identified as a key target group for engagement activities. However, evidence from the Synthesio search and from the interviews indicated that the primary focus of those activities was encouraging simple energy efficiency changes that would lead to lower energy bills rather than promoting a transition to clean heating systems.

There was also some evidence of engagement targeting energy sector professionals (e.g. through conferences, knowledge-sharing and training). However, there was a broad view among experts that this group had not been sufficiently engaged (see Gaps).

Audiences actually being engaged

While activities were advertised as open to all (with some targeting), experts observed that they tended to draw interest from those who were typically more climate aware, highly engaged on the topic of sustainable home energy solutions, and more involved in their community anyway. This is consistent with earlier research conducted for ClimateXChange which found that early adopters tend to have higher than average knowledge of, and interest in, climate change as well as time and willingness to research energy alternatives.

In line with this research, the demographic profile of those who experts perceived to be more engaged was described as homeowners over the age of 40 with disposable income. It was also suggested that men were more likely to be interested in installing low-carbon heating technology than women. Experts cited lower attendance rates among other groups as a particular challenge to widening reach (see challenges).

What types of messages are being communicated?

Messaging around the heat transition mainly focused on energy efficiency rather than the adoption of clean heating systems, according to both the survey (see Figure 5) and Synthesio findings.

The focus on energy efficiency measures was seen to be driven by the cost of living crisis and rising energy prices. Experts highlighted energy efficiencies and reducing energy bills as messaging that had resonated most with the public and led to greater engagement. Some examples of this type of messaging included:

• “Warmer Homes, Cheaper Bills, Greener Lives” (an event organised by Sustaining Musselburgh and advertised on Eventbrite).
• “How to save cash with a single change to your boiler settings” (from Nesta’s Money-saving boiler challenge).
• “To help you lower your energy bills and have more energy efficient homes, whilst also reducing your carbon footprint” (from Thurso Community Development Trust’s home energy advice webpage).

Organisations that had delivered engagement activities with more of a focus on retrofit and the installation of heat pumps reported using the benefit of cheaper bills as a “pitch” to increase engagement among the wider public. This type of messaging was considered to resonate more with the public than messaging around heating systems.

There was also a perception among experts that the public have a limited understanding of their current heating systems. Experts felt that this, coupled with existing financial pressures, was contributing to a lack of curiosity about installing greener alternative systems. As highlighted in the examples above, some delivery organisations have focused on smaller, easier steps to address this and encourage engagement.

Organisations reported that they had found messaging focused on easy steps and “simple fixes”, such as turning down the flow temperature of a boiler, to be more effective than discussions around new heating systems. This reflects other recent research findings on heat transition communication, which suggested that messaging should be breaking down behaviour into small steps. Experts also felt that ensuring a basic understanding of how existing heating solutions affect bills would be an essential first step to engaging households about further decarbonisation measures beyond energy efficiency.

The web search and online survey found more limited evidence of practical messaging around bigger steps such as how to install and operate clean heating systems like a heat pump. Experts felt that this type of messaging was primarily engaging people who were already motivated to change their heating system.

How accessible are messages and activities being delivered?

Delivering engagement through trusted messengers was highlighted by experts as one of the more effective approaches in terms of accessibility. For example, engaging the public through existing community networks was a way in which some organisations had engaged hard-to-reach demographics, such as older people, people in poverty and vulnerable groups.

“That type of engagement [with vulnerable demographics] has to come from local trusted messengers – it’s about building that relationship. It’s not going to come from anywhere else for the most vulnerable. I think that is where there’s a role for community organisations to play.”

Climate Hub (interview)

Experts also highlighted local community events that are already well-attended by local residents as an effective way of promoting transition messaging to the broader public and extending the reach of engagement beyond the climate aware audiences. For example, one organisation had delivered entertainment for children at family-friendly local events to engage parents.

Synthesio search findings suggest that most activities had been held either online or in hybrid form and experts felt that this had promoted greater accessibility across Scotland. Social media was also used as a method of advertising and delivering engagement, particularly to reach younger demographics more effectively. Nevertheless, while the value of online activity for promoting wider reach was acknowledged, face-to-face engagement was still widely considered by experts to be the most effective.

Among the activities delivered, there was also evidence of public awareness campaigns utilising TV and printed media to reach a broad audience, including Nesta’s “Money Saving Boiler Challenge”, Citizens Advice Scotland’s “Big Energy Saving Winter” and Smart Energy GB’s “Smart Energy Heroes”. According to experts, wider public campaigns (in combination with simple and accessible messaging) have been most accessible for members of the public not already aware of, or engaged on, energy and climate issues.

Delivery organisations also reported the use of simple and clear messages to improve the accessibility of their public engagement activities. Experts felt that emphasising the energy efficient changes that individuals could easily adopt in their homes and outlining the financial benefits of making them was most effective in improving understanding of the impact of heating systems on the climate. In particular, the importance of clearly presenting the financial case for change was highlighted, recognising the challenges people face currently with their energy bills.

“The challenge is making sure the information is really simple and easy to access and reflects the fact that people are in crisis at the time – just transition terminology, for example, doesn’t work.”

Charity (interview)

Using informal (“chatty”) language in communication with the wider public on energy advice was felt to have promoted both accessibility and trust. The importance of positive, hopeful and uplifting rhetoric was highlighted, such as an emphasis on the short-term benefits (e.g. immediate decrease in energy bills). This was seen as particularly effective for effectively reaching low-income households and those in fuel poverty.

“The scale of the transition is immense and the potential opposition to some of what’s needed is also significant, so there’s a need to make sure that there are as many positive and supportive voices as possible to counter the noisy negativity.” Charitable organisation (interview)

Experts also emphasised the importance of tailoring messages to the specific target audience as a way to improve accessibility and understanding of information. For example, one expert described how their organisation changed the focus and language of any transition-focused activity depending on who they were aiming to reach. When speaking to tenants, they would highlight the links between climate change and heating and assert the case for the need for transition, while when addressing flat owners, they would discuss the specific challenges this group faces and focus on heat networks rather than heat pumps as a solution.

Some experts reported offering advice and information services in different languages and providing materials accessible to people with different reading abilities. However, among those delivering engagement, evidence of organisations making these accessibility considerations was limited.

Despite these considerations for delivering accessible engagement, our interviews identified accessibility as a challenge. This related primarily to the complexity of the topic and the highly technical language of certain aspects of the heat transition which was widely considered to be inaccessible and, therefore, limiting the reach of engagement beyond those who are already engaged on climate issues. Some examples that were recognised as particularly difficult for the wider public to understand included EPC ratings and the practicalities of choosing and installing clean heating systems. This is discussed in more detail in the following chapter.

Reflections on the effectiveness of public engagement

This chapter reflects on the perceived impact of public engagement activity and the challenges that delivery organisations have experienced, before summarising any future public engagement being considered or planned by delivery organisations who participated in this research.

Key findings

Impacts

• Simple messaging that focuses on easy energy efficiency actions and outlines financial benefits were felt to be the most effective forms of public engagement, building trust through the use of trusted messengers.
• Building trust with the audience was identified as one of the most important aspects of delivering successful engagement. Community-level engagement was seen as an effective way to foster that trust and reach hard-to-reach groups.

Challenges

• Lack of regulatory clarity on clean heat and energy efficiency was identified as the main barrier to delivering effective engagement.
• Misconceptions and lack of public awareness around sustainable heating solutions was also seen as a challenge.
• The cost of living crisis was recognised as a barrier to widening the reach of engagement. In this context, the general public was seen as unwilling to accept the upfront cost of transitioning.
• Certain aspects of the transition, such as installation of clean heating systems, were not seen to have been successfully communicated to the wider public due to topic complexity and specialised language that is not widely understood.

Impacts

Those delivering public engagement largely felt that their activities had had a positive impact on people’s understanding of issues relating to the heat transition in Scotland (see Figure 5). Among those taking part in the online survey, 89% reported that their audience’s understanding of the topic had improved as a result of engagement. There was less certainty over the extent to which public engagement had led to action, with fewer than half of organisations (44%) reporting that those activities had led to action and 26% reporting that individuals had decided to switch to a clean heating system as a result of the engagement.

Figure 5. Perceptions of impact

Both the interviews and the Synthesio search also identified a number of impactful initiatives centred around simple energy efficiency actions that organisations felt had been effective at reaching the broader public and prompting people to action small changes, often framed around saving money as well as reducing carbon emissions (see Figure 6).

“The stuff that lands better with people, unsurprisingly, is – there’s a pretty quick fix that you can organise yourself and it saves you money.” Charity (interview)

Community-driven engagement was also highlighted by sector experts as a success factor in terms of reaching certain demographic groups, such as older people, families in in-work and fuel poverty and vulnerable groups (see figure 6). This was felt to be important because of the perception that community organisations enjoy high levels of trust from members of the community. Building trust was identified as one of the most important aspects of delivering effective engagement.

Figure 6. Evidence of impact

Money Saving Boiler Challenge Campaign

The campaign was delivered by Nesta, in partnership with energy providers and other organisations in the energy industry, which focused on providing basic and simple energy efficiency advice. The activity aimed to reach the general public and convince people to turn down flow temperature on their boiler, thus reducing carbon emissions and energy costs.

The campaign also aimed to promote better understanding of existing heating systems and their environmental impact among the general public. This activity was part of a wider campaign on decarbonisation.

Following the campaign, close to 240,000 households turned their boiler flow temperature down, resulting in savings of £112 per year for an average household and a reduction of carbon emissions by 37,000 tonnes.^[2]

Success factors:

• Simple and straightforward messaging that resonated with people in the context of the cost of living crisis.
• Promoted small and easy changes.
• Partnership with trusted voices – public-facing organisations offering energy advice and energy providers.
• Clearly communicated individual financial benefits of making the changes.
• A wide public campaign that was advertised on TV and mainstream media.

Home Energy Advice Portal

The web portal was developed by Thurso Community Development Trust together with the Highlands and Islands Climate Hub.^[3] The website aims to improve pathways to support and uptake of grants by providing energy advice and a comprehensive overview of the energy support services available to residents in Scotland. The portal is accessible to all but is aimed primarily at local community organisations. It provides training to staff and volunteers in offering energy advice, recognise struggling households most in need of energy support, how to approach them and signpost residents to local energy service providers and financial support.

As of May 2024, 435 community groups in the region had been trained on the portal, which has led to improved knowledge and confidence among staff on the topic of energy. The portal has been actively used, with an average of 3,000 hits per month and approximately 5,000 people supported through it to date. It has also reached some hard-to-reach and vulnerable groups, including older people and low-income families.

Success factors:

• Clear and accessible messaging.
• Community-based engagement.
• Use of trusted voices in the community.

Challenges

The research identified a range of challenges in delivering engagement that were perceived to have negatively impacted attendance rates and limited overall effectiveness.

A perceived lack of clarity around clean heat and energy efficiency regulations was one of the key challenges identified in the interviews. There was a shared sense that public engagement activities would be limited in their effectiveness until the legislative requirements are known. Experts felt there had been frequent changes in proposed legislation in the past and that there is currently a lack of clarity around the requirements for properties, which has created confusion among some groups and limited the reach and effectiveness of some engagement activities. Landlords in particular were identified as a group at risk of disengaging on the topic until there is clarity on what they will be required to do. The perceived frequency of changes in proposals was felt to have made it difficult for organisations to deliver effective public engagement because they feel they are unable to provide straightforward advice.

“Until there’s clarity on what the requirements are going to be, it’s difficult to go out there with firm messaging. You always have to caveat your messaging with “it’s just a proposal and it might change.”

Private company (interview)

It was also suggested in the interviews that the concern over further changes in requirements has caused hesitation among organisations to engage with the public until the legislation is finalised.

“[When] things can still change, that’s a disincentive to people actually doing works in their properties. Because they don’t know if the money they’re going to spend and the improvements they’re going to make are going to be beneficial when it comes to complying with possible future standards because we still don’t know what those possible future standards are going to be.” Private company (interview)

Representatives of the homebuilding sector highlighted that while homebuilders “are ready, understand and are committed to what needs done in supporting the transition”, there are concerns within the sector regarding limited communication from the Scottish Government about availability of the technology required to support the transition.

At the same time, interviewees stressed that there are still misconceptions, misinformation and lack of public awareness around sustainable heating solutions. It was suggested that the general public is still widely uninformed about the costs associated with the transition and whether low-carbon technology would be an effective heating solution for their home. Moreover, some stakeholders suggested that there is confusion around the different regulations in England and Scotland.

“…There’re still too many barriers to retrofitting – heat pumps are still considered pretty unusual and there’s a lot of myths, misinformation and misconceptions around how effective low-carbon tech is, which highlights the need for the public engagement strategy.” Membership organisation (interview)

The wider socio-economic context of the cost of living crisis was highlighted by experts as the key structural barrier to engaging the general public in the conversation about the heat transition and decarbonisation, particularly given the upfront costs of retrofitting and installing clean heating systems. They felt that, for most people, the kinds of interventions that will be required for the transition would be unaffordable.

“There is certainly a general gap in terms of people wanting to decarbonise their homes because of cost.” Private company (interview)

It was suggested that the public would be largely unprepared and unwilling to accept the cost of transitioning upfront based on a promise of future energy savings.

“We’re considering how we can get that messaging out to the public to make the public aware of the changes that will be required of them – yes, it might cost them more upfront but it should create longer- term benefits – but I don’t think the public is ready to make that connection yet and I don’t think any government messaging that I’ve seen to date has been explicit about that.” Private company (interview)

The complexity of the changes required and language accessibility around those changes was also identified by experts as a significant challenge. It was suggested that the language around the heat transition (e.g. clean heating systems) is specialised and requires a certain level of knowledge on the subject. It was therefore felt to be less accessible to people who don’t already have awareness on the topic.

“The challenge is making sure the information is really simple and easy to access and reflects the fact people are in crisis at the time – just transition terminology, for example, doesn’t work.” Statutory body (interview)

Despite attempts by organisations delivering engagement to address this challenge, such as by delivering energy advice through simple messaging, it was felt that other aspects of the transition such as installation of new heating systems have not been successfully communicated in a way that can be more widely understood. One expert, reflecting on their own experience installing a clean heating system, commented that even they found it difficult to navigate existing advice despite being highly engaged and knowledgeable on the topic.

“The challenge is that we were asking people to do the absolute low-hanging fruit thing in terms of decarbonisation of heating. So, it’s not as simple to take that framing – do this simple thing and save money – to almost any other part of the heat transition. The rest of the message is much harder.” Charity (interview)

Notwithstanding these challenges, over half of organisations who completed the survey (59%) and several of the interviewees said their organisations planned to deliver public engagement activities on the heat transition in Scotland in the future. These were mainly charities, but also included a range of other organisation types mentioned in Chapter 3. The types of activities planned included a continuation of existing advice and support services and information sharing campaigns, as well as further workshops or knowledge sharing events and new pilot schemes (such as for retrofitting).

Delivery organisations mentioned that these future activities would be open to all, but some specific target groups included homeowners, the social rented sector (landlords and tenants), those in fuel poverty, those living in flats, people with protected characteristics, and small businesses. It was felt that schemes like the Green Homes Network and Heat Pump Heroes should be promoted more widely to encourage further uptake of clean heating systems.

However, there was also reluctance among delivery organisations to carry out further public engagement until more is known about Scottish Government policy on the heat transition and the specific requirements needed for the different target groups.

“It is not worth individuals investing in bespoke renewables or low carbon heating systems. We need to know more about when the heat networks will be coming.” Charity (online survey)

Overall, while public engagement efforts have made good progress in raising awareness of the heat transition, substantial challenges remain in translating understanding into widespread action.

Gaps in public engagement

This chapter addresses the final research question: where are the gaps in engagement?

While the research has identified a range of different engagement activities that are reaching the broader public as well as targeted demographic groups, it has also identified some clear gaps in engagement. The identified gaps broadly relate to target audiences and messaging, but also relate to potential messengers (i.e. those who could have a role in supporting public engagement on the heat transition).

Key findings

• Audiences identified as having been under-engaged on the heat transition included private landlords, renters, professionals in the energy sector, young people and the digitally excluded.
• The key messaging gaps in public engagement include addressing the general lack of understanding among the public about current heating systems, as well as insufficient practical and transparent advice on installing and operating clean heating systems.
• Using existing case studies was also felt to be lacking, but could provide an opportunity to show how the technologies have been implemented in Scotland and elsewhere.
• A general lack of trusted messengers providing reliable and impartial advice was also identified, as well as those able to provide technical support on the practical aspects of the transition.

Target audience

Delivery organisations responding to the online survey felt that most groups of people would benefit from support or information on the heat transition in Scotland, with young people being a notable exception (Figure 7). Experts interviewed suggested that, although public engagement activities have largely been open to all because the transition is seen as an issue that will affect everyone, there were some groups who should be prioritised. The top four groups who would benefit from more information on the topic, as identified in the survey, were people in fuel poverty, homeowners, low-income households and landlords (see Figure 7).

Figure 7. Groups who would benefit from support

As highlighted in the previous chapter, experts suggested that there had been limited engagement with private landlords. This was reflected in the survey results too, with 77% of participants highlighting landlords as one of the groups who would benefit from support or information on the heat transition. This was seen as an important gap to address, since private landlords are expected to play an essential role in driving the heat transition forward and to be directly affected by the upcoming regulations around clean heat and energy efficiency under the current HiBS.

Experts perceived that the benefits of making the transition were not clear to landlords who would be bearing the costs of retrofit, leading to a reluctance to engage on the subject. Stakeholders who had conducted activities aimed at this group said that engaging with them had proven particularly difficult because of the sector’s resistance to being regulated, with both individual landlords (and some organisations representing them) pushing back and advocating against the legislation.

However, it was also acknowledged that responses to the HiBS have varied across this group. Some landlords, particularly the more climate conscious, were described as “very keen” to make sustainable improvements, but it was felt that a lack of clear and consistent information on the extent of upcoming regulations has held them back from taking action.

“It’s such a shame because people will phone us up – they have the money and the inclination to do the work and I have to tell them – actually, you’re better off not doing the work and spending the money just now because we don’t know what the requirements are going to be.”

Membership organisation (interview)

Lack of information and means to take action were felt to be even more of an issue in relation to renters. Out of all 62 public engagement activities identified through the Synthesio search, only two were targeted directly at tenants. Moreover, 66% of survey participants believed that private renters would benefit from more advice on the heat transition and 63% said the same in relation to social housing renters. Experts interviewed for this research felt that renters have been widely disengaged from the topic because they feel very limited in their power to make any changes in a rented home and the resources advising them are sparse. Moreover, it was suggested that renters were largely apprehensive about discussing the transition with their landlords due to concerns about losing housing in a competitive rental market.

“Those in rented accommodation often don’t know who to turn to – you may know that certain property standards exist but are not necessarily able to enforce them. In a rental market where renters are under pressure and aware that there is competition to rent, it doesn’t encourage you to speak to your landlord about these additional measures, for fear of losing housing.” Charity (interview)

Experts therefore perceived that those renting from private landlords would benefit from more sources offering practical advice on what changes they can make and how to discuss these with their landlords. In relation to social housing tenants, experts suggested that messaging should focus on building a stronger case for the need for transition. They felt that it was important to ensure that social housing tenants understood why retrofitting works were being carried out in their homes and what the benefits would be, and that they did not feel like the changes were being imposed on them. This echoes findings from the 2024 research on social housing decarbonisation conducted for ClimateXChange which highlighted the importance of tenant engagement and agreement prior to conducting decarbonisation works.

Limited engagement with professionals working in the energy sector was highlighted as a substantial gap in engagement on the heat transition. The Synthesio search and expert interviews identified some activities targeted at industry professionals being delivered, including professional conferences, training and workshops. However, it was widely felt by experts that this group has not been sufficiently engaged.

Industry-level engagement was described as a missed opportunity by experts who considered industry professionals and energy service providers as trusted messengers. It was felt they could provide technical and tailored advice to the public to mitigate the challenge highlighted earlier of poor understanding of clean heat technologies (see Challenges).

Beyond being a potential engagement opportunity, this gap was also seen by some experts as a risk; for example, if heat engineers do not understand clean heating systems themselves, they may provide incorrect advice to consumers. A comprehensive nationwide effort was deemed necessary to address the gap, and a particular focus on addressing any training or skills gap in rural areas.

Across the interviews, there is a widely shared sentiment that young people were one of the groups who have been least engaged on the heat transition. Experts suggested this related to the cost of living and the availability of affordable housing being more prevalent and pressing challenges for this group. It was also partly explained by young people in the rented market having limited agency to make any energy saving changes to their homes (with that responsibility resting upon the landlord) and therefore considering the heat transition as having limited personal relevance.

“Young people are not thinking about how they heat a home because they’re just trying to find a home in the first place. […] There’re so many issues in terms of housing for young people – particularly, if they are in the rented sector, they usually have no control over how that home may be heated.” Climate Hub (interview)

Despite these reflections expressed during the interviews, survey findings suggest that organisations involved in delivering engagement did not consider young people as a group that would benefit from more advice on the heat transition, with no participants identifying this as a priority group.

While it was felt that activities being delivered online have enabled broader participation (see Accessibility), it was also acknowledged by experts that those who are digitally excluded are potentially being left out of the conversation. Although organisations such as Scarf and HES do provide multimodal advice (via telephone, in-person, or online), these are often promoted online which experts felt could be limiting reach.

Messaging

One of the main perceived messaging gaps was addressing the lack of understanding among the general public about their existing heating systems. It was felt that this lack of awareness could act as an obstacle to the success of the longer-term strategy for decarbonisation, as people are unlikely to take action on changing their boiler to a different heating system if they do not fully understand the current one. Experts highlighted that energy efficiency advice promoting better understanding of how heating systems work and their impact on the climate should be a pre-requisite for any required action on the transition.

Interviewees also widely felt across interview that insufficient practical advice had been offered to the wider public around how to install and operate clean heating systems. This gap was closely linked to the limited engagement with the energy sector professionals who are seen as the key actors who would be able to offer such advice. Experts contrasted the availability of sources offering grant and funding support – which was felt to be plentiful – with the lack of reliable sources offering tailored practical advice.

“If you’ve got a property and you have absolutely no idea whether it has a wall that can be insulated, there are few sources that you can go to for advice – some of them are great and some of them aren’t so great. So, it’s very difficult when it comes to actually making changes.” Membership organisation (interview)

It was also stressed by some experts that there needs to be transparency in the practical advice about the things that can go wrong and any potential risks around the transition to ensure that consumers are making an informed choice and are equipped with the practical knowledge of what to do if issues arise. For example, some experts reported engaging with members of the public who had transitioned to clean heating systems and had experienced issues such as an increase in energy bills but did not know how to deal with those issues and could not find information about them. It was suggested that the lack of transparency around potential risks, coupled with negative experiences such as these, could limit progress on the heat transition.

“Once something has been installed, people need to be clearly shown how to use this system and that they’re not left with something that they don’t know how to work. […] we risk putting people into more expensive systems when they’ve been told they’ll be able to save money […] We’re sitting on quite a lot of evidence around where things aren’t working particularly well or where they can act against the just transition, e.g. increasing costs.” Statutory body (interview)

However, experts also emphasised the importance of demonstrating the efficacy of these heating systems, by showing how they have been implemented in homes across Scotland and in other countries. It was also felt that the experiences of those adopting low-carbon heating technologies could be amplified. By drawing on and learning from real-life experiences, whether positive or negative, it was felt that this could help to build trust in the systems and encourage more widespread uptake over time.

One expert also suggested that public engagement on the heat transition should focus more on heat networks. This was felt to be lacking in current discussions but a likely solution for lots of people, particularly those living in flats.

Messengers

When it comes to those delivering engagement and communicating these messages, despite sharing some examples of engagement activities delivered through trusted messengers, experts shared a view that there is a general lack of impartial and reliable sources offering tailored practical advice on managing clean heating systems. This was seen as significant given the importance of building trust in, and understanding of, clean heating systems for effective engagement (see Section 5.2).

Experts defined trusted messengers in different ways. Some considered private energy providers and installers of clean heating systems to be trusted voices given their technical expertise on the matter and consumer-facing branding. Others felt that local community organisations trained in providing energy advice should play that role as they are embedded in communities already and seen as trusted sources.

Another suggestion was that there should be a separate group of messengers who are impartial (i.e. not private contractors) and able to provide technical and tailored advice to people depending on their property, location, and circumstances. This group was seen as a missing link in the process which could help connect people with verified installers.

“If someone approached us asking if we could recommend someone they could speak to about insulating their property, I honestly don’t know where the best place for them to go to would be. It would be nice if somebody could tell us where we can signpost them to. You don’t necessarily want a contractor, you want someone who could give you independent advice on what you best options are, what the likely cost would be and ideally signpost you to some reliable contractors. It feels like there is a missing stage in the process.” Membership organisation (interview)

Reflecting on the gaps in audiences, messages, and messengers, there was a dominant perspective that more needed to be done to drive effective public communication and engagement activity on the heat transition in Scotland. One expert suggested that they would benefit from more guidance and insight into the effectiveness of the Scottish Government’s own engagement on the topic, as this would help organisations when developing their own engagement strategies.

Conclusions

This research has identified several considerations for ensuring future public engagement on the heat transition builds on what has be done before and is effective in prompting action.

Prioritising groups

Delivery organisations felt that public engagement activities should be open to all on the basis that the heat transition will affect everyone some way. However, certain priority groups were identified, including:

• The private rented sector, as landlords will be expected to play an essential role in driving the heat transition forward under the current HiBs proposals, which would require landlords to make energy efficiency improvements by 2028, and tenants will be affected by the changes.
• Professionals in the energy sector, including energy providers and engineers who can be trained in clean heating systems, amplifying messaging around the transition, and providing tailored technical advice to households.
• Those who are digitally excluded, who may not be accessing the full range of engagement activities given so much of it is being promoted online.

It was suggested that there should first be a focus on engaging professionals in the energy sector (e.g. providers and engineers) and housing sector (e.g. landlords and housing associations). This was based on the view that they represent groups who have been under-engaged but who will be key to driving the transition forward. It was also felt that engagement with industry professionals first would present an opportunity to harness their influence among wider groups, to encourage action by sharing information and practical advice, and helping to tackle the spread of misinformation.

With the support of these sectors, focus should then be given to engaging the general public. There was a view among experts that focusing on early adopters first could help to encourage action among other more hesitant groups by building up a larger body of evidence of successful examples across different types of properties. This was seen as key to building trust in the efficacy of clean heating systems.

Tailoring messages

For engaging with industry professionals, it was felt that messages should provide clarity on the changes required and reassurance on the support available, as well as addressing any issues or hesitations that might be prevalent among these groups. An in-person approach to engagement with this group was considered necessary for this, to ensure any barriers are addressed directly.

For engaging the general public it was recognised that framing activities around the climate benefits would engage those who are already highly motivated by the climate crisis and more likely to be early adopters. It was felt that making it easier for them to take action (with clear and consistent messaging and practical advice) would in turn make it even easier for those less motivated by the climate crisis to take action as they could benefit from the experiences and knowledge of those who have already done it.

Highlighting the financial benefits and availability of grants and loans was identified as a key message that could be amplified more. This was seen to be particularly important for engaging members of the public for whom the upfront costs would be off-putting or those who are struggling with their energy bills already.

It was also felt that messages should be tailored, based on an understanding that different solutions will be needed for different groups and that the benefits/challenges associated will also be different depending on people’s circumstances (e.g. for those in houses compared to those in flats, and for those living in urban areas compared to those living in rural areas).

Overall, experts were in favour of more national-level campaigning – coordinated between the Scottish Government and key stakeholders – to raise awareness around the HiBs proposal and emphasise positive messaging around the heat transition. It was also felt that this would need to be supported by local-level public engagement that is tailored to, and addresses, the needs of different groups.

Building trust

There was a broad sense that any public engagement activity on the heat transition needs to first build a baseline understanding of heating systems, before engaging on transitioning between current and future systems. It was felt that priority should be given to improving basic understanding among general public about how boilers operate and start with simple changes they can make their homes more energy efficient.

Building on this, it was felt that public engagement should emphasise the needs and benefits of the transition to clean heating systems. At the same time, the importance of transparency in communicating the potential risks was also highlighted. Ensuring the availability of practical advice on how to navigate these risks and deal with challenges (particularly around installation and unforeseen costs), was felt to be missing from engagement currently.

Using trusted messengers – whether organisations already embedded in communities, those with technical knowledge (e.g. industry professionals), or a new group of independent advisers from a range of backgrounds – was seen as an effective vehicle for communicating these aspects of the transition. Experts interpreted trusted messengers in a range of ways, and further research would be beneficial to determine who the public would trust to deliver messages.

Regulatory clarity

Organisations delivering public engagement reported feeling limited in what they can deliver until it is clearer when the regulations will come into force, and what the regulations will include (i.e. the changes that people will be required to make in relation to clean heat and energy efficiency). There was a general understanding of the direction of travel, but it was felt that a lack of detailed information was limiting the effectiveness of communication and engagement on the heat transition in Scotland.

Regulatory clarity was therefore widely called for, although it was recognised that this would be difficult to provide until the legislation is finalised. Nevertheless, it was strongly suggested that regulatory and financial decisions need to be made first. Organisations delivering public engagement activities felt they needed clarity on what the regulations will be, when they will come into force, and what financial support will be available, so that they can be equipped to support their members, service users and the general public through the transition.

Appendices

Appendix A – detailed methodology

The research involved three strands:

• A web search to identify public engagement activities.
• Interviews with 10 experts representing a range of organisations involved in the heat transition.
• An online survey of organisations delivering public engagement activity.

Web search

The web search was initially conducted using a traditional online search method, whereby “Boolean search strings” were used in Google and Google Scholar. Search strings were created beforehand and then refined throughout the search process where necessary, to improve the relevance of results (see Appendix B for the full list of search strings used).

Ultimately, the traditional online search results were limited, and the majority of public engagement examples analysed were identified through using Ipsos’ proprietary social listening software, Synthesio. The software works by identifying mentions of specified terms (in a similar way as search strings) across the web, including platforms such as X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and Facebook.

The initial Synthesio search (using the search string listed in Appendix B) produced around 2,500 references to public engagement across these social media channels, which were reviewed by the research team. Through search refinement using key word filtering and further manual review, most mentions were ultimately excluded due to duplication or being out of scope.

An analysis of 62 instances of engagement that matched the inclusion criteria (as specified below). Details of these engagement examples were recorded in a mapping spreadsheet in Excel, by the research team. Examples from a previous, brief web search by the Scottish Government that did not appear in Ipsos’ web search were also included in the spreadsheet, along with a very small number of activities that Ipsos were already aware of.

Expert interviews

A longlist of potential organisations was generated by Ipsos following an initial web search and initial recommendations from the Scottish Government and ClimateXChange, and was reviewed by ClimateXChange and the Scottish Government. Organisations were selected on the basis that they could comment on public engagement on the heat transition (either from direct delivery experience or from involvement on the heat transition in other ways) and that they represented a range of perspectives. Experts were invited to take part via email and the profile of expert organisations included a mix of charities/advice services, climate hubs,^[4] private companies, non-government organisations and industry bodies.

This strand of the research explored the different types of public engagement activities in more detail. A topic guide was developed by the Ipsos research team and reviewed by ClimateXChange and the Scottish Government (see Appendix C). Interviews lasted around 45 minutes each, and covered public engagement activities/communications recently delivered or known about, target audiences, perceived impact of engagement, any future activities planned, and views on current gaps in engagement.

Interviews also helped to identify potential organisations for inclusion in the online survey sample. Interviews were originally planned to be completed before the online survey fieldwork began. However, the decision was made to hold four interviews back until the online survey was underway. This decision was partly practical to be flexible around participants’ availability, but also to allow for survey responses to inform discussions and identify potential organisations to interview for a broader range of perspectives.

Online survey

The third strand of the research involved a five-minute online survey with organisations delivering public engagement activities in Scotland to explore the purpose and nature of these activities (e.g. key topics, target audience and impact). The questions were designed by Ipsos and reviewed by ClimateXChange and the Scottish Government (see Appendix D).

An initial sample of 78 contacts was generated by Ipsos through the web search and interviews, and the survey link was also shared by ClimateXChange and the Scottish Government through various email networks and communications channels, such as X (formerly Twitter) and the CXC newsletter, to broaden participation.

Two reminder emails were sent to the sample during the fieldwork period to boost response rates. The survey was live for five weeks, from 19 June to 24 July, and 34 completed responses were received. Of these, 25 organisations reported that they had delivered some form of public engagement in the last three years.

Appendix B – overview of web search

Web search strings

The following strings were placed into Google or Google Scholar:

• ‘Public engagement’ AND ‘Scotland’ AND [heat transition/ heat decarbonisation/ clean heating/ energy efficiency/ net zero heating/ green heating/ zero emission heating/ zero direct emission heating/ fabric first] OR
• ‘Public participation’ AND ‘Scotland’ AND [heat transition/ heat decarbonisation/ clean heating/ energy efficiency/ net zero heating/ green heating/ zero emission heating/ zero direct emission heating/ fabric first] OR
• ‘Deliberative/deliberation’ AND ‘Scotland’ AND [heat transition/ heat decarbonisation/ clean heating/ energy efficiency/ net zero heating/ green heating/ zero emission heating/ zero direct emission heating/ fabric first] OR
• ‘Public consultation’ AND ‘Scotland’ AND [heat transition/ heat decarbonisation/ clean heating/ energy efficiency/ net zero heating/ green heating/ zero emission heating/ zero direct emission heating/ fabric first] OR
• ‘Public dialogue’ AND ‘Scotland’ AND [heat transition/ heat decarbonisation/ clean heating/ energy efficiency/ net zero heating/ green heating/ zero emission heating/ zero direct emission heating/ fabric first] OR
• ‘Citizen engagement’ AND ‘Scotland’ AND [heat transition/ heat decarbonisation/ clean heating/ energy efficiency/ net zero heating/ green heating/ zero emission heating/ zero direct emission heating/ fabric first] OR

The following string was placed into Synthesio

(Scotland OR Edinburgh OR Glasgow OR Aberdeen OR Aberdeenshire OR Dundee OR Inverness OR Isles OR Isle OR Ayrshire OR Arran OR Islands OR Lothian OR Fife OR Highlands OR Perth OR “Outer Hebrides” OR Shetland OR Orkney OR Stirling OR Angus OR Dumfries OR Galloway OR Argyll) NEAR/5 (advice* OR consultation* OR discussion* OR event* OR conference* OR talk* OR “public service” OR report* OR session* OR lecture* OR conversation* OR public OR forum* OR seminar* OR workshop* OR outreach OR community OR engagement OR dialogue OR meeting* OR briefing* OR presentation* OR program* OR survey* OR roadshow* OR “public outreach”)) AND (“heat transition” OR “heat decarbonisation” OR “clean heating” OR “energy efficiency” OR “net zero heating” OR “green heating” OR “zero emission heating” OR “zero direct emission heating” OR “fabric first” OR “#EnergyEfficiency”)

Parameters

Across both searches, the following inclusion criteria were used:

1. Topic: Public engagement related to heat transition/ energy efficiency. The research team included public engagement that is wider than just the Heat in Buildings agenda, but focused on engagement that is exclusively focused on the heat transition. (The relative focus on the heat transition in general climate change engagement was also mapped where relevant).

• Date: From October 2021 onwards (introduction of the Heat in Buildings Strategy in Scotland). This was reviewed during initial stages of searching and was deemed to be appropriate based on the volume of material available. The final eligible date for inclusion was 20th May 2024, corresponding with when the web review strand of the research ended.
•  
• Methodology: “For the purposes of this research, “Public engagement” was understood as including various forms (e.g. public participation, public consultation, public dialogue) and methods.
•  
• Geographical coverage: Scotland.
• Level: National- and potentially regional-level public engagement was initially prioritised for this project, rather than community-level. However, much of the engagement examples identified were at the more local, community-level and so relevant examples of these were also reviewed and included in the mapping.
• Language: English language (it was agreed that the research team would also record any search results in Gaelic, but this was not called for).

Appendix C – Topic guide for expert interviews

Introduction (3 mins)

Ipsos has been commissioned by ClimateXChange and the Scottish Government to conduct research into public engagement on the heat transition in Scotland.

As part of the research, we are conducting interviews with organisations across Scotland who have carried out, been involved in, or have a good awareness of, engagement activities with the public on the heat transition. This includes engagement on topics like clean heating and energy efficiency, low carbon technology and zero direct emissions heating systems. These interviews will help us obtain a fuller understanding about the types of activities that have been carried out so far.

The research will inform the delivery of the Scottish Government’s Heat in Buildings Public Engagement Strategy.

The interview should last about 45 minutes and everything you say will be treated in the strictest confidence. No identifying information about individuals will be included in the report, for example, if we would like to quote you, we will do it anonymously. ClimateXChange and the Scottish Government will not receive notes from individual interviews or attributable comments.

Participation is voluntary and you can change your mind at any time, up until the report is published.

1. We would like to record the discussion for analysis purposes. It will not be provided to anyone outside of the Ipsos research team. The recordings will be securely stored and will be destroyed three months after we have completed the evaluation.

Do I have your permission to record?

Turn on the recorder and record consent to take part and for the discussion to be recorded.

Do you have any questions before we begin? Are you happy to proceed?

Background (3-5 mins)

To start with, can you tell me a bit about yourself and your role at [organisation].

What, if anything, do you know about the Scottish Government’s Heat in Buildings Strategy?

IF NECESSARY: The strategy was published in October 2021, and sets out how the Scottish Government will achieve warmer, greener and more energy efficient heating in domestic and non-domestic buildings in Scotland. It established a target of decarbonising all properties in Scotland by 2045, including the approximately 2 million homes that currently use mains gas as their primary heating fuel.

And what, if anything, do you know about the Scottish Government’s Heat in Buildings Public Engagement Strategy?

IF NECESSARY: The Heat in Buildings Public Engagement Strategy provides an overview of how Scottish Government will work with other stakeholders to deliver a programme of public awareness raising, education and participation around clean heat and energy efficiency, in order to meet targets set out in the Heat in Buildings Strategy.

PROBE:

• General views on strategy – any positives, negatives
• Does organisation have a specific strategy / business plans in relation to this?

Overview of activities (10-15 mins)

We are interested in finding out about the different types of activities organisations may have carried out over the last three years to engage members of the public in relation to the heat transition to net zero emissions in Scotland. Can you tell me about any activities that your organisation has…

1. Carried out over the last three years to engage the public on this topic?
2. Contributed to or supported in some way?
3. Been aware of (but not been involved in)?

Interviewer: note down examples initially raised by stakeholder, then gather information about each one in relevant section (apportioning time on each section depending on the number of examples relavant to each).

At this stage probe for brief details about each activity (explain you will ask for more detail after you’ve heard about all the different types of activities carried out):

• what was it about?
• what did it involve / how was it carried out?
• who was it carried out with? target audience?
• was anything published / any information available online?
  • (if yes – interviewer does not need to spend time collecting factual information that will likely be in the report – focus on key questions instead).

Note to interviewer: if there are lots of activities to discuss and the stakeholder is not able to stay on the call, ask if they would be willing to share details of the remaining examples by email.

A – Information about activities the organisation delivered themselves (10-15 mins)

I’d now like to ask you a bit more about the [activity/activities] you mentioned.

It would be useful to know more about what took place, and your thoughts on how well you think this method of engagement worked and any impact it may have had.

You might not have all the answers, which is absolutely fine.

Interviewer: ask about each (relevant) activity mentioned in turn with remaining time. ask or adapt questions depending on the type and format of engagement activity being described. if short on time or if there are lots of examples, prioritise those that are newly uncovered, unpublished or that we have not collected details about already.

ensure that you leave five minutes at end to ask the future engagement section.

• What was the purpose or overall aim of the activity?
• Who was the activity aimed at? General public or specific groups?

Probe on groups such as:

• Particular geographical areas;
• Socio-economic groups;
• People living in particular types of properties
• Homeowners/landlords/renters
• Based on protected characteristics – disability, ethnicity
• other groups
• Why were you interested in engaging with [this group / these groups] in particular? Why was this important?

PROBE IF NECESSARY:

• How did you identify there was a need to engage with this group?

I’d now like to ask about the topics that were covered and the way those topics were communicated to the public…

• What areas / topics did the activity cover?

PROBE:

• What were the main / key messages being communicated / delivered by the activity?
• Why were these particular messages chosen?
• And were any steps taken to make it easier for people to take part or engage with the activity?

PROBE:

• Design of materials
• Language (e.g. use of plain English; terminology used; Gaelic)
• Location of activity (any considerations for urban/rural audiences)
• How engaged / method of engagement
• Why did you do this? Were there any groups of people you thought may have struggled to understand/engage with the activity otherwise?
• What is your understanding of the impact this activity has had? Did it achieve its goals/aims?
  • If yes – In what ways would you say the activity was successful?
  • If too early to tell / not sure:
    • Why is that? (clarify whether activity was too recent, or if the impact is expected to be over longer term e.g. it will take a while for people to install heat pumps)
    • What do you hope that the impact of the activity will be?
  • PROBE: Was the impact or success of the activity measured in any way?
  • Why do you think it was successful / unsuccessful?
• If not previously mentioned: And do you think it was it successful at reaching the target audience?
  • Were there any groups of people missing?
  • IF YES: What were the reasons for that?
• Does your organisation have any future plans to further engage the public on the heat transition to net zero emissions?
  • IF YES:
  • What? When?
  • Who is the target audience (and why)?
• Are these plans based on learnings from any previous engagement?

B – Information about activities the organisation contributed to in some way (5-10 mins)

Thinking now about the other [activity], which you mentioned being involved in.

• If not covered already – What was involved in the activity?
• What was the purpose or overall goal of the activity?
• If not covered already – What was your organisation’s involvement?
• What were the main / key messages being communicated / delivered by the activity?
• Who was the activity aimed at? General public or specific groups? Probe on reasons for this (if known)
• Do you know if the target audience was reached successfully?
  • Any groups not reached successfully?
• Do you think it was it easy or difficult for people to take part and engage with the information provided [or to attend the activity]?
• What is your understanding of the impact the activity had? Probe on what went well, any challenges, what could be improved

C – Information about activities that the organisation is aware of (5-10 mins)

Moving onto [activity], which you said you were aware of.

• If not covered already – What was involved in the activity?
• If not covered already – Who delivered the activity?
• What were the main / key messages being communicated / delivered by the activity?
• Who was the activity aimed at? General public or specific groups? Probe on reasons for this (if known)
• Do you know if the target audience was reached successfully?
  • Any groups not reached successfully?
• Do you think it was it easy or difficult for people to take part and engage with the information provided [or to attend the activity]?
• What is your understanding of the impact the activity had? Probe on what thought went well, any challenges, what could be improved

Engagement gaps (5 minute)

Interviewer: ask all

Finally, I’d like to ask if you think there are any gaps in the engagement activities that have been carried out so far on the heat transition. For example, in terms of the groups of people being targeted or the types of activities being carried out.

• First of all, as far as you are aware, are there any groups of people you think are missing from the activities that have been carried out the heat transition in Scotland so far?

Probe:

• Why do you think this is?
• Are there any groups of people that your organisation would have liked to have engaged but have been unable to so far?
• And are there any particular types of public engagement activities not currently happening that you think should be?
  • If yes: What? When? Who should the target audience be (and why)?
• Do you think you would benefit from any advice or support on public engagement in relation to the heat transition in Scotland?
  • If yes: What would you find useful?

Close (3 mins)

That’s all the questions I wanted to ask you today, unless you think there is anything else we might have missed which would be useful for us to know?

Thanks. In the next few weeks, we will be conducting follow up research among organisations across Scotland responsible for delivering public engagement activities on the heat transition. This will comprise a short, 5-minute online survey asking about activities or communications being delivered. Would you, or someone else from your organisation, be willing to take part in the survey?

If yes: take contact details (name, email)

We are keen to invite as many organisations as possible to take part in the survey. Can I check, are there any other organisations or people you are aware of who are delivering public engagement activities on the heat transition that you think we should invite to take part in the survey?

Finally, the ClimateXChange and Scottish Government research teams may wish to conduct follow up research about this topic within the next 2 years. Are you willing to have your name and contact details passed on to the ClimateXChange and Scottish Government teams for this purpose?

Thank you so much for taking the time to speak to me today, it’s been really helpful.

Appendix D – online survey questionnaire

ASK ALL.

QWORK: First of all, which of the following best describes who you work for?

• Charitable organisation
• Community group
• Education or research institute
• Local authority
• Non-Governmental organisation
• Non-profit organisation
• Private sector organisation
• Scottish Government department
• Social enterprise
• Other – please specify:
• Don’t know

ASK ALL.

How much, if anything, would you say you currently know about the Scottish Government’s Heat in Buildings Strategy?

1. A great deal
2. A fair amount
3. Just a little
4. Heard of it but know nothing about it
5. Never heard of it

ASK ALL.

Q1. As you may know, the Scottish Government’s Heat in Buildings Strategy aims to transform Scotland’s buildings and the systems that supply their heat, as part of the transition to net zero emissions by 2045. This includes working to support the rapid adoption of zero emissions systems for home heating, such as heat pumps and district heat networks.

Have you, or your organisation, carried out any activities over the last three years to engage members of the public about changing their home heating systems?

• Yes
• No
• Don’t know

IF YES AT Q1.

Q2. Which of the following categories would those activities most closely fall under? MULTICODE

• Workshops
• Public information campaigns
• Open days or showcases
• Lectures / talks
• Training or knowledge-sharing sessions
• Providing information online
• Consultations
• Citizens Panel
• Advice service (in person)
• Advice service (online)
• Advice service (telephone)
• Other – please specify:

ASK IF YES AT Q1

Thinking about the most recent activity that you / your organisation carried out…

Q3. Which of the following topics, if any, were covered by the activity? MULTICODE

• General provision of energy efficiency advice/information
• Information about Scottish Government’s Climate Change Plan / net zero targets
• Improving the energy efficiency of households (such as through improving home insulation)
• Installing air source or ground source heat pumps
• District heating networks
• Other types of clean heating systems*
• Provision of information about grants / loans
• Other – please specify:
• Don’t know

ASK IF YES AT Q1

Q4. Which groups, if any, was the activity targeted at? MULTICODE

• General public (no specific target groups) at national level
• General public (no specific target groups) at regional or local level
• Businesses or people working in the energy sector
• Homeowners
• Private renters
• Those renting their home from a local authority or housing association
• Landlords
• Low-income households
• Households in urban areas
• Households in rural areas
• Households using gas/oil heating
• People with protected characteristics (e.g. disabled people, minority ethnic groups)
• People in fuel poverty
• Older people
• Younger people
• Other – please specify:
• Don’t know

Q5. What was the main reason or reasons for focusing the activity on those groups in particular?

• OPEN TEXT
• Don’t know / not sure

ASK IF CODE 1 AT Q1.

Q6. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the activity?

• The activity was effective at reaching its target audience.
• The activity was effective at improving the target audience’s awareness / understanding of the issue.
• Members of the public took action as a result of engaging with the activity.
• Members of the public decided to change their home heating system to a zero direct emissions heating system as a result of engaging with the activity.
• It was easy for members of the public to take part and engage with the activity / the information provided.

ANSWER OPTIONS

• Strongly agree
• Tend to agree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Tend to disagree
• Strongly disagree
• Too early to tell
• Not relevant
• Don’t know

ASK IF YES AT Q1.

Q7a Has your organisation carried out an evaluation of any of its public engagement activities?

• Yes
• No
• Don’t know

ASK IF YES AT Q7a.

Q7b. Would you be willing to share this information with the ClimateXChange and Scottish Government research team, to allow them to understand more about the impact of public engagement activities on this topic? SINGLE CODE

• Yes
• No
• Don’t know

SHOW IF CODE 1 AT Q7b

Thank you, please send this information to UK-PA-HeatTransition@ipsos.com and let us know if there is anything you would not like to be shared with the ClimateXChange and Scottish Government research team.

Select ‘Next’ to move on to the next question.

ASK ALL.

Q8. Do you or your organisation have any plans to deliver public engagement activities on the heat transition in Scotland in the future?

• Yes
• No
• Don’t know

ASK IF CODE 1 AT Q8

Q9. Could you tell us more about your future plans, including what the activities will involve and who they will be targeted at?

• OPEN TEXT
• Don’t know / not sure

ASK ALL.

Q10: Are you aware of any activities that have been carried out over the last three years by other organisations to engage members of the public in relation to the heat transition to net zero emissions in Scotland?

• Yes
• No
• Don’t know / Can’t remember

IF YES AT Q10.

Q11. What types of public engagement activities are you aware of that have been carried out over the last three years? MULTICODE.

• Workshops
• Public information campaigns
• Open days or showcases
• Lectures / talks
• Training or knowledge-sharing sessions
• Providing information online
• Consultations
• Citizens Panel
• Advice service (in person)
• Advice service (online)
• Advice service (telephone)
• Other – please specify:

ASK IF CODE 1 AT Q10.

Q12. What topics did that activity / did those activities relate to? MULTICODE

• General provision of energy efficiency advice/information
• Information about Scottish Government’s Climate Change Plan / net zero targets
• Improving the energy efficiency of households (such as through improving home insulation)
• Installing air source or ground source heat pumps
• District heating networks
• Other types of clean heating systems*
• Provision of information about grants / loans
• Other – please specify:
• Don’t know

ASK IF CODE 1 AT Q10.

Q13. And, as far as you are aware, which of the following groups of people / households did this activity/ those activities focus on? MULTICODE

• General public (no specific target groups) at national level
• General public (no specific target groups) at regional or local level
• Businesses or people working in the energy sector
• Homeowners
• Private renters
• Those renting their home from a local authority or housing association
• Landlords
• Low-income households
• Households in urban areas
• Households in rural areas
• Households using gas/oil heating
• People with protected characteristics (e.g. disabled people, minority ethnic groups)
• People in fuel poverty
• Older people
• Younger people
• Other – please specify:
• Don’t know

ASK ALL

Q14. Which of the following groups of people, if any, do you think would benefit from more support or information on the heat transition in Scotland? MULTICODE

• General public (no specific target groups) at national level
• General public (no specific target groups) at regional or local level
• Businesses or people working in the energy sector
• Homeowners
• Private renters
• Those renting their home from a local authority or housing association
• Landlords
• Low-income households
• Households in urban areas
• Households in rural areas
• Households using gas/oil heating
• People with protected characteristics (e.g. disabled people, minority ethnic groups)
• People in fuel poverty
• Older people
• Younger people
• Other – please specify:
• Don’t know

© The University of Edinburgh
Prepared by Ipsos Scotland on behalf of ClimateXChange, The University of Edinburgh. All rights reserved.

While every effort is made to ensure the information in this report is accurate, no legal responsibility is accepted for any errors, omissions or misleading statements. The views expressed represent those of the author(s), and do not necessarily represent those of the host institutions or funders.

1. Synthesio is an Ipsos proprietary tool that trawls the social web and mainstream media to monitor online presence and identify posts, re-posts and tags on a given topic (in this case, public engagement on the heat transition in Scotland). ↑

   
   

2. https://moneysavingboilerchallenge.com/ ↑

   
   

3. https://www.thursocdt.co.uk/helpandsupport ↑

   
   

4. Climate hubs are volunteer-led networks that supports community-led action across Scotland’s regions: https://www.gov.scot/policies/climate-change/community-led-climate-action/ ↑

   
   

This report sets out key findings from an exercise that mapped public engagement activities on the heat transition in Scotland.

The aim of the research was to help inform the delivery of the Heat in Buildings Public Engagement Strategy by addressing questions related to who delivers engagement activities and to whom, the type of activities and messages, and gaps in engagement.

We conducted a web search, interviews with experts from organisations involved in the heat transition and an online survey of organisations delivering public engagement activity.

Findings

Overview of ongoing activities:

• A wide range of organisations across the public, private and charitable sectors have been delivering public engagement activities on the heat transition in Scotland.
• The types of public engagement have also been varied, with the most common being advice services, workshops and information sharing online.

Target audience, messaging and accessibility as discussed by experts and organisations:

• Engagement activities were mostly open to the general public. There were also some specific target groups identified, including residents within a specific geographic area, homeowners, people in fuel poverty, low-income households and energy sector professionals.
• Despite attempts to engage a broad range of audiences, those actually engaged in the activities were typically more climate aware than the general public overall.
• Messaging that was focused on home energy efficiency and reducing energy bills, rather than the adoption of clean heating systems, resonated better with wider audiences in the context of the cost of living.
• Engagement on “simple fixes” (e.g. turning boiler temperature down) was therefore more widespread than messaging around bigger steps (e.g. installing a heat pump).
• Activities delivered through trusted messengers and existing local channels were accessible forms of engagement.
• Tailoring messages to the specific target audience was an effective approach to accessible engagement as it helped to improve understanding.

Gaps in public engagement identified by experts and organisations:

• Audiences under-engaged on the heat transition included private landlords, renters, professionals in the energy sector, young people and the digitally excluded.
• Lack of regulatory clarity on clean heat and energy efficiency was a key reason for the engagement gap among landlords and the energy sector.
• The upfront costs of transitioning were a barrier to widening reach among the general public, especially in the context of the cost of living crisis.
• Key messaging gaps in public engagement included:
  • A lack of public understanding of heating systems.
  • Insufficient practical and transparent advice on installing and operating clean heating systems.
    • Interviewees thought that certain aspects of the transition, such as what clean heating systems are and how to install them, were not successfully communicated to the wider public due to their perceived complexity.
    • They felt that communication about the efficacy of clean heating systems, based on real use cases, was lacking.
• There was a shortage of trusted messengers providing reliable, impartial advice, as well as a lack of tradespeople able to provide technical support on the practical aspects of the transition.

If you require the report in an alternative format, such as a Word document, please contact info@climatexchange.org.uk or 0131 651 4783.

Scotland is already experiencing climate change impacts, including increasing water scarcity, flooding and extreme weather events. The Scottish Government is preparing for these challenges with the third Scottish National Adaptation Plan (SNAP3).

This report presents indicators for monitoring the four domestic outcomes of SNAP3. It establishes a baseline prior to the implementation of the Plan for monitoring and determining progress at the end of its five-year period.

The research was undertaken through desk-based review and stakeholder engagement.

Findings

The proposed indicators for monitoring each of the four domestic outcomes of SNAP3 are presented below.

Nature Connects

• Habitat Connectivity Index​ 
• Proportion of surface water bodies classified in high and good condition
• Proportion of Scotland’s protected sites in favourable condition
• Proportion of soft shorelines affected by coastal erosion
• Extent of green-blue land cover in urban areas 
• Proportion of adults who live within a five-minute walk of their nearest green or blue space

Communities

• Level of community awareness around climate change
• Level of community climate action
• Progress of actions in local flood risk management plans
• Level of community wellbeing

Public Services and Infrastructure

• Level of collaboration across public services
• Level of adaptation actions across public services

Economy, Business and Industry

• Proportion of businesses monitoring climate-related risks
• Proportion of businesses taking action to adapt to the effects of climate change
• Number of green jobs
• Uptake of grants for agriculture storage reservoirs and off-season storage lagoons​

Recommendations

Key recommendations for the outcome indicators include:

• Consistent application of indicators.
• Maintain continuity, quality and availability of data required by each indicator.
• Maintain flexibility regarding potential for additional indicators.
• Establish a working group to sustain the functioning of the indicators.

For further details please read the report.

If you require the report in an alternative format, such as a Word document, please contact info@climatexchange.org.uk or 0131 651 4783.

Related Scottish Government publications

Scottish National Adaptation Plan 2024-2029 (www.gov.scot)

Scottish National Adaptation Plan 2024-2029: Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (www.gov.scot)

Research completed August 2024

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7488/era/4836

Executive summary

Aims

This report presents indicators for monitoring the four domestic outcomes of the third Scottish National Adaptation Plan (SNAP3). These outcomes are summarised as:

• Nature Connects
• Communities
• Public Services and Infrastructure
• Economy, Business and Industry

It establishes a baseline prior to the implementation of SNAP3 for monitoring and determining progress at the end of the Plan’s five-year period.

The report addresses the challenges of developing indicators for a national adaptation plan by adopting an approach that balances robustness and practicality, considering available resources and data. We have developed a set of indicators for each outcome, assessing their relevance and feasibility for monitoring, through desk-based review and stakeholder engagement. The assessment has been grounded in the practical reality of what data is available rather than theoretically ideal indicators.

Findings

The indicators proposed for each of SNAP3’s outcomes are listed below. For each indicator, there was sufficient data available to allow for a pre-SNAP3 baseline to be established and then reported against after a five-year period.

• Nature Connects – outcome indicators
• Habitat Connectivity Index​ 
• Proportion of surface water bodies classified in high and good condition
• Proportion of Scotland’s protected sites in favourable condition
• Proportion of soft shorelines affected by coastal erosion
• Extent of green-blue land cover in urban areas 
• Proportion of adults who live within a five-minute walk of their nearest green or blue space

These six indicators cover elements of ecological connectivity, ecosystem health, and nature-based solutions (NbS) for climate adaptation. A marine ecosystem indicator could not be included due to insufficient data availability.

• Communities – outcome indicators
• Level of community awareness around climate change
• Level of community climate action
• Progress of actions in local flood risk management plans
• Level of community wellbeing

The four indicators cover elements of community resilience, wellbeing, and climate action. It was particularly challenging to capture the complexity of health and equity in relation to climate adaptation with only a few high-level indicators. The onus was placed on monitoring levels of community action in creating resilient, healthy, and equitable places.

• Public Services and Infrastructure – outcome indicators
• Level of collaboration across public services
• Level of adaptation actions across public services

The two indicators monitor collaboration and adaptation action among public bodies. While these indicators provide high-level insights into public sector collaboration and adaptation efforts, they do not measure the effectiveness or inclusiveness of these actions, which would require numerous sector-specific indicators that would be onerous to monitor.

• Economy, Business and Industry – outcome indicators
• Proportion of businesses monitoring climate-related risks
• Proportion of businesses taking action to adapt to the effects of climate change
• Number of green jobs
• Uptake of grants for agriculture storage reservoirs and off-season storage lagoons​

The five indicators cover elements of business preparedness, adaptation actions, and economic opportunities related to climate change. These indicators provide an overview of Scotland’s economic adaptation to climate change. However, they do not cover investment in climate adaptation initiatives or economic resilience to climate-related hazards, as there were insufficient available data.

Recommendations

Key recommendations for the outcome indicators following this project include:

• Consistent application of indicators. The indicator set for SNAP3 should be finalised as soon as possible and consistently applied to enable meaningful and coherent monitoring over the Plan’s five-year period. Any changes made to individual indicators or the data that underpin them may compromise the ability to track progress consistently relative to the baseline.
• Maintain continuity, quality and availability of data required by each indicator. It is vital to maintain the allocation of resources to the collection, maintenance and accessibility of datasets used by the indicators across all relevant Scottish Government departments.
• Maintain flexibility regarding potential for additional indicators. New indicators may be added in the immediate term if relevant data becomes available, as may be anticipated regarding, for example an ecosystem functions indicator for Nature Connects or a green finance indicator for Economy, Business, and Industry. While the suite of indicators addresses the needs for monitoring the outcomes of SNAP3, it may be viewed as a foundation to build upon regarding monitoring of SNAP4.
• Establish a working group to sustain the functioning of the indicators. The working group could comprise key stakeholders and data providers who could meet annually to review the functioning of the indicators and address any issues regarding their deployment, e.g., continuity and availability of data and its quality.

The findings of this report may also be of interest to anyone interested in monitoring and evaluation of climate adaptation planning more generally.

Glossary / Abbreviations table

Introduction

Aims of this report

The third Scottish National Adaptation Plan (SNAP3)^[1] will be published in Autumn 2024 and Scottish Ministers have agreed that there is a need to improve monitoring of its outputs and outcomes, as compared with the way previous adaptation plans in Scotland have been monitored. The central aim for monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) of SNAP3 is to ensure that the indicators are as robust and relevant as possible for monitoring its specific outcomes, while remaining practical and accessible to implement in terms of resources and data available. We have sought to strike this balance between robustness and feasibility in the outcome indicators presented in this report.

The structure of SNAP3 is based around five long term outcomes and 23 objectives that set out adaptation priorities for the Scottish Government between 2024-2029. These five outcomes are (with abbreviations used hereinafter in brackets):

1. “Nature connects across our lands, settlements, coasts, and seas” (Nature Connects)
2. “Communities are creating climate-resilient, healthy, and equitable places” (Communities)
3. “Public services are collaborating in effective and inclusive adaptation action” (Public Services and Infrastructure)
4. “Economies and industries are adapting and realising opportunities in Scotland’s Just Transition” (Economy, Business and Industry)
5. “Scotland’s international role supports climate justice and enhanced global action on climate adaptation”​ (International Action)

The indicators developed here address the first four outcomes, which are focused on Scotland’s resilience at the national level. Through a process of desk-based research and engagement with the Scottish Government’s departments and relevant organisations, we have developed a suite of indicators to monitor progress of these outcomes. Each indicator was assessed using criteria to determine its inclusion. The criteria addressed the indicator’s conceptual relevance and practical implications, including availability of baseline data. Our development of indicators for the four outcomes of SNAP3 took place concurrently with work undertaken by the Scottish Government to develop a suite of indicators for the 23 objectives that sit beneath the outcomes.

This report takes the following structure: first, Section 1.2 provides a brief overview of MEL in national adaptation contexts. Section 2 outlines the process undertaken to develop the outcome indicators. Section 3 provides information for each indicator and is structured by each outcome. Baseline data is presented in the Section 4. Section 5 concludes with a discussion and recommendations for next steps. Annexes provide further details on methodology and technical information.

Context

A key takeaway from the COP28 in December 2023 was the importance of monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) to understand and report on the effectiveness of the design and implementation of national adaptation planning processes (Beauchamp & Józefiak, 2023). Due to the iterative nature of climate adaptation, MEL is essential to periodically understand the effectiveness of adaptation plans effectiveness and improve their design accordingly (GEF, 2016). Furthermore, national MEL systems are of importance for fulfilling national reporting commitments, such as the Enhanced Transparency Framework under the Paris Agreement (UNDP, 2022).

Developing indicators of climate adaptation is challenging, conceptually and practically, due to the complex, multi-sectoral and context-specific nature of climate impacts that need to be addressed (UNFCC, 2022). Challenges include: the length of time it can take to implement adaptation actions due to their scope and scale; the length of time for adaptation actions to mature and deliver measurable outcomes; and the need for monitoring to be sustained, which poses practical issues regarding maintenance of a consistent methodology using comparable data and associated long-term funding and policy cycles.

No standard metrics exist to capture adaptation nor an off-the-shelf indicator framework to apply to a country’s context (New et al., 2022). Nevertheless, there are numerous efforts to structure MEL of climate adaptation in the form of checklists and toolkits. Examples include: the BASE Evaluation Criteria for Climate Adaptation, which offers a checklist for evaluation focused on outcomes and processes; and the ‘Toolkit for MEL for National Adaptation Plan (NAP) Processes’ for developing countries (Beauchamp et al., 2024).

The Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) framework adopted at COP28 (known as the UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience) represents a concerted effort at a global level to establish universal targets to guide countries’ adaptation pathways. However, identifying a set of indicators to monitor progress remains a fundamental challenge (Gabbatiss & Lempriere, M, 2024). This is exemplified by the wide-ranging list of potential indicators found in the recent UAE – Belém work programme that synthesises countries’ submissions to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (UNFCCC, 2024).

In Scotland, the approach to climate adaptation M&E monitoring and evaluation has been robustly developed through the previous Scottish Climate Change Adaptation Programmes (SCCAPs). The Climate Change Committee (CCC) has provided significant recommendations on enhancing the M&E framework within Scotland. A key recommendation from the CCC has been to establish clear, measurable outcomes and associated indicators that can effectively capture the progress and impact of adaptation initiatives (CCC, 2022). Recognising the benefits of this approach, the Scottish Government has adopted an outcomes-focused approach for its Adaptation Plan. The importance of aligning national adaptation indicators with local contexts, ensuring that the indicators are relevant and actionable for Scotland’s unique environmental, social, and economic conditions has been highlighted in previous ClimateXChange research (Moss, A., 2019). he work presented in this project builds upon this background of previous MEL work.

Developing the suite of indicators

To develop the suite of indicators for monitoring the four outcomes of SNAP3, we followed a five-step approach, as illustrated in Figure 1 and described below.

The first step was a desk-based, data-mapping process. This involved reviewing draft SNAP3, the previous adaptation national plans, the published relevant Scottish policies and some international guidelines on MEL to identify possible indicators. The second step involved developing criteria to rank the indicators and facilitate their selection. At the third and fourth steps, this first longlist of indicators was presented and discussed with several stakeholders, during both one-to-one interviews and four workshops organised on each of the four SNAP3 outcome areas. This dynamic process enabled us to refine and amend the longlist of indicators, clearly identify gaps and limitations, and provide some recommendations. The final step of the process was the presentation of the indicator framework containing 12 outcome indicators.

Figure 1: The five-step approach to develop the suite of indicators

Figure 2:: visualisation of the indicator development process

Desk-based research

The first stage of developing indicators involved data mapping through review of:

• Sectoral policies listed in the draft SNAP3 and their implementation plans, where published, to search for relevant existing indicators and associated datasets (See Annex 1).
• Relevant existing indicators and associated datasets used by previous Scottish adaptation plans (CCC, 2023; Moss, A., 2019,) and unpublished meeting notes from a stakeholder workshop led by CXC in May 2023 entitled ‘Monitoring and evaluation of Scotland’s Climate Change Adaptation Programme 2024-2029’.
• A selection of international guidelines and frameworks on national climate change adaptation monitoring and evaluation (EPA, 2017; FAO, 2017; Mäkinen et al., 2018; OECD, 2015; UNFCCC, 2023; UNFCCC, 2024) to learn from others’ approaches to the identification of outcome indicators and to identify if they used any adaptation outcome indicators that might be modified for use regarding SNAP3.

The four outcomes cover a wide range of different elements. Therefore, we used an approach based around theory of change (ToC) to identify those core elements that the indicators for each outcome should cover. This approach complemented the ToC work undertaken by Scottish Government as part of the draft SNAP3. We identified core elements through interpretation and analysis of each outcome section in the draft SNAP3. The core elements identified were:

• Nature Connects: Ecological connectivity (terrestrial, marine, and coastal); ecosystem health (terrestrial, marine, and coastal); and connection to nature.
• Communities: Community action; community resilience; health and equity.
• Public Services: Public sector collaboration; public sector adaptation action; effectiveness of public sector action; and inclusiveness of public sector action.
• Economy, Business, and Industry: Business preparedness and action; and economic adaptation.

This approach provided a broad structure and scope for the development of a longlist of potential indicators. The latter emerged from this desk-based research (See Annex 2). The longlist was refined by applying the indicator criteria (see Section 2.2 below) and amended based on the inputs gathered during the stakeholder engagement.

Indicator criteria

The indicator criteria (see Table 1) built upon established indicator criteria, such as SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-Bound) (Biden, 2022) and RACER (Relevant, Accepted, Credible, Easy and Robust) (Peter & Peter, 2009), while refining elements to the specific context (e.g. adaptation relevance). Indicator ranking “low” for any criterion were excluded.

Table 1: Criteria for selecting outcome indicator for SNAP3

Stakeholder engagement

With support from the Scottish Government’s steering group, and drawing upon our desk-based research, we identified relevant stakeholders that could help validate and refine indicators within each outcome area. Stakeholders were considered from various backgrounds relevant to outcome areas, who could offer insights into data availability and gaps, as well as practicality of indicators.

We conducted one-to-one interviews with experts who could offer insights into data availability and gaps to discuss specific areas of the SNAP3 and four stakeholder workshops were organised; one for each outcome area^[2]. We also gathered 66 participants over four workshops, from more than 25 different organisations, detailed in Annex 3. They were invited based on their expertise in fields relevant to each outcome area discussed and their knowledge of climate adaptation. The participants received the longlist of indicators before the workshop and were asked: (a) whether the indicators proposed covered well the targeted outcome area and (b) if there were any aspects missing.

The overall aim of stakeholder engagement was to engage with relevant teams across the Scottish Government on existing monitoring work to date, review existing available datasets, and amend the longlist of quantitative indicators developed by Ricardo. Experts confirmed, advised against, or suggested indicators that would best reflect the outcome areas. The workshops helped identify limitations of the selected indicators, as well as highlighting suggested outcomes that should not be included (for example, due to lack of data availability).

Outcome indicators

This section presents the proposed outcome indicators for SNAP3. Figure 2 visually presents the proposed outcome indicators, with each indicator categorised under the relevant outcome area. An overview is provided for each outcome before detailing each indicator. This information includes the indicator title, description, data holder, unit and rationale for inclusion. Detailed information for how the indicator criteria was applied to each indicator is provided in Annex 4.

Figure 2: Proposed outcome indicators for SNAP3

Nature connects across our lands, settlements, coasts, and seas

Overview

The outcome Nature Connects places emphasis on nature’s role in climate adaptation. It emphasises connectivity across landscapes, settlements, coasts, and seas to bolster ecosystem resilience. Key actions include developing nature networks in every local authority area, managing invasive species, and enhancing natural carbon stores like peatlands and forests. Taking a holistic approach aims to improve Scotland’s climate resilience while delivering co-benefits for biodiversity, flood mitigation and human wellbeing. Figure 3 illustrates the SNAP3’s pathway from objectives to outcome and impact for the Nature Connects outcome.^[3]

Considerations for indicator selection

Following the desk-based review and stakeholder engagement, several considerations emerged regarding indicator selection for the Nature Connects outcome:

• The importance of acknowledging that connectivity indicators do not necessarily reflect habitat quality or overall ecosystem resilience. Hence, ideally, there would be a focus on ecosystem functions and processes. However, while indicators focused on ecosystem functions are currently under development by Nature Scot, they will not be operational in time for use in monitoring SNAP3.
• Despite the high-level nature of indicators, there is a need to reflect Scotland’s diverse environment. Freshwater environments were highlighted as both a useful proxy for the extent of ecological connectivity and with a comprehensive and accessible dataset.
• Urban green infrastructure is an important aspect of this outcome and the indicators should capture the extent of accessibility to nature and green spaces.
• Species indicators are not sufficiently sensitive to show a significant trend over SNAP3’s five years. Changes in species abundance and distribution due to climate change are often gradual. Species’ adaptation, whether through genetic changes, changes in behaviour, or moves to new areas, often require longer than five years to be observable. Over a shorter period, it can be difficult to distinguish between short-term fluctuations and longer-term changes driven by climate change. While five-year studies can provide valuable snapshots and early indicators, longer timeframes are typically needed to confidently assess significant trends in species abundance and distribution related to climate adaptation. Therefore, indicators like “terrestrial species’ abundance” developed by Nature Scot were deemed inappropriate for inclusion.
• As outlined in SNAP3, marine ecosystems will make a vital contribution to Scotland’s adaptation to climate change. However, there is very limited data available to measure marine habitat connectivity. Furthermore, there is difficulty capturing adaptation of the marine environment in a single, general indicator. For example, NatureScot’s marine species’ abundance indicator focuses upon the average abundance of 14 species of breeding seabird. Such an indicator was not considered to be suitably representative of marine ecosystems and, therefore, not selected.
• Not all the natural habitat types are captured in this framework. Specific indicators were considered but not selected. For example, the baseline for the Woodland Ecological Condition indicator was too old and the indicator would not cover the 2024-2029 period.

Nature Connects – proposed indicators

When setting out to develop a list of indicators for the Nature Connects outcome, it was important to cover ecological connectivity between habitats across land and sea, ecosystem health, and the implementation of NbS for climate adaptation. To a large extent, the six indicators chosen for this outcome efficiently achieve this coverage by using established indicators and available data held for various Scottish Government agencies.

The proposed indicators are:

• Habitat Connectivity Index
• Proportion of surface water bodies classified in high and good condition
• Proportion of Scotland’s protected sites in favourable condition
• Proportion of soft shorelines affected by coastal erosion
• Extent of green-blue land cover in urban areas
• Proportion of adults who live within a five-minute walk of their nearest green or blue space.

Immediately below we present the baseline information foreach of the six indicators proposed to monitor the Nature Connects outcome. For each indicator, we provide the baseline value, a description of the baseline, the recent trend and desired trend for each indicator to provide context. More information on baseline data is available in Annex 5. This is followed by a further detailed summary of each indicator and the rationale for their inclusion.

Nature Connects – baseline

Habitat Connectivity Index 

• Description: In 2020, the total Equivalent Connected Area (Probability of Connectivity) (ECA (PC) value for Scotland was 35,570 ha for semi-grassland (2.9%), 5,655 ha for woodland (1.4%) and 214,277 ha for heathland (8.3%).
• Recent trends: None.
• Desired trend: Increase
• Baseline
  • Semi-grassland: 2.9%
  • Woodland: 1.4%
  • Healthland: 8.3%

Proportion of surface water bodies classified in good and better condition

• Description: In 2022, 445 (13.7%) surface water bodies were in better condition and 1664 (51.2%) surface water bodies were in good condition.
• Recent trends: This percentage has remained broadly stable in recent years, rising slightly from 61.8% in 2014.
• Baseline: 64.9%
• Desired trend: Increase

Proportion of Scotland’s protected sites in favourable condition

• Description: In March 2024, the proportion of natural features in favourable condition on protected sites was 75.6%.
• Recent trends: The trend between 2023 and 2024 is relatively stable, slightly decreasing by 0.9%.  However, the proportion of features in favourable condition has decreased by 4.8 percentage points since 2016 when it peaked at 80.4%.
• Baseline: 75.6%
• Desired trend: Increase

Proportion of soft shorelines affected by coastal erosion

• Description: In 2021, 46% of the soft coast is affected by coastal erosion. The average rate of erosion is 0.43 m/year.
• Recent trends: In 2017, 38% of the soft coast was affected by coastal erosion, representing an 8% increase in eight years. Note, the proportion of shorelines experiencing coastal erosion, and the rate of erosion, increases under all climate change emissions scenarios.
• Baseline: 46%
• Desired trend: Decrease

Extent of green-blue land cover in urban areas 

• Description: The total area of urban greenspace in Scotland as defined by Ordnance Survey is 3,167 km².
• Recent trends: April 2024 represents the only OS MasterMap Greenspace data currently available from the Ordnance Survey.
• Baseline: 3,166km²
• Desired trend: Increase

Proportion of adults who live within a 5-minute walk of their nearest green or blue space

• Description: In 2022, 70% of adults reported living within a 5-minute walk of their nearest green or blue space.
• Recent trends: This percentage has remained broadly stable since 2013, where it was 68%. There has been a slight, steady increase from 2017 from 65% to 70%. 
• Baseline: 70%
• Desired trend: Increase

Nature Connects – indicator summaries

ECOSYSTEM HEALTH AND CONNECTIVITY

Habitat Connectivity Index 

​The Habitat Connectivity Index was selected to represent the functional health of natural ecosystems in Scotland. Habitat networks enable species to follow their shifting climate envelope and move to new habitats, ensuring their survival and the continuity of ecosystem services. Connectivity is crucial for promoting the survival, migration, and adaptation potential of species populations in response to climate change. By assessing functional connectivity, this indicator provides valuable insights into ecosystem resilience, highlighting areas where habitat fragmentation might increase the risk and exposure of species to climate-related impacts. Enhancing habitat connectivity directly supports the adaptive capacity of species by facilitating movement and gene flow, thereby reducing vulnerability, and supporting biodiversity conservation (Haddad et al., 2015). It reflects the interconnectedness of ecosystems and underscores the importance of maintaining and improving habitat connectivity to mitigate climate risks and enhance the adaptive capacity of natural systems (Krosby et. al., 2010).

Proportion of surface water bodies classified in good or better condition

We chose ‘proportion of surface water bodies classified in high or good condition’ as a proxy for climate change adaptation because it reflects the health and quality of water ecosystems. Healthy water bodies are more resilient to climate change impacts such as altered precipitation patterns, increased temperatures, and pollution. By maintaining high and good conditions, these water bodies can better support biodiversity and delivery of ecosystem services that fulfil human needs, particularly regarding climate adaptation (Palmer et al., 2009).

Proportion of Scotland’s protected sites in favourable condition

We chose ‘proportion of Scotland’s protected sites in favourable condition’ as a proxy to reflect the health and resilience of Scottish ecosystems. Healthy and well-managed protected sites are better able to withstand and adapt to the impacts of climate change, such as shifting species distributions and extreme weather events (Watson et al., 2014). This indicator shows how effectively Scotland is preserving biodiversity and ecosystem services, which are crucial for climate resilience. It is important to look at the proportion of sites in favourable condition by habitat type. Indeed, habitats such as native woodland, which are vulnerable to overgrazing and invasive non-native species, have a lower percentage (56.8%) of sites in favourable condition than the other types of habitats (average of 73.4%).

Proportion of soft shorelines affected by coastal erosion

Scotland’s coastline is estimated to be 18,743 km in length along the high-water line. This indicator was chosen as coastal erosion affects society’s assets such as infrastructure and cultural heritage, and contributes to more frequent coastal flooding. Coastal erosion is exacerbated by climate change. Implementing adaptation strategies to protect Scotland’s coasts is crucial to protect the biodiversity of coastal ecosystems. It also ensures the safety and resilience of coastal communities against climate impacts, as well as the resilience of regional and national infrastructure (McGranahan et al., 2007).

URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

Extent of green-blue land cover in urban areas 

This indicator is chosen as a proxy for integration of nature into urban settlements. Green infrastructures within towns and cities are NbS designed to reduce the urban heat island effect, improve resilience to flooding and provide an opportunity for people to enjoy and benefit from nature. Compared to technology-based solutions to climate challenges, NbS like green-blue land cover in urban areas are often more cost-effective and longer lasting. They also have multiple co-benefits, such as reducing net emissions, providing habitats for biodiversity, enhancing human health and well-being (Demuzere et al., 2014; Gill et al., 2007).

Proportion of adults who live within a five-minute walk of their nearest green or blue space

This indicator is chosen as a proxy to reflect the extent communities have access to natural spaces. Easy access to green and blue spaces enhances community resilience in the face of climate stressors by promoting well-being (e.g. air quality improvement, mental and physical health, etc.) (Maas et al., 2006). Access to green and blue spaces helps mitigate the urban heat island effect, providing cooler areas that can reduce heat-related health risks during extreme weather events. Lastly, green and blue spaces contribute to biodiversity and water management, supporting ecosystems that buffer against climate impacts such as flooding (Demuzere et al., 2014).

Communities are creating climate-resilient, healthy and equitable places

Overview

This outcome focuses on empowering communities to create climate-resilient, healthy and equitable places. It adopts a place-based approach, acknowledging that climate impacts vary by local context. Key initiatives include establishing Climate Action Hubs, developing collaborative planning partnerships and providing capacity-building support. This community-centred approach seeks to ensure adaptation efforts are inclusive, address local needs and build societal resilience to climate impacts. Figure 4 presents the SNAP3’s pathway from objectives to outcome and impact for the Communities outcome.^[4]

Considerations for indicator selection

Following the desk-based review and stakeholder engagement, several considerations emerged regarding indicator selection for the Communities outcome:

• Data on exposure to climate-related hazards provides information on the places where efforts need to be intensified to limit inequalities, for example, if hazard data is coupled with data on deprivation or social vulnerability (Sayers, PB., et al., 2021). We explored one indicator related to the exposure of vulnerable populations to climate-related hazards. This indicator sought to understand inequality in how communities are impacted by climate hazards. There are limitations to such an indicator focusing on exposure to flood, heat, drought, or wildfire, as it does not consider the resilience of the population exposed. While exposure is unlikely to change in the short to medium term, measures to reduce the vulnerability of those most exposed to risks will be key to increasing their resilience. It is, therefore, important data but less suitable as an indicator measuring increased community resilience for the purposes of this work. The overall conclusion was that the indicators for the Communities outcome should focus more on actions being taken by communities that are indicative of resilience.
• Flooding and the action taken to adapt to this hazard was a focus for consideration due to its significance as a climate-related hazard for Scotland. Example indicators include the ‘proportion of flood resilience action undertaken’ or ‘uptake of property flood protection measures in deprived areas’, or ‘responses to surveys on adaptation action’. Indicators around property flood protection measures and insurance were considered. However, although schemes such as “Build back better” exist, there were insufficient national data available to include this indicator.
• A combination of two indicators, ‘progress of actions in local flood risk management plans’ and ‘percentage of the population declaring that they understand what actions they should take to help tackle climate change’ were selected as proxies to capture community action in climate adaptation.
• Collaboration at community level was often mentioned as essential when it comes to adaptation to ensure the salience, credibility and legitimacy of actions and common understanding, ownership, and a desire to implement. The level of community climate collaboration is captured through monitoring the Community Climate Action Hubs (CCAH) and Local Place Plans.
• Health is embedded in all the areas of SNAP3. This makes it difficult to have a general indicator linking health to climate-related hazards and issues, such as heatwaves, cold, flooding, vector-borne diseases, and food systems. This could only be captured by a fuller set of indicators focusing on health and well-being. A dataset measuring climate morbidity in Scotland could be relevant as a future outcome indicator for SNAP4 should suitable data become available. For this indicator set, a focus on wellbeing is taken using national data on the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS).

Communities – proposed indicators

When setting out to develop a list of indicators for the Communities outcome, we aimed to cover aspects of community resilience, health, and equity. Of the four indicators selected for this outcome, three indicators reflected the community resilience aspect (level of community awareness; level of community climate action; and progress of actions in local flood risk management plans). There was a particular challenge in capturing the complexity of health and equity in relation to climate adaptation with only a few high-level indicators in this framework. Instead of health, a focus on community wellbeing was taken with the use of national data on the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS). With elements of health and equity not explicitly covered, we have instead put onus on using established indicators and available data to monitor levels of community action in creating resilient, healthy, and equitable places. Monitoring this level of community action, be it in increased community awareness, the growth of Community Climate Action Hubs (CCAH) and Local Place Plans (LPP) or in specific community actions around flood management, provides important insight on how communities are adapting to climate change.

The proposed indicators are:

• Level of community awareness around climate change
• Level of community climate action
• Progress of actions in local flood risk management plans
• Level of community wellbeing.

Below we present the baseline information for each of the four indicators proposed to monitor the Communities outcome. For each indicator, we provide the baseline value, a description of the baseline, the recent trend and desired trend for each indicator to provide context. More information on baseline data is available in Annex 5. This is followed by a further detailed summary of each indicator and the rationale for their inclusion.

Communities – baseline

Proportion of adults viewing climate change as an immediate and urgent problem

• Description: In 2022, 74% of adults viewing climate change as an immediate and urgent problem.
• Recent trends: The Scottish population concerned about climate change representing an immediate and urgent problem has risen every year since 2013, where 46% held this view. In 2017, 61% held this view.
• Baseline: 74%
• Desired trend: Increase

Proportion of the population declaring that they understand what actions they should take to help tackle climate change

• Description: In 2022, 80% of adults agreed that they understood what actions they should take to help tackle climate change.
• Recent trends: In 2018, 74% of adults stated they understood what actions they should take to help tackle climate change.
• Baseline: 80%
• Desired trend: Increase

Number of Community Climate Action Hubs

• Description: In 2024, 20 hubs across Scotland support community-led climate action, covering 81% of the Scottish council areas.
• Recent trends: The first two hubs launched in September 2021 and the network has now expanded, consisting of the 20 hubs.
• Baseline: 81%
• Desired trend: Increase

Number of Local Place Plans

• Description: In 2024, no local place plans have been adopted.
• Recent trends: Many councils have recently invited communities to prepare Local Place Plans so that they can play a proactive role in defining the future of their places.
• Baseline: 0
• Desired trend: Increase

Progress of actions in local flood risk management plans

• Description: In 2019, 90% of the actions to avoid an increase in flood risk were complete. By 2021, 100% of the actions were expected to be complete. In 2019, 84% of the actions to reduce flood risk were complete. By 2021, 96% of the actions were expected to be complete.
• Recent trends: progress was assessed for cycle 1 (2015-2021).
• Baseline: 90% (completed actions to avoid an increase in flood risk), 84% (completed actions to reduce flood risk)
• Desired trend: Increase

Level of community wellbeing

• Description: In 2022, the mean WEMWBS score for all adults was 47.0
• Recent trends: The mean WEMWBS score for all adults remained stable between 2008 and 2019, between 49.4 and 50.0. Since 2019, it has decreased to 48.6 in 2021 and now 47.0 in 2022.
• Baseline: 47.0
• Desired trend: Increase

Communities – indicator summaries

Community awareness around climate change

​This indicator is chosen as it combines the knowledge of what is required to tackle climate change with the perception of urgency in addressing climate change. This combination is a critical aspect of community resilience. A well-informed community that recognises the urgency of climate action is more likely to engage in adaptive behaviours (Marshall et al., 2013; Shi et al., 2016). This indicator provides insights into the adaptive capacity of communities and their readiness to implement adaptation measures.

Community action on climate change

This indicator was selected as the number of Community Climate Action Hubs in Scotland indicates strong community resilience. This is done through fostering local engagement, resource distribution, capacity building, innovation, network-building, and policy advocacy for climate adaptation (Agrawal, 2008). Local Place Plans act as a good proxy for community-led collaboration and action. The data is available and how the hubs and plans relate to action is understandable to wider audiences.

Community flood resilience

This indicator focuses on actions of local authorities to build community flood resilience. It emphasises the importance of communities playing an active role in reducing the impact of climate change effects, in this case increased flooding (McEwen et al., 2014). This aspect is a key part of communities creating climate-resilient, healthy, and equitable places. These flood risk management plans are part of Scotland’s route map for reducing the effects of flooding on communities. This is key to Scotland’s health, wellbeing and economic success, with an estimated 284,000 homes, businesses and services identified as at risk of flooding.

Community wellbeing

This indicator captures the extent of wellbeing within communities. Evidence shows that experience of the effects of climate change, for example a flooding event, and the capacity to adapt or react to it has a direct impact on mental health (Berry et al., 2018; Palinkas & Wong, 2020). Therefore, it is representative of communities and their health in relation to adaptation.

Public services are collaborating in effective and inclusive adaptation action

Overview

This outcome addresses the need for public services to collaborate effectively on adaptation. It aims to enhance governance, culture, skills and resources within public services to enable effective adaptation. Key actions include strengthening the Public Sector Climate Adaptation Network, modernising water industry adaptation and embedding adaptation across transport networks. This approach seeks to ensure continued delivery of essential services and infrastructure resilience amidst climate change. Figure 5 presents the SNAP3’s pathway from objectives to outcome and impact for Public Services.^[5]

Considerations for indicator selection

Following the desk-based review and stakeholder engagement, several considerations emerged regarding indicator selection for the Public Services outcome:

• We determined that focusing on specific sectoral indicators related to the adaptation of critical infrastructure would result in numerous indicators. This would go against a core aim of our work to develop a concise and clear set of indicators. As discussed, the Scottish Government’s work developing indicators at an objective level has taken place alongside development of the outcome indicators presented in this report. Specific sectoral indicators have been determined at the objective level rather than being included in the high-level outcome indicators developed through this work.
• We explored the possibility of an indicator around participation levels at a recently established infrastructure adaptation forum. However, the objectives and the ambitions of this forum are still at an early stage and it was not possible to determine a baseline, so it was not included here.
• Collaboration is an important aspect of this outcome. The extent of collaboration of public service bodies is captured through the Sustainable Scotland Network annual report. The quality of collaboration is equally as important to capture. However, there is currently insufficient data available to incorporate this element within the outcome indicators.

Public services – proposed indicators

When setting out to develop a list of indicators for the Public Services outcome, we aimed to cover the extent of collaboration between public services, as well as the extent of effective and inclusive adaptation. These indicators use data available to capture high-level insights on the extent of public sector collaboration and adaptation actions that public bodies are taking. These indicators do not cover the extent to which these actions are effective or inclusive. Ultimately, this can only be captured at a sector-specific level, as no generalised metric for effectiveness or inclusiveness of public services and infrastructure exists. It was not possible to go to the level of sector-specific indicators for public services and infrastructure as this would result in numerous indicators.

The proposed indicators are:

• Level of collaboration across public services
• Level of adaptation actions across public services.

Below we present the baseline information for each of the two indicators proposed to monitor the Public Services outcome. For each indicator, we provide the baseline value, a description of the baseline, the recent trend and desired trend for each indicator to provide context. More information on baseline data is available in Annex 5. The is followed by a further detailed summary of each indicator and the rationale for their inclusion.

Public services – baseline

This section presents baseline information. For each indicator, we provide the baseline value, a description of the baseline, the desired trend for each indicator and recent trends for each baseline to provide context.

Number of public bodies members in the Public Sector Climate Adaptation Network 

• Description: In 2024, the Public Sector Climate Adaptation Network counted 50 members.
• Recent trends: the Public Sector Climate Adaptation Network was launched in 2019 with 40 major organisations. 10 additional 10 organisations joined the Network in October 2023.
• Baseline: 50
• Desired trend: Increase

Number of public bodies citing the Work in partnership & collaborations as a priority for the year ahead in relation to climate change adaptation 

• Description: In 2022-2023, 53.2% of the 188 listed public bodies (100 public bodies) submitting an annual compliance report cite “Work in Partnerships & Collaborations” in their top five priorities for the year ahead in relation to climate change adaptation.
• Recent trends: In 2021/22, 36.2% of public bodies declared that they prioritized “Work in Partnerships & Collaborations”.
• Baseline: 53.2%
• Desired trend: Increase

Level of risk assessment across the public sector 

• Description: 70.2% of the public bodies submitting an annual compliance report have completed some form of risk assessment during or prior to the 2022/23 reporting period.  43.6% of bodies have carried out a limited risk assessment. 20.7% of bodies have carried out a comprehensive risk assessment. 5.8% have completed an advanced risk assessment,  involving stakeholders and considering a range of climate or socioeconomic scenarios.
• Recent trends: In 2021/22 reporting, 66.0% of public bodies submitted some form of adaptation risk assessment​.
• Baseline:
  • Limited risk assessment: 43.6%
  • Comprehensive risk assessment: 20.7%
  • Advanced risk assessment: 5.8%
• Desired trend: Increase

Level of adaptation action taken across the public sector

• Description: 71.8% of all listed public bodies submitting an annual compliance report have taken adaptation action during or prior to the 2022/23 reporting period. 44% of bodies have taken some action, 21% of all bodies are taking good action. 6% of bodies are taking advanced action.
• Recent trends: In 2021/22 reporting, 67.0% of public bodies reported taking some form of action on adaptation.
• Baseline:
  • Some actions taken: 44%
  • Good action taken: 21%
  • Advanced action taken: 6%
• Desired trend: Increase

Public Services – indicator summaries

Level of collaboration across public services

This indicator is selected as a proxy to demonstrate the level of collaborative effort between different public bodies on shared outcomes and priorities. Collaboration is vital to tackling the complex challenges involved in strengthening climate resilience. Effective collaboration can enhance adaptive capacity, reduce vulnerability, and ensure a cohesive response to climate change (Runhaar et al., 2018).

Level of adaptation actions across public services

This indicator captures the level of climate adaptation actions undertaken by public bodies. The public sector must assess and address climate risks through adaptation planning and action to ensure the quality of its services to the population in a changing climate (Runhaar et al., 2018). By monitoring the level of risk assessment and adaptation actions, this indicator provides insights into the preparedness and resilience of public services.

Economies and industries are adapting and realising opportunities in Scotland’s Just Transition.

Overview

This outcome focuses on adapting the economy and industries to realise opportunities in Scotland’s Just Transition. It aims to support businesses in understanding and responding to climate risks, whilst fostering innovation in adaptation solutions. Key actions include increasing business awareness of climate risks, supporting adaptation in sectors like farming and forestry, and promoting Scotland as an innovation hub for adaptation solutions. This approach seeks to ensure Scotland’s economy remains competitive and resilient whilst capitalising on emerging opportunities. Figure 6 presents SNAP3’s pathway from objectives to outcome and impact for Economy, Business and Industry.^[6]

Considerations for indicator selection

Following the desk-based review and stakeholder engagement, several considerations emerged regarding indicator selection for the Economy, Business and Industry outcome:

• Investments in climate resilience, with a specific taxonomy for adaptation-related investment, was considered a potential indicator. Such a taxonomy would prove a useful indicator for how the economy is adapting to climate change. However, while initiatives are emerging, this has not been fully implemented at national level yet. It is something to consider for inclusion in the next SNAP.
• The direct economic loss associated with climate-related hazards, such as flooding was considered. Some stakeholders felt that many businesses could be reluctant to invest in resilient infrastructure because its benefits are not easily quantified. Capturing direct loss associated with climate-related hazards helps industries understand the value of investments in adaptation. Nevertheless, no viable dataset currently exists for such an indicator in the Scottish context.
• An indicator on green jobs is included in the indicator set. However, it does not capture the development of adaptation skills needed by existing Scottish businesses to address the challenges of climate change. Training employees to increase adaptation knowledge and skills specific to the needs of individuals or businesses is an important aspect that is not captured as no viable dataset currently exists.
• Sustainable practice in the agriculture sector is the focus of one indicator, given it accounts for 69% of Scotland’s total land use. Another area of the economy initially considered was the forestry sector. An indicator “percentage of certified woodland area in Scotland” was considered. However, considering that certification mostly applies to woodlands used for timber production and not woodlands more generally, the coverage of this indicator was considered too limited.
• The proportion of agricultural land categorised as High Nature Value (HNV) Farming has initially been chosen as a proxy of adaptation to climate change in agriculture in Scotland. High Nature Value (HNV) Farming is an indicator used to identify agricultural systems that support high levels of biodiversity through low-intensity, traditional farming practices. HNV farms are more likely to be resilient to climate variability and extreme weather events. However, this indicator was not selected because the latest baseline is from 2013 and has not been updated since then. Should new data become available this indicator could be reviewed in the future.
• Capturing innovation in Scotland’s economy was considered as an important aspect of this outcome. However, given the broad scope, complexity and subjectivity around what constitutes innovation, it is a difficult aspect to capture in a single quantitative indicator and is, therefore, not included.

Economy, Business and Industry – proposed indicators

It is important that the indicators cover the preparedness and adaptation of businesses and industries and the extent into which they take advantage of economic opportunities linked to climate change. The five indicators selected cover business preparedness and action using data periodically recorded by the Business Insights and Conditions Survey. The use of Office of National Statistics (ONS) data on green jobs provides an indicator for the transition towards a climate-smart economy and workforce skills development for the green economy. Another indicator focused specifically on adaptation action in the agricultural sector, which is a significant part of the Scottish economy. Taken together, this set of indicators uses available data to provide a broad indication of whether Scotland’s economy is adapting to climate change. Nevertheless, there are some key aspects that are not covered. These include levels of investment in climate adaptation initiatives and economic resilience (e.g., economic loss related to climate-related hazards) as well as the level of innovation from businesses in responding to climate risks.

The proposed indicators are:

• Proportion of businesses monitoring climate-related risks
• Proportion of businesses taking action to adapt to the effects of climate change
• Number of green jobs
• Uptake of grants for agriculture storage reservoirs and off-season storage lagoons​.

Below we present the baseline information for each of the five indicators proposed to monitor the Economy, Business and Industry outcome. For each indicator, we provide the baseline value, a description of the baseline, the recent trend and desired trend for each indicator to provide context. More information on baseline data is available in Annex 5. This is followed by a further detailed summary of each indicator and the rationale for their inclusion.

Economy, Business and Industry – baseline

Proportion of businesses monitoring climate related risks

• Description: In 2023, 15.6% of Scotland businesses have assessed risks for supply chain disruption and distribution, 6.2% for increased flooding and 4.4% for temperature increase.
• Recent trends: August 2023 was the first time the question related to businesses monitoring climate related risks was asked.
• Baseline:
  • Supply chain disruption: 15.6%
  • Increased flooding: 6.2%
  • Temperature increase 4.4%
• Desired trend: Increase

Proportion of businesses taking action to adapt to the effects of climate change  

• Description: In 2023, 26.5% of Scotland businesses have taken action to adapt supply chain disruption and distribution, 11.5% to adapt to increased flooding and 4.4% to adapt to temperature increase.
• Recent trends: August 2023 was the first time the question related to businesses taking adaptation action was asked.
• Baseline:
  • Supply chain disruption: 25.6%
  • Increased flooding: 11.5%
  • Temperature increase 5.7%
• Desired trend: Increase

Number of green jobs 

• Description: In 2022, Scotland employment in green jobs in 2022 was estimated at 46,200 full-time equivalents (FTEs).
• Recent trends: This number has increased yearly since 2015 (32,800 FTE), except between 2021 and 2022.
• Baseline: 46,200
• Desired trend: Increase

Uptake of grants for agriculture irrigation lagoons 

• Description: In 2024, 5 AECS applications for irrigation lagoons were successful. 14 applications were submitted.
• Recent trends:  the number of applications submitted and successful are usually between 0 and 2 per year.
• Baseline: 5
• Desired trend: Increase

Economy, Business and Industry – indicator summaries

Business awareness of climate adaptation

This indicator captures the level of knowledge and awareness of climate-related risks by businesses. Ensuring businesses across Scotland are aware of the risks that climate change may pose to their operations, premises, staff, and supply chains is a crucial component of a climate resilient economy (Linnenluecke et al., 2013; Surminski, 2013).

Business preparedness in climate adaptation

This indicator captures businesses’ capacity to respond to the risks posed by climate change. Ensuring businesses across Scotland have a plan to face the risks climate change may pose to their operations, premises, staff and supply chains will be crucial to building a more climate resilient economy (Linnenluecke et al., 2013; Surminski, 2013).

Green jobs in the Scottish economy

This indicator monitors the adaptation opportunity in Scotland’s Just Transition as it directly tracks employment in environmentally sustainable sectors. This indicator reflects the economic growth and industry shift towards sustainable practices, essential for climate adaptation and effective Just Transition (Martinez-Fernandez et al., 2010).

Agriculture water-use efficiency

This indicator represents proxy of adaptation by the agricultural sector. Improving water storage efficiency through irrigation lagoons is a strategic adaptation measure that addresses several challenges posed by climate change: it helps mitigate the variability of rainfall patterns and allow farmers to store water during periods of excess rainfall to ensure a steady water supply for crops. It will also contribute to reduce the stress on Scotland’s water resources and reduce flood risk at times by capturing and storing excess rainfall runoff (Schmitt et. al., 2022).

Discussion

Conclusions

Climate adaptation is complex and multifaceted, spanning across sectors and scales. Therefore, MEL of climate adaptation will always be challenging. Nevertheless, monitoring the extent to which an adaptation plan’s outcomes are achieved is essential to understand the effectiveness of its associated activities and policies. Ultimately, efforts to monitor adaptation plans, such as SNAP3, must navigate this complexity, seeking a balance of indicators that is relevant, robust, and practical to implement. We have sought to achieve this balance by taking a systematic approach to the selection of indicators through desk-based review and extensive engagement with stakeholder groups across Scottish governmental departments and associated organisations. The assessment has been grounded in the practical reality of what data is available rather than theoretically ideal indicators.

In relation to the relevance and robustness of indicators, we have developed outcome indicators that efficiently capture most of the core elements of four of SNAP3’s outcomes.

For the Nature Connects outcome, the indicators proposed cover ecological connectivity, ecological health, and urban-nature connection. Taken together, these indicators will provide useful insights on progress in securing the resilience of Scotland’s natural ecosystems to climate change. Lack of an indicator specifically for marine ecosystems, due to inadequate available data, is a key, is a key limitation.

For the Communities outcome, capturing health and equity in high-level, generalised indicators was challenging due to the complexity of these issues. Therefore, the proposed indicators focus on monitoring community action of relevance to climate adaptation.

For the Public Services outcome, the proposed indicators focus upon collaboration and adaptation actions at a high-level. It was impractical to address the effectiveness of actions, as the number of different sectors associated with this outcome would result in numerous indicators.

For the Economy, Business, and Industry outcome, the indicators proposed cover areas of business preparedness and action, the extent of the transition to green economy, and the extent to which an important sector of the economy (agriculture) is undertaking climate adaptation. While acknowledging that the level of investment in climate adaptation initiatives and economic losses resulting from climate-related hazards is not addressed, these indicators will still provide useful insights about the delivery of this outcome.

Regarding practical implementation, the proposed indicators redeploy established indicators that, crucially, are based on accessible data. Most are publicly reported, although some require correspondence with the relevant Scottish Government data holder. The proposed indicators allow for a baseline to be established at the start of SNAP3 and then reported against after a five-year period. There is variation on the extent of historic data available across the indicators; there; there is more extensive data on previous trends for some than others. Importantly, we believe the relevance of proposed indicators is clear and they are straightforward to apply. As such, they can be used at the end of the five-year period by those who have not been closely involved in their development.

The stakeholder engagement process was critical in the development of the outcome indicators. A wide range of relevant stakeholders across Scotland engaged in one-to-one calls, workshops or written feedback to provide insights both conceptually on what indicators might capture SNAP3 outcomes and practically on what data are available. This engagement provided sector- and topic-specific knowledge, as well as offering validation of the final proposed set of indicators. Several themes emerged from this process of engagement. First, there was an inherent tension between what is ideal and what is possible. Discussions sometimes veered more towards enthusiasm about theoretically ideal indicators that monitor outcomes rather than being grounded in the practical reality of what data is available. While this certainly did not negate the importance of discussing ideal indicators, it was important to ensure, insofar as possible, that an onus on what is practically possible influenced the discussion.

Second, often data limitations lay at the heart of challenges regarding identification of suitable indicators. The limitations took different forms: no data existed (e.g., economic loss from climate-related hazards); it was insufficiently captured (e.g., marine species’ abundance); or it was not easy to access or publicly available (e.g., data on Build Back Better grants). It is not uncommon for data limitations to be a significant obstacle to developing indicators for climate adaptation (Vallejo, 2017).

Third, the SNAP3 outcomes are structured in a clearly defined way, which was beneficial for developing the set of proposed indicators, these outcomes overlap in ways that should be acknowledged. One example relates to the Communities outcome and the Public Services outcome, as collaboration is of significance for both community resilience and for effective public services. Hence, community actors and public service actors cannot be clearly distinguished from each other. Another example is the emphasis of Nature Connects outcome on access to green space and associated health benefits that overlaps with the community health and wellbeing aspects of the Communities outcome. Such overlaps are not inherently problematic but did point to the need for the net to be cast as wide as possible when considering stakeholder engagement for when identifying indicators.

Recommendations

Several recommendations and next steps emerge from this work. It is important to finalise the outcome indicators for SNAP3 as soon as possible, as applying these indicators consistently will be crucial to enable meaningful comparisons against the baseline. Any changes made to individual indicators or the data that underpin them may compromise the ability to track progress consistently relative to the baseline. Furthermore, it is important to maintain continuity, quality and availability of data required by each indicator. It is vital to maintain the allocation of resources to the collection, maintenance and accessibility of datasets used by the indicators across all relevant Scottish Government departments.

Whilst the indicators represent a complete and operational indicator set, there should be a flexibility regarding potential for additional indicators. New indicators may be added in the immediate term if relevant data becomes available. For example, an ecosystem functions indicator for Nature Connects or a green finance investment indicator for Economy, Business, and Industry are anticipated in the near future. While the suite of indicators addresses the needs for monitoring the outcomes of SNAP3, it may be viewed as a foundation to build upon regarding monitoring of SNAP4.

Lastly, we recommend establishing a working group to sustain the functioning of the indicators. The working group could comprise key stakeholders and data providers who could meet annually to review the functioning of the indicators and address any issues regarding their deployment, e.g., continuity and availability of data and its quality. Furthermore, this working group would build on the strong interest evident across a wide range of stakeholders to engage in the topic of climate adaption MEL.

References

Agrawal, A. (2008). The role of local institutions in adaptation to climate change. In Social Dimensions of Climate Change: Equity and Vulnerability in a Warming World (pp. 173-198). World Bank.

Beauchamp, E. & Józefiak, I., 2023. Breaking the Glass Ceiling at COP 28: Four key elements to ensure a successful global goal on adaptation. International Institute for Sustainable Development. Available at: https://www.iisd.org/publications/report/global-goal-on-adaptation-monitoring-evaluation-learning-framework-cop-28 [Accessed 16 July 2024].

Beauchamp, E., Leiter, T., Pringle, P., Brooks, N., Masud, S., and Guerdat, P., 2024. Toolkit for Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning for National Adaptation Plan Processes. NAP Global Network. Available at: https://www.adaptation-undp.org/sites/default/files/resources/internal_brief_transparency-mrv-me-april202249_adjusted_doc_revised.pdf [Accessed 16 July 2024].

Berry, H. L., Waite, T. D., Dear, K. B., Capon, A. G., & Murray, V. (2018). The case for systems thinking about climate change and mental health. Nature Climate Change, 8(4), 282-290.

Biden, A., 2022. 5 Smart Indicators in Monitoring and Evaluation. tools4dev. Available at: https://tools4dev.org/blog/smart-indicators-in-monitoring-and-evaluation/ [Accessed 16 July 2024].

Climate Change Committee (CCC), 2022, Is Scotland Ready? 2022 Report to Scottish Parliament. Available at: https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/asc-writes-to-scottish-government-about-outcomes-based-approach-for-the-sccap/

Climate Change Committee, 32023. Adapting to climate change – Progress in Scotland. Climate Change Committee. Available at: https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/adapting-to-climate-change-progress-in-scotland/ [Accessed 16 July 2024].

Demuzere, M., Orru, K., Heidrich, O., Olazabal, E., Geneletti, D., Orru, H., Bhave, A.G., Mittal, N., Feliu, E. & Faehnle, M. (2014) Mitigating and adapting to climate change: multi-functional and multi-scale assessment of green urban infrastructure, Journal of Environmental Management, 146, pp. 107–115.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2017. Tracking adaptation in agricultural sectors. FAO. Available at: https://www.fao.org/policy-support/tools-and-publications/resources-details/en/c/1193260/ [Accessed 16 July 2024].

Global Environmental Facility (GEF), 2016. Monitoring and Evaluation of Climate Change Adaptation. Global Environment Facility. Available at: https://www.thegef.org/sites/default/files/council-meeting-documents/EN_GEF.STAP_.C.51.Inf_.03_M%26E_of_CCA.pdf [Accessed 16 July 2024].

Gabbatiss, J. & Lempriere, M., 2024. Bonn climate talks: Key outcomes from the June 2024 UN climate conference. Carbon Brief. Available at: https://www.carbonbrief.org/bonn-climate-talks-key-outcomes-from-the-june-2024-un-climate-conference/ [Accessed 16 July 2024].

Gill, S. E., Handley, J. F., Ennos, A. R., & Pauleit, S. (2007). Adapting cities for climate change: the role of the green infrastructure. Built Environment, 33(1), 115-133.

Haddad, N.M., Brudvig, L.A., Clobert, J., Davies, K.F., Gonzalez, A., Holt, R.D., Lovejoy, T.E., Sexton, J.O., Austin, M.P., Collins, C.D., Cook, W.M., Damschen, E.I., Ewers, R.M., Foster, B.L., Jenkins, C.N., King, A.J., Laurance, W.F., Levey, D.J., Margules, C.R., Melbourne, B.A., Nicholls, A.O., Orrock, J.L., Song, D.X. & Townshend, J.R. (2015) Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems, Science Advances, 1(2), e1500052

Krosby, M., Tewksbury, J., Haddad, N. M., & Hoekstra, J. (2010). Ecological connectivity for a changing climate. Conservation Biology, 24(6), 1686-1689.

Linnenluecke, M.K., Griffiths, A. & Winn, M.I. (2013) Firm and industry adaptation to climate change: a review of climate adaptation studies in the business and management field, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 4(5), pp. 397–416.

Maas, J., Verheij, R.A., Groenewegen, P.P., de Vries, S. & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2006) Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation?, Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, vol. 60, no. 7, pp. 587–592.

Mäkinen, K., Prutsch, A., Karali, E., Leitner, M., Völler, S., Lyytimäki, J., Pringle, P., and Vanneuville, W., 2018. Indicators for adaptation to climate change at national level – Lessons from emerging practice in Europe. European Topic Centre on Climate Change impacts, Vulnerability and Adaptation (ETC/CCA) Technical paper 2018/3. DOI: 10.25424/CMCC/CLIMATE_CHANGE_ADAPTATION_INDICATORS_2018.

Marshall, N. A., Park, S. E., Howden, S. M., Dowd, A. B., & Jakku, E. S. (2013). Climate change awareness is associated with enhanced adaptive capacity. Agricultural Systems, 117, 30-34.

Martinez-Fernandez, C., Hinojosa, C. & Miranda, G. (2010) Green jobs and skills: The local labour market implications of addressing climate change, OECD Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED) Working Papers, 2010/02, OECD Publishing, Paris.

McEwen, L., Jones, O. & Robertson, I. (2014), ‘A glorious time?’ Some reflections on flooding in the Somerset Levels, The Geographical Journal, 180(4), pp. 326-337.

McGranahan, G., Balk, D., & Anderson, B. (2007). The rising tide: assessing the risks of climate change and human settlements in low elevation coastal zones. Environment and Urbanization, 19(1), 17-37.

Moss, A., 2019. A monitoring and evaluation framework for the second SCCAP. ClimateXChange. Available at: https://www.climatexchange.org.uk/publications/a-monitoring-and-evaluation-framework-for-the-second-sccap/ [Accessed 16 July 2024].

New, M., Reckien, D., Viner, D., Adler, C., Cheong, S.-M., Conde, C., Constable, A., Coughlan de Perez, E., Lammel, A., Mechler, R., Orlove, B., and Solecki, W., 2022. Decision-Making Options for Managing Risk. In: Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D.C., Tignor, M., Poloczanska, E.S., Mintenbeck, K., Alegría, A., Craig, M., Langsdorf, S., Löschke, S., Möller, V., Okem, A., and Rama, B. (eds.) Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 2539–2654, doi:10.1017/9781009325844.026.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2015. National Climate Change Adaptation: Emerging Practices in Monitoring and Evaluation. OECD Publishing, Paris. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264229679-en [Accessed 16 July 2024].

Peter, S., & Peter, F., 2009. Evaluation of Indicators for EU Policy Objectives. Ecologic Institute. Available at: https://www.ecologic.eu/sites/default/files/publication/2016/1901-research_note-d2-1-evaluation-of_indicators-for-eu-policy-objectives-2009.pdf [Accessed 16 July 2024].

Palinkas, L. A., & Wong, M. (2020). Global climate change and mental health. Current Opinion in Psychology, 32, 12-16

Palmer, M. A., Lettenmaier, D. P., Poff, N. L., Postel, S. L., Richter, B., & Warner, R. (2009). Climate change and river ecosystems: protection and adaptation options. Environmental Management, 44(6), 1053-1068.

Runhaar, H., Wilk, B., Persson, Å., Uittenbroek, C., & Wamsler, C. (2018). Mainstreaming climate adaptation: taking stock about ‘what works’ from empirical research worldwide. Regional Environmental Change, 18, 1201-1210.

Sayers, PB., Lindley. S, Carr, S and Figueroa-Alfaro, R. W, 2021. The impacts of climate change on population groups in Scotland. Research undertaken by Sayers and Partners in association with the University of Manchester for ClimateXChange.

Schmitt, R.J. P., Rosa, L., Daily, G. (2022), ‘Global expansion of sustainable irrigation limited by water storage’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119 (47), https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2214291119.

Shi, J., Visschers, V.H.M., Siegrist, M. & Arvai, J. (2016) Knowledge as a driver of public perceptions about climate change reassessed, Nature Climate Change, 6, pp. 759–762.

Surminski, S. (2013) Private-sector adaptation to climate risk, Nature Climate Change, 3(11), pp. 943–945.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 2022. Transparency, MRV, and M&E. United Nations Development Programme. Available at: https://www.adaptation-undp.org/sites/default/files/resources/internal_brief_transparency-mrv-me-april202249_adjusted_doc_revised.pdf [Accessed 16 July 2024].

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 2024. Synthesis of submissions on the UAE – Belém work programme on indicators, Advance Unedited Version. UNFCCC. Available at: https://unfccc.int/documents/638384 [Accessed 16 July 2024].

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 2023. Draft technical paper on monitoring and evaluation of adaptation at the national and subnational level (AC22). UNFCCC. Available at: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/ac22_7c_monitoring_evaluation.pdf [Accessed 16 July 2024].

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2017, . Development of a Climate Resilience Screening Index (CRSI): An Assessment of Resilience to Acute Meteorological Events and Selected Natural Hazards. EPA. Available at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryId=335758 [Accessed 16 July 2024].

Vallejo, L. (2015). Insights from national adaptation monitoring and evaluation systems. In Mullan, M., Kingsmill, N., Agrawala, S. & Kramer, A.M. (eds) National Adaptation Planning: Lessons from OECD Countries. Springer, Cham. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2017/06/insights-from-national-adaptation-monitoring-and-evaluation-systems_d2e677fe.html [Accessed 16 July 2024].

Watson, J. E. M., Dudley, N., Segan, D. B., & Hockings, M. (2014). The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature, 515, 67-73.

Annexes

Annex 1 – Policies reviewed

The following policies were reviewed for sectorial indicators that could be relevant for the SNAP3 outcome indicators.

Scottish policies listed in the draft SNAP3 for the outcome area “Nature connects across our lands, settlements, coasts and seas”:

Scottish policies listed in the draft SNAP3 for the outcome area “Communities creating climate-resilient, healthy and equitable places”:

Scottish policies listed in the draft SNAP3 for the outcome area “Public services are collaborating in effective, inclusive adaptation action”:

Scottish policies listed in the draft SNAP3 for the outcome area “Economies and industries are adapting and realising opportunities in Scotland’s Just Transition”:

Annex 2 – Initial longlist of indicators

The initial longlist of indicators is listed below. This longlist was shared with stakeholders and revised through engagement as described in section 2.

Initial longlist of indicators for the outcome area “Nature connects across our lands, settlements, coasts and seas”:

Initial longlist of indicators for the outcome area “Communities creating climate-resilient, healthy and equitable places”:

Initial longlist of indicators for the outcome area “Public services are collaborating in effective, inclusive adaptation action”:

Initial longlist of indicators for the outcome area “Economies and industries are adapting and realising opportunities in Scotland’s Just Transition”:

Annex 3 – Workshop participation

The following organisations participated in the workshops.

Organisations represented in the workshop “Nature connects across our lands, settlements, coasts and seas”:

• Centre of Expertise for Waters
• Edinburgh Council
• Forestry and Land
• Glasgow City Council
• Highlands and Islands Airports
• James Hutton Institute
• Marine Directorate of Scottish Government
• National Centre for Resilience
• Nature Scot
• Public Health Scotland
• SEPA
• Scottish Government
• Scottish Water
• Sniffer

Organisations represented in the workshop “Communities creating climate-resilient, healthy and equitable places”:

• FloodRe
• Glasgow City Council
• National Centre for Resilience
• National Resilience Scotland
• Nature Scot
• Public Health Scotland
• Scottish Dynamic Coast
• Scottish Flood Forum
• Scottish Government
• Scottish Land Commission
• Scottish Waters
• Sniffer
• Strathclyde University

Organisations represented in the workshop “Public services are collaborating in effective, inclusive adaptation action”:

• Climate Change Committee
• Glasgow City Council
• MET Office
• Nature Scot
• Network Rail
• Public Health Scotland
• SEPA
• Scottish Flood Forum
• Scottish Government
• Scottish Water
• Sniffer
• Transport Scotland
• University of Strathclyde

Organisations represented in the workshop “Economies and industries are adapting and realising opportunities in Scotland’s Just Transition”:

• Climate Change Committee
• Forestry and Land Scotland
• Glasgow City Council
• Marine Directorate of Scottish Government
• Scottish Government
• SEPA
• Scottish Water
• Sniffer

Annex 4 – Indicator criteria

OUTCOME: Nature connects across our lands, settlements, coasts, and seas

ECOSYSTEM HEALTH AND CONNECTIVITY

Habitat Connectivity Index 

Proportion of surface water bodies classified in good or better condition

Proportion of Scotland’s protected sites in favourable condition

Proportion of soft shorelines affected by coastal erosion

URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

Extent of green-blue land cover in urban areas 

Proportion of adults who live within a five-minute walk of their nearest green or blue space

OUTCOME: Communities are creating climate-resilient, healthy and equitable places.

Community awareness around climate change

Community action on climate change

Community flood resilience

Community wellbeing

OUTCOME: Public services are collaborating in effective and inclusive adaptation action

Level of collaboration across public services

Level of adaptation actions across public services

OUTCOME: Economies and industries are adapting and realising opportunities in Scotland’s Just Transition.

Business awareness of climate adaptation

Business preparedness in climate adaptation

Green jobs in the Scottish economy

SUSTAINABLE PRACTICE IN THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR

Agriculture water-use efficiency

Annex 5 – Baseline information for each indicator

© The University of Edinburgh, 2024
Prepared by Ricardo on behalf of ClimateXChange, The University of Edinburgh. All rights reserved.

While every effort is made to ensure the information in this report is accurate, no legal responsibility is accepted for any errors, omissions or misleading statements. The views expressed represent those of the author(s), and do not necessarily represent those of the host institutions or funders.

ClimateXChange
Edinburgh Climate Change Institute
High School Yards
Edinburgh EH1 1LZ

+44 (0) 131 651 4783

info@climatexchange.org.uk

www.climatexchange.org.uk

If you require the report in an alternative format such as a Word document, please contact info@climatexchange.org.uk or 0131 651 4783.

1. 
   

   https://www.gov.scot/isbn/9781836017264 ↑

   
   
2. 
   

   Meeting notes from the four workshops are provided as supplementary materials to this report. ↑

   
   
3. 
   

   Note: the objectives used here are taken from the draft SNAP3. The wording in the final SNAP3 differs slightly. ↑

   
   
4. 
   

   Note: the objectives used here are taken from the draft SNAP3. The wording in the final SNAP differs slightly. ↑

   
   
5. 
   

   Note: the objectives used here are taken from the draft SNAP3. The wording in the final SNAP differs slightly. ↑

   
   
6. 
   

   Note: the objectives used here are taken from the draft SNAP3. The wording in the final SNAP differs slightly. ↑

   
   
7. 
   

   See Office of National Statistics – https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/experimentalestimatesofgreenjobsuk/2024#measuring-the-data ↑

   
   

The UK Climate Change Committee states that adjustments to dietary patterns are necessary to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets for Scotland. Food-based dietary guidelines have a policy role to play in supporting such adjustments.

This study reviewed international evidence including three case studies. The report presents findings on whether and how greenhouse gas emission criteria could be included in Scottish food-based dietary guidelines.

Main findings

Out of 33 jurisdictions reviewed, only seven have food-based dietary guidelines with extensive climate focus. However, this number is increasing over time. Emissions-focused guidelines advise:

• reducing meat, in particular ruminant meat
• moderating dairy
• increasing vegetables, fruits and plant proteins
• sourcing sustainably
• avoiding highly processed foods
• reducing food waste

Guidelines for Flanders, the Netherlands and Sweden offer good examples of how dietary linkages between human and planetary health can be explained with clear recommendations for food consumers.

Development of climate-focused guidelines suits a ‘science first’ approach, involving cross-disciplinary expert panels and reviews. Stakeholder inputs are restricted to the final steps of messaging and implementation.

Policy implementation for climate-friendly diets requires coordinated effort and strategic packages of measures, to tackle the food system holistically.

In Flanders, the Netherlands and Sweden, policy coordination has been lacking. Measures to date are largely limited to information campaigns and voluntary actions in public catering. More recently, Flanders and the Netherlands have launched more integrative food strategies. They are starting to combine policy measures across the food chain to encourage more sustainable diets.

Implications for Scotland:

• Adopting climate-focused food-based dietary guidelines would require time and effort, but would be a generally low-regret action, aligning with dietary goals and the net zero agenda.
• Some micronutrient deficiency risks are possible for certain population groups, depending on which foods are substituted. Other potential risks include displacement of greenhouse gas emissions from import/export activities.
• To address such issues, a coordinated cross-departmental policy approach would be needed, deploying a mix of supply-side and demand-side measures.
• In particular, households at risk of micronutrient deficiencies due to constrained access to healthy foods would need targeted support, including improvements to their food environments.

Research completed in August 2024

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7488/era/4792

Executive Summary

Background

The UK Climate Change Committee states that adjustments to dietary patterns are necessary to meet greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets for Scotland. Food-based dietary guidelines (FBDGs) have a policy role to play in supporting such adjustments.

Drawing on international evidence including three case studies, this report presents findings on whether and how greenhouse gas emission criteria could be included in Scottish FBDGs.

Main findings

• Out of 33 jurisdictions reviewed, only seven have FBDGs with extensive climate focus. However, this number is increasing over time.
  
• Emissions-focused FBGDs advise reducing meat, in particular ruminant meat; moderating dairy; increasing vegetables, fruits and plant proteins; sourcing sustainably; avoiding highly processed foods and reducing food waste.
  
• FBDGs for Flanders, the Netherlands and Sweden offer good examples of how dietary linkages between human and planetary health can be explained with clear recommendations for food consumers.
  
• Development of climate-focused FBDGs suits a ‘science first’ approach, involving cross-disciplinary expert panels and reviews. Stakeholder inputs are restricted to the final steps of messaging and implementation.
  
• Policy implementation for climate-friendly diets requires coordinated effort and strategic packages of measures, to tackle the food system holistically.
  
• In Flanders, the Netherlands and Sweden, policy coordination has been lacking. Measures to date are largely limited to information campaigns and voluntary actions in public catering.
  
• More recently, Flanders and the Netherlands have launched more integrative food strategies. They are starting to combine policy measures across the food chain to encourage more sustainable diets.
  

Implications for Scotland:

• Adopting climate-focused FBDGs would require time and effort, but would be a generally low-regret action, aligning with dietary goals and the net zero agenda.
  
• Some micronutrient deficiency risks are possible for certain population groups, depending on which foods are substituted. Other potential risks include displacement of GHG emissions from import/export activities.
  
• To address such issues, a coordinated cross-departmental policy approach would be needed, deploying a mix of supply-side and demand-side measures.
  
• In particular, households at risk of micronutrient deficiencies due to constrained access to healthy foods would need targeted support, including improvements to their food environments.
  

Glossary / Abbreviations table

Introduction

Background

The food system is a significant emitter of greenhouse gases (GHGs), accounting for up to 30% of emissions globally and at least 20% within Scotland.^[1] As other sectors of the economy (e.g. energy) decarbonise, food’s share of total emissions will increase over time. Mitigation of this can be (and is being) attempted through changes to the production methods of the foods that currently comprise our diets (e.g. via improved plant and animal health and reductions in chemical inputs).

Yet meeting GHG emission targets will also require changes to diets themselves, towards those featuring greater proportions of climate-friendly foods. Dietary shifts for climate reasons must also, of course, promote human health, a dual imperative that is captured in concepts such as the Planetary Health Diet.^[2]

Scottish Government commitments to a sustainable, healthy food system and associated emission reductions are expressed in the Programme for Government 2023/24 and underpinned by, for example, the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022, the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 (and subsequent amendments) and Climate Change Plan Updates.^[3] In the Scottish Dietary Goals, the aim to reduce red and red processed meat intake to no more than 70g/day, due to the links with colorectal cancer, is also broadly consistent with the UK Climate Change Committee’s recommendation of a 20% reduction in meat by 2030 to reduce emissions.^[4]

The current UK Food Based Dietary Guidance (FBDG) is the Eatwell Guide^[5]. Studies indicate that a diet following the Eatwell Guide generates lower emissions than the current UK diet^[6]. However, diets based on many FBDGs globally, including the Eatwell Guide, exceed emissions targets for 1.5 degrees global warming^[7]. Hence this report was commissioned to gather international evidence on more climate-focused FBDGs, and explore how they may potentially apply in Scotland.

The specific project objectives were to:

(i) explore dietary guidelines and recommendations in other jurisdictions;

(ii) explore the extent to which these have a climate focus;

(iii) identify what policies, strategies and actions have been taken to encourage progress to the guidelines;

(iv) discuss what could potentially apply in Scotland, drawing on Scottish data and evidence, and

(v) explore impacts on different groups in Scotland, e.g. gender, age, social class, vulnerable groups.

The findings are relevant to the UK Climate Change Committee’s statement that meeting Scottish emission reduction targets will require changes to dietary patterns. The findings are also relevant to future revisions of the Scottish Dietary Goals.

Project Methods

The project was undertaken in five steps, from October 2023 to March 2024. The steps are shown in Figure 1.1 and described below.

Step 1: Guided by the Steering Group, and with reference to published studies, we selected the FBDGs of 33 international jurisdictions for inclusion in the study. The set comprised mainly European and anglophone jurisdictions.

Step 2: Using FAO resources and online documentation, we accessed the FBDGs in all 33 jurisdictions, and reviewed each one for reference to climate. We allocated each FBDG to one of three categories, according to the extent of climate focus: from ‘red’ (little to no reference to climate) to ‘green’ (extensive climate focus).

Step 3: Following discussion with the Steering Group, we selected three example ‘green’ FBDGs to examine in more detail. These were Flanders, the Netherlands and Sweden. In each case, we identified the main advice and how it is linked to climate. We also studied the development process for the FBDGs. Lastly, we reviewed key policies, strategies and actions taken to implement the FBDGs. The main data sources were online materials and grey literature. These were supported by semi-structured interviews with officials involved in the development of the guidance in each jurisdiction (see Appendix A).

Step 4: We compared the insights from the 3 jurisdictions with the current situation in Scotland, drawing from official data sources and recent studies. We then reflected on what could potentially apply in Scotland, in terms of more climate-focused FBDGs and supporting policies. These reflections drew from published studies and official statistics, and were also informed by semi-structured interviews with a range of Scottish stakeholder groups. Guided by the Steering Group, these groups were: ASSIST FM; the British Dietetics Association; Food and Drink Federation Scotland; National Farmers Union Scotland; Nesta; Soil Association Scotland.

Step 5: We explored the impacts of more climate-focused FBDGs on different sub-groups in Scotland. The key data sources were official dietary statistics and recent studies of potential impacts of climate focused diets in Scotland.

International review of FBDGs

Review of FBDGs in other jurisdictions, with reference to climate criteria

Appendix B provides a tabulated summary of information for all 33 FBDGs included in the review, on a country by country basis. Appendix C summarises the intakes for key food groups (all meat, red/processed meat, dairy, fruit and vegetables) as stated in the FBDGs for 22 of the 33 jurisdictions.

Of the 33 FBDGs studied, we found the majority (19) contained no or extremely limited reference to climate impact. Six contained moderate reference, while seven contained extensive reference (Table 2.1). It is worth noting that although the majority of countries have yet to explicitly include reference to climate in their FBDGs, or are still at the development phase, the number is increasing over time. For example, all the entries in the Extensive column have emerged in the past decade.

Jurisdictions in the red column: these have FBDGs which make no reference to climate impact, or only very limited reference, in either background or consumer-facing documents. ‘Limited reference’ denotes guidance which mentions sustainability, but only in an isolated way, and without any explanation or context. For example, the FBDGs of Austria and the UK (Eatwell Guide) both recommend choosing ‘sustainably sourced’ fish, by looking for MSC or similar labelling. However, this is the only reference to sustainability in the documents (i.e. no other food group has a similar recommendation), and there is no explanatory connection to the underlying sustainability issue with fishing.

Jurisdictions in the amber column: these FBDGs – in either consumer-facing or background documents – make more reference to climate than those in the red column. However, those references appear either in a circumscribed way, disconnected from the main guidance, or are individually brief or superficial within the body of the main guidance. An example of ‘circumscribed reference’ is the national guidance for Belgium. In the background document, there is a short stand-alone chapter dedicated to sustainability and climate, which explains the relevance to dietary issues. However, the contents are not connected to other chapters, and sustainability is not referred to in the consumer-facing guidance. An example of ‘superficial reference’ is the guidance for France. There are three individual references to climate and the environment in the consumer-facing guidance, however each one is very brief, without explanation of the underlying issues.

Jurisdictions in the green column: these FBDGs – in either the consumer-facing and/or background documents – make extensive reference to climate impact. The most advanced of these have climate impact as an integral component of the guidance, rather than an added feature, or set of ideas in development. Features that the ‘green’ FBDGs have in common include (i) introductory sections which make a clear connection between human health and planetary health, (ii) frequent references to climate impact throughout sections and applied to different food groups, (iii) effort (some more than others) to explain the reasons behind the climate-related guidance, and how consumers may navigate complexities and trade-offs between health and climate impacts.

Content of FBDGs with extensive climate focus

Overview of content

The jurisdictions found to have the most extensive reference to climate impact in their FBDGs were Denmark, Flanders, the Netherlands, Sweden and Finland. Germany and Spain are also included in this group, although their coverage is less extensive and integrated than the others^[8].

These FBDGs make a clear link between human health and planetary health, by pointing out that what we eat affects not only our own well-being but also the environment. In terms of over-arching consumption advice, these FBDGs recommend:

• eating less meat and animal products;
  
• eating more plants, plant proteins and wholegrains;
  
• choosing nutrient dense foods over nutrient poor;
  
• drinking tap water;
  
• not overeating;
  
• avoiding waste.
  

The following sections describe what these climate-focused FBDGs advise, by food group. Advice from the Eatwell Guide is also referenced, for comparison.

Advice relating to meat

All seven FBDGs advise reducing meat consumption, due to the high GHG emissions from meat production, in particular ruminant meat. Table 2.2 shows the maximum recommended intake levels for meat in the seven FBDGs, and the Eatwell Guide. Germany specifies the lowest maximum weekly intake for all meat (240g), while Finland and the Netherlands specify the highest (500g). The Eatwell Guide does not specify a maximum level for all meat. The Netherlands specifies the lowest maximum intake for red/processed meat (300g) while Sweden specifies the highest (500g). The Eatwell Guide specifies the second highest maximum intake for red/processed meat at 490g.

ns: not specified. Germany: ‘all meat’ includes beef. Red/processed is processed only.

Examples of qualitative advice on meat in these FBDGs:

• When choosing meat, select more sustainably produced options, e.g. organic or agroecological, following a ‘’less but better” approach (The Netherlands, Sweden).
  
• Diets based on small amounts of meat can support the positive effects of grazing livestock on landscape and biodiversity (The Netherlands, Sweden)
  
• Meat-free days per week are specifically recommended by Denmark, Finland (1) Flanders (up to 4), Netherlands (up to 6), Spain (up to 7) and Sweden (up to 3).
  

The Eatwell Guide advises eating less red and processed meat. It gives no advice on production systems, nor on meat-free days.

Advice relating to dairy

The seven climate-focused FBDGs advise moderation in dairy product consumption, due to the GHG emissions associated with dairy farming. Table 2.3 shows the recommended daily intake levels for selected dairy products in these FBDGs. For milk/yoghurt, Denmark and Germany recommend c.250ml, while most others recommend a range extending to 500ml at the upper boundary. For hard cheese, the lowest recommended intake is 20g (Denmark) and the highest maximum is 60g (Spain). Four out of the six FBDGs do not specify a set intake level for cheese, although Germany offers guidance on how to allocate a total dairy amount between different product types. The Eatwell Guide does not specify intake levels for any dairy products.

Examples of qualitative advice for dairy consumption in these FBDGs:

• Take enough dairy to avoid chronic diseases and get enough nutrients, but not more than that, because dairy products come from cows, which have a high environmental impact (The Netherlands).
  
• Eating moderate amounts of dairy can support the positive effects of grazing livestock on landscape and biodiversity (Sweden).
  
• Where possible, choose eco-labels like organic for the more sustainably produced options (Sweden).
  
• Eat fewer processed dairy products, to get the nutritional benefits without the added climate burden from extra processing stages (Finland).
  

The Eatwell Guide advises eating ‘some’ milk and dairy food (or dairy alternatives). It gives no advice on production systems or levels of processing.

Advice relating to vegetables, fruit and plant proteins

All seven FBDGs give very clear recommendations to eat more vegetables, fruits and plant proteins for climate reasons. Table 2.4 shows the specified daily intake levels for these foods. For vegetables and fruit, recommended intakes range from 450g (Netherlands) to 690g (Spain). By comparison, the Eatwell Guide recommends the lowest minimum intake: at least 400g. In terms of legumes, only Denmark, Germany and Spain specify minimum intakes, from 100g (Denmark) to 200g (Spain) per week. For nuts, all jurisdictions except Sweden recommend intakes, from 15g to 30g per day. The Eatwell Guide does not recommend intake levels for legumes or nuts.

Examples of qualitative advice for vegetables, fruits and plant proteins in these FBDGs:

• Eat vegetables and fruit in season, for lower carbon footprint (Flanders, Sweden).
  
• Choose field grown rather than glasshouse grown (Flanders, Sweden), although glasshouses powered with renewable energy can have similar footprints (Finland).
  
• Locally grown is not necessarily lower carbon (Flanders).
  
• Choose ecolabelled and organic to reduce climate impact (Sweden).
  
• Legumes are nitrogen-fixing, which saves use of nitrogen fertilizer (Finland).
  

The Eatwell Guide does not advise on production methods or seasonality in this group.

Advice relating to cereals, grains, fats and oils

All climate-focused FBDGs highlight that, in general, grains and cereals have relatively low carbon footprints. Recommended intakes range from 75g (Denmark) to 90g (Sweden) wholegrain foods per day. Rice is identified as a grain with a higher carbon footprint (Denmark, Sweden, Finland), hence, advice is to swap rice for other grains or potatoes.

In terms of fats and oils, plant-based oils are recommended over butter and spreads due to their lower carbon impact (Denmark, Finland, Sweden). Within plant oils, rapeseed oil is presented as a particularly sustainable option, with a low carbon footprint (Sweden).

The Eatwell Guide does not advise about types of grains or fats from a climate perspective. This means that rice is recommended equally alongside pasta and potatoes. It recommends oils from plant sources, such as rapeseed and olive oil, as these are unsaturated fats. The outcome is that the same oils are recommended by Eatwell and the climate-focused FBDGs.

Advice relating to high fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) foods ^[9]

The seven FBDGs, advise to consume as few foods as possible from this category. This benefits the environment because (i) many foods in this category are ultra-processed (UPF), containing ingredients/processes which are carbon intensive, and (ii) they are nutrient poor. As all food production has an environmental impact, it is best to consume foods that are nutrient dense, to make the environmental impact ‘count’. All the FBDGs recommend tap water as the lowest carbon impact beverage, and that bottled drinks, including bottled water, should be avoided for the sake of the planet.

For HFSS foods, the Eatwell Guide’s recommendations are to avoid or eat in small amounts. The outcome is therefore the same as climate-focused FBDGs. For beverages, unlike the climate-focused FBDGs, the Eatwell Guide does not distinguish between bottled and tap water, and includes milk and diet/sugar-free drinks as recommended drinks.

Advice relating to sustainability

All climate-focused FBDGs contain the strong common messages of (i) only eat as much as you need and (ii) avoid food waste. The latter is advised as important for the planet because every food item wasted has an environmental impact that could have been avoided. The Eatwell Guide advises to eat only as much food as you need. It does not include any advice about food waste.

Summary of similarities and differences between climate-focused FBDGs and the Eatwell Guide

Advice within climate-focused FBDGs which is in common with the Eatwell Guide:

• Limit intake of red and processed meat (although 5 out of 6 FBDGs set maximum intakes lower than the Eatwell Guide)
  
• Eat plenty of vegetables and fruit (although all 6 FBDGs recommend minimum intake levels higher than the Eatwell Guide)
  
• Choose vegetable oils, e.g. rapeseed or olive oil, over animal fats
  
• HFSS foods are non-essential to diet so only eat in small amounts
  
• Only eat as much as you need
  

Advice within climate-focused FBDGs, which is different from the Eatwell Guide:

• Eat less meat and animal products, while increasing intake of plants and plant proteins (includes advocating meat-free days)
  
• Moderate dairy intake
  
• Choose seasonal, field grown vegetables and fruits
  
• Choose foods from more sustainable production methods, e.g. organic
  
• Choose potatoes, pasta or other grains over rice
  
• Favour unprocessed or lightly processed foods, and avoid UPFs
  
• The only recommended drinks are tap water, tea and coffee
  
• Avoid food waste
  

Sub-national variation

Of the seven FBDGs reviewed in this section, several come from jurisdictions with a degree of sub-national devolution, with regional powers able to adopt different approaches to certain policy areas. However, although guidance may be presented with regional badging, most often we found the substantive content of FBDGs is the same in different parts of a given country. The Flanders region of Belgium was the only clear example of sub-national variation in FBDGs found by this study. Yet policies to encourage uptake of nationally uniform FBDG do vary regionally in some jurisdictions. For example, across Dutch and Swedish municipalities and Australian States and Canadian Provinces.^[10]

Case study: Flanders

This chapter provides an overview of the FBDGs in Flanders, how they were developed, and policy implementations to date. Appendix E provides more details.

FBDGs in Flanders: the Flanders Food Triangle

In Flanders, the FBDGs are captured in a 24-page consumer-facing document “Eating According to the Food Triangle: Good for Yourself and the Planet” (2021). It was developed by the Flemish Institute of Healthy Living (“Gezond Leven”), in cooperation with the Department of the Environment of the Flemish Government. The context of the guidance emphasises that the environmental impact of our food is currently greater than what our planet can bear, so dietary change is needed.

In terms of content, the Food Triangle (Figure 3.1) is offered as the basis for a healthy and environmentally responsible diet. It advises eating more vegetables, fruits, wholegrains and plant proteins, while eating less meat, butter and cheese. Discretionary foods (high in fat, salt and sugar) are separated from the triangle as non-essential to the diet, to be eaten ‘as little as possible’. This category includes processed meat. The guidance also recommends up to three or four days per week of meat-free meals. It provides links to support materials developed by Gezond Leven, including recipes for vegetarian meals and a seasonal buying guide for fruit and vegetables.

How the FBDGs were developed

A ‘science first’ approach was taken to develop the guidance. First, Gezond Leven and the Department of the Environment commissioned a review of scientific literature on the health and environmental impacts of dietary choices. Next, they convened a cross-disciplinary academic expert panel to help analyse the evidence and determine the core content of the final guidance. After this, public-facing messaging was designed and tested amongst citizens, with the support of experts in behaviour and communication. Only after the guidance was finalized were stakeholders consulted. Importantly, these consultations related only to the coordination and implementation of the guidance: they did not influence or change its substance.

Policies, strategies and actions related to the FBDGs

Various policy documents in Flanders have content aligned with the goals of the FBDGs, although they do not refer specifically to the guidance. For example, the ‘Strategic Plan: Flanders Lives Healthier in 2025’ and the ‘The Flemish Climate Policy Plan’ both refer to the need for changes to food consumption habits in the jurisdiction, for reasons of health and climate impact.

Recent strategies have also been launched with the aim to encourage more holistic, systems-based action on food than has been achieved historically. (In the past, policies for food have reflected departmental silos in government.) For example, the 2022 Flemish Food Strategy (“Go4Food”^[11]) sets out 11 ‘Food Deal’ themes, around which cross-cutting actions are encouraged to coalesce. Funding is intended for these, albeit not specified in the document.

Another cross-cutting example is the ‘Flemish Protein Strategy 2021-2030’. This aims to increase the ratio of plant protein consumption vs animal protein consumption in Flanders to 60:40. Using CAP funding for domestic plant protein production as a catalyst, the strategy supports collaborations between food supply chain actors, research institutes and NGOs.

In practice, the Protein Strategy has led to increased domestic production of plant protein crops, research/innovation in processing, and promotion of plant proteins by food retailers. Overall, it represents an effort to fund coherent cross-sectoral work on sustainable food, by leveraging EU funding and private sector investment. CAP funding has similarly been used to encourage greater organic food production, albeit to a lesser degree than plant protein production.

Actions specifically to promote climate-friendly diets have been more limited in scope and scale. They have been largely focused on public communications campaigns and work with public catering (Table 3.1).

Evaluations of effects of FBDGs and/or policies

The Flanders Government conducts a National Food Survey on a 10-year cycle, with the next round due in 2024. This will be the first opportunity to gauge any changes in public dietary habits from the latest FBDGs. In the meantime, a recent small-scale survey on protein consumption showed trends in the desired direction (increases in plant consumption, decreases in meat consumption), but only to a very small extent. More formal evaluations of policy effectiveness are needed.

Case study: The Netherlands

This chapter provides an overview of the FBDGs in the Netherlands, how they were developed, and policy implementations to date. Appendix F provides more details.

FBDGs in the Netherlands: The Wheel of Five and Seven Steps to Sustainability

In the Netherlands, climate-focused dietary guidance is captured in the “Eating more sustainably: fact sheet” (2022), which accompanies the main “Wheel of Five” dietary model. The factsheet is a 10-page document targeted at professionals/policymakers. It sets out the case for environmentally sustainable diets, and explains how the Dutch diet should change to be in line with science-based planetary health recommendations.

The factsheet states that shifting from the current diet to the Wheel of Five is good for health and climate, but it also gives more specific advice about the most sustainable options to choose (Figure 4.1). The 7 ways are: (i) eat less meat (opt more often for pulses, nuts or eggs); (ii) waste as little as possible (buy and cook what you need); (iii) eat recommended amounts (moderate your snacks and sweets); (iv) drink mostly tap water; (v) eat enough dairy and cheese (but within bounds); (vi) buy seasonally (and check product origins); (vii) choose premium sustainability labels.

How FBDGs were developed

Two agencies led the development of the Dutch FBDGs. These were the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (NIPHE), a research centre which collects and analyses scientific evidence and conducts data modelling, and the Netherlands Nutrition Centre (NNC), a body which translates the science into practical FBDGs for consumers and health professionals. Both are independent bodies, funded solely by the Ministries of Health and Agriculture.

In 2015, the NIPHE reviewed the scientific evidence on health and climate impacts of diets, with input from academic subject experts. NIPHE used this intelligence to model dietary guidelines as close as possible to the existing Dutch diet, while meeting parameters of health, climate impact, feasibility and impact on different target groups.

The NNC used the modelled solutions to draft the public facing dietary guidance, including the graphics. A transparent consultation process followed with experts, to check for any errors/omissions in the science, and also with health professionals, to advise on practical implementation.

The food industry was specifically not involved in the consultation. Only after the final guidance was completed were meetings held with industry representatives. This approach was taken to maintain both the real and perceived independence of the NIPHE and NNC. In total, the development process took several years.

Policies, strategies and actions related to the FBDGs

Policies relevant to food in the Netherlands appear to reflect the traditional priorities of host ministries, with relatively little integration of health and climate goals. For example, the 2018 ‘National Prevention Agreement: Towards a Healthier Netherlands’ makes no reference to climate or sustainability, while the 2019 ‘Climate Agreement’ contains only one brief reference to the need for change in food consumption habits. The 2015 ‘National Food Policy’ includes goals to increase consumption of fruits and vegetables, but these are justified for health not climate reasons.

However, the Dutch National Protein Strategy is more integrative. As in Flanders, CAP funding has been used to encourage plant protein production at farm level. This is being combined with further funding under economy-wide ‘green growth’ schemes, from both public and private sources, to encourage market growth along the supply chain.

Actions specifically to encourage take-up of the FBDGs are led by the NNC. They are centred on public communication tools and work with public caterers. In addition, one Dutch municipality (Haarlem city) is imposing a ban on outdoor advertising of meat. Table 4.1 provides more details.

Evaluations of effects of the FBDGs and/or policies

The NNC undertakes consumer research and also administers the Dutch National Food Survey. Their data indicate that awareness of the Wheel of Five dietary model in the Dutch population is 71%, and trend analysis from the Dutch National Food Survey indicates small increases in fruit and vegetable consumption, and small decreases in meat consumption between 2007 and 2021. The changes are small, but in the right direction. However, policy effectiveness has not been evaluated formally.

Case Study: Sweden

This chapter provides an overview of the FBDGs in Sweden, how they were developed, and policy implementations to date. Appendix G provides more details.

FBDGs in Sweden: “Eat greener, not too much, and be active”

In Sweden, the FBDGs are captured in the 28-page consumer-facing document “Find your way to eat greener, not too much, and be active” (2015). It was developed by the Swedish National Food Agency (SNFA), in cooperation with the Swedish Public Health Agency, Board of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency. In terms of context, the guidance makes the argument for a holistic approach to eating, and for considering the environmental impact of food choices.

Advice is structured around 3 sections: 1. things to eat/do more of; 2. things to switch; and 3. things to eat less of (Figure 5.1). For each named food group (vegetables and fruits; seafood; wholegrains; healthy fats; low fat dairy products; red and processed meat; salt; sugar), there is a dedicated page which explains the advice in more detail, including the link to environmental impacts. These pages also offer specific ingredient and recipe suggestions to help make the change.

How FBDGs were developed

The Swedish National Food Agency is an independent, government-funded body, which administers public diet and health activities. It is one of 25 government agencies with special responsibility for achieving the government’s environmental objectives.

The FBDGs development process was science led, although stakeholder input happened earlier in the process than in Flanders and the Netherlands. From 2008-13, the Swedish Food Agency commissioned a series of reports on the environmental impacts of different foods, alongside evidence on the health effects of diet gathered from Nordic Nutrition Recommendations (NNR)^[12]. The joint evidence was reviewed, with experts from the Swedish Public Health Agency, Board of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency. The review was supported by a stakeholder panel.

In 2014, a public consultation took place, including participants from industry, consumer and patient organisations, and public health professionals. Then the guidance was drafted and tested with consumers. The guidance was published in 2016/17. The whole process from initial discussions to publication took almost 10 years.

Since the development of this guidance, the latest revision of the Nordic Nutrition Recommendations (NNR), in 2023, has been published. It includes explicit reference to climate impact. It therefore provides a very high standard, scientifically informed evidence base on climate-friendly diets.

Policies, strategies and actions related to the FBDGs

In Sweden, the policy landscape for sustainable diets appears fragmented. For example, the 2016 “National Food Strategy for Sweden”, and subsequent 2019 “Action Plan”, focus almost exclusively on agricultural production. Meanwhile, the 2016 “Strategy for Sustainable Consumption” contains only a brief reference to food. The 2018 “Climate Framework Policy”, which sets out the Swedish Government’s net zero targets for the whole economy, also makes no reference to food consumption or dietary change.

In 2021, the Swedish Government tasked the Swedish Food Agency and Public Health Agency to propose areas of action needed for a more sustainable food system in Sweden, and indicators to measure progress^[13]. The work was based on consultations with authorities, industry and civil society. The report, published 2024, emphasizes the need for joined-up policies to tackle health and climate problems. However, given recent shifts in politics in Sweden and hardening resistance from industry stakeholders to food system change, it may be challenging for officials to take forward many of the recommended Actions in the report.

Actions specifically to encourage take-up of the FBDGs are led by the Swedish Food Agency. To date, they have focused on public communications activities and work with public caterers, in particular schools. Table 5.1 provides more details.

Evaluations of effects of the FBDGs and/or policies

No formal evaluations have been conducted of the effect of the FBDGs on dietary habits. However, consumption trend data show that meat consumption peaked in 2016 and has subsequently declined whilst the proportion of Swedish meat within total meat consumed has increased. This suggests there has been some response to the “eat less but better” messaging, with ‘better’ meaning ‘Swedish’.

Implications for the potential development and implementation of climate-friendly FBDGs in Scotland

Having assessed climate-friendly FBGDs in other jurisdictions, and explored their development and policy implementation in Flanders, the Netherlands and Sweden, this chapter considers the possible implications for Scotland. Throughout this chapter, the FBDGs of Flanders, the Netherlands and Sweden are used as climate-focused comparators.

Dietary profile of Scotland compared with jurisdictions having climate-focused FBDGs

Studies show repeatedly that the diet of the average Scottish adult is unhealthy. It comprises higher than recommended intakes of calories, fat, sugar and salt, and lower intakes of fibre and fruit and vegetables^[15]. These are associated with a range of chronic health problems, including diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), hypertension and certain cancers.

In addition, average diets for some groups of Scottish consumers are deficient in micronutrients such as selenium and iodine. These deficiencies are also associated with a range of health problems, including fatigue, mental impairments and weakened immune systems. However, intake rates of red and processed meats are within the Scottish Dietary Goals maximum recommended for almost three quarters of the population^[16].

* Scottish-specific BMI figures with UK figures in brackets from same Eurostat source as other countries. Comparisons are indicative given differences in survey methods, definitions and timings. See also Appendices B and C.

Table 6.1 above shows intakes for different food groups in Scotland, compared with Flanders, the Netherlands and Sweden. Notwithstanding caveats regarding precise comparability, the figures suggest that Scottish fruit consumption is relatively high compared to the other jurisdictions, while meat and vegetable intakes are relatively low. Dairy consumption appears similar to Sweden but lower than the Netherlands. Body Mass Index (BMI) scores, as indicators of broader diet-related health, are also similar for the proportion of the population overweight, but Scotland (and the UK) have markedly higher obesity rates.

Potential impacts on the Scottish population from take-up of climate-focused FBDGs

Table 6.2. Examples of likely revisions needed to Eatwell Guide to align with more climate-focused FBDGs, and potential risks to Scottish population

The key features of climate-focused FBDGs were discussed in Chapter 2, summarizing similarities and differences between climate-focused guidance and the Eatwell Guide. Table 6.2 lists possible revisions for guidance in Scotland, to align with more climate-focused FBDGs. It also indicates the potential risks of negative impacts on the Scottish population, should the revised guidance be taken up. The potential risks for meat, dairy and sustainable sourcing advice are further discussed below. Potential risks for population sub-groups are discussed in section 6.3.

Potential impacts of revised meat intake advice

For greater climate focus, revisions to the Eatwell guidance would likely specify a lower maximum intake for red/processed meat, a new maximum intake for all meat, and strengthened messaging on reducing meat generally in the diet.

Comrie et al (2024) modelled the effects on micronutrient intake and of chronic disease risks from a 20% reduction in meat intake in Scotland, i.e. to levels consistent with the recommendations of UK Climate Change Committee (CCC).

They found that a 16% reduction could be achieved by encouraging the 28% highest red/processed meat eaters to limit their intake, of those meats alone, to the current Eatwell/SDGs maximum of 70g per day. To achieve the CCC’s 20% reduction target, the average intake of red/processed meat would need to reduce to 60g per day. This would impact the highest 32% of current red/processed meat consumers.

If meat intakes are substituted with alternative protein sources, e.g. fish, dairy or eggs, both scenarios above represent low risk options in terms of nutritional impacts. They would also bring health benefits associated with lowering red and red processed meat intakes. However, if meat intakes are substituted with refined grains or HFSS foods, then there are risks of diets becoming less rather than more healthy^[18]. Therefore, revised dietary guidance needs to include advice about healthy and accessible substitutions for meat. Other policies need to make those substitutions affordable and accessible.

Non-GHG related environmental impacts are also possible from reduction in meat intakes, depending on which foods people switch to. Increases in demand for fish could exacerbate marine pollution/ecosystem problems. Also, switching from red ruminant meat (beef, lamb) to non-ruminant meat may lead to increases in intensive pig and poultry systems. Whilst these systems are more carbon efficient, they can increase air and water pollution problems^[19]. To address these risks, a holistic perspective on environmental impact is needed during the scientific evidence gathering phase of the FBDG revisions. Other policies need to address environmental impacts of fish, pig and poultry systems.

Potential impacts of revised dairy intake advice

For greater climate focus, revisions to dietary guidance would likely set new advice to moderate dairy intake^[20].

Comrie et al (2024) modelled the nutritional and chronic disease impacts of reducing dairy intake across the population by 20%, alongside meat reduction. They find that unless substituting with eggs, there are deficiency risks in the general population for iron and iodine. They highlight that as dairy is consumed in greater quantities across the population than meat, there is more reliance on it for micronutrients. Dairy is also a source of protection against Type 2 diabetes. Therefore, some nutritional and disease risks are possible, at the population level, from moderation of dairy intake.

In principle, nutritional and disease risks could be addressed with plant-based substitutes. However, these could require considerable changes to current dietary habits for many, and substitutes may have cost and accessibility issues. These have implications for the structure of the food environment. New advice on such changes would be needed, as the current guidance gives limited explanation. The new advice would need to address the composition of processed plant-based meat and dairy substitutes, in terms of fat, salt and sugar, and potentially , the use of fortification to supply key micronutrients. As is the case with existing meat and dairy products, at present, there is high variability between products and brands in the market, in terms of composition.

Potential impacts of advice on sustainable sourcing

For greater climate focus, revisions to the Eatwell guidance would likely introduce new advice on sustainable sourcing, for example choosing organic or agroecological products. These products are typically more expensive than conventional alternatives. In periods of generally squeezed incomes and high food price inflation, this advice may be unobtainable for many. Careful messaging would be needed within the guidance to address risks of frustration/alienation. At the same time, policy measures are needed to make sustainably sourced food more affordable and accessible^[21].

Potential impacts on sub-groups of Scottish population from take-up of climate-focused FBDGs

With reference the likely changes to Eatwell guidance presented in Table 6.2, potential impacts are as follows:

Advice to reduce meat intake and moderate dairy intake

The modelling work conducted by Comrie et al (2024), on the impacts of reducing meat and dairy intakes across the population by 20%, also considered sub-groups. Depending on the substitution scenario, the authors found risks of some micronutrient deficiencies. These included selenium and zinc intakes for women and calcium intakes for young adults. Revised guidance on meat and dairy intakes would therefore need to include careful messaging and tailored advice for sub-groups, such as these, who may be at greater risk of micronutrient deficiencies. These problems may be exacerbated for women and young adults in lower income groups, who may find it more difficult to afford or access suitable meat alternatives, such as fish, eggs or plant proteins. Ability and capacity to cook meals using alternatives may also disproportionately affect these groups.

Advice to increase vegetable, fruit and plant protein intakes

Some population sub-groups may find it more difficult than others to access the range of vegetables, fruits and plant proteins recommended by revised guidance. As a result, they could face nutritional and disease risks, disproportionate to the wider population. These sub-groups could include lower-income consumers, who may struggle to afford more expensive items and/or cook the recommended foods. They could also include people in rural areas, or in urban food deserts/swamps, who face more limited ranges of foods and food retail options.

Advice to choose sustainably sourced foods

Citizens in lower income groups may be disproportionately unable to follow this advice. This could be particularly alienating. Careful messaging would be needed within the guidance. Programmes and initiatives are also needed to make sustainably sourced food more accessible and affordable.

Advice to favour potatoes, pasta and other grains over rice

This advice could disproportionately impact sub-groups whose diets rely more heavily on rice than the wider population. Tailored messaging would be needed, as well as advice on how to make the most climate-friendly choices for rice.

Advice to avoid UPFs and avoid food waste

Reducing consumption of processed and ultra-processed foods (UPFs) requires access to alternatives and a capacity for more labour and/or energy intensive food preparation. Hence consumers with restricted access due to income and/or food environment constraints and/or lacking the necessary time or facilities for food preparation (e.g. kitchen equipment) will be less likely to be able to avoid processed and UPFs. For similar reasons, consumers with limited or no access to appliances such as fridges and freezers may find it more difficult to follow advice to avoid food waste.

Policies, strategies and actions to implement climate-focused diets

Policy coordination for climate-focused diets

Policies to encourage take-up of climate-focused diets should make sustainable choices the easiest choices for consumers. This means tackling the food environment in a holistic way, using strategic packages of policy measures and instruments^[22]. This requires collaboration and co-ownership between multiple government departments^[23].

The case studies of Flanders, the Netherlands and Sweden reveal problems with coordination and coherent policy implementation on climate-friendly diets, to date. Siloed thinking has been evident, reinforced by resource allocations tied to narrow departmental remits rather than cross-cutting goals.

More recent food strategies aim to encourage more holistic, systems-based action on food and diets (e.g. the Flemish Food Strategy). However, implementation is at an early stage, and formal evaluations of their effectiveness have yet to be conducted.

Policy measures and actions for climate-focused diets.

Table 7.1 gives examples of specific policy measures for climate-focused diets that may feature in holistic packages. It also shows whether any of these measures have been applied in Flanders, the Netherlands or Sweden.

On both the demand and supply sides of the food system there are fiscal and regulatory measures. Also on the demand side are public information provision, labelling and public catering. The supply side also includes influencing voluntary industry action. In Flanders, the Netherlands and Sweden, public information campaigns and public catering dominate on the demand side, while fiscal measures and influencing industry dominate on the supply side. The pros and cons of these measures are discussed below, with implications for Scotland.

Public information provision

This is a popular measure to encourage climate-friendly consumption. All three case study jurisdictions have applied it. Public information campaigns are relatively quick and inexpensive to implement, and the range of options now includes digital tools that offer interactivity (e.g. the Mijn Eetmeter diet tracking app in the Netherlands^[24]).

However, there is little evidence that information alone can shift dietary habits. Population heterogeneity is significant, and people engage with or avoid information for multiple reasons^[25]. Nevertheless, public information has a role to play in packages of policy measures. It may help to address low awareness of diet and sustainability issues in the population. Also, public information can signal the government’s priorities and direction of travel to citizens, industry and public bodies. This can be a way to show leadership to stakeholders^[26].

Implications for Scotland:

Develop public information campaigns or messaging for climate-friendly diets as part of strategic policy packages, rather than stand-alone actions. Consider the multiple audiences for information on climate-friendly diets, and explore the potential for campaigns to signal clearly the policy agenda to a range of stakeholders.

Labelling

In theory, labelling schemes for climate-friendly foods can have an ‘industry pull’ effect. As producers change their practices in order to get certified, this brings widespread improvements^[27]. However, evidence for the capacity of labels to change consumer behaviour is mixed at best^[28]. Consumers already face multiple labelling schemes which compete for their attention. Also, environmental impact labels for food products are beset with technical challenges. For example, standardised, reliable metrics for carbon scores are lacking. In addition, labels which only show carbon values are ignoring other important environmental impacts.

For these reasons, climate-friendly labelling is uncommon^[29]. None of the case study jurisdictions have sought to develop climate labels. Instead, they recommend existing certification schemes that are already familiar to consumers, as ways to identify more sustainable options. These include organic labels.

Implications for Scotland:

The development of any new carbon-specific labelling is unlikely to be worthwhile. Following the examples of the Netherlands and Sweden, it would be more feasible to focus on existing certification schemes (e.g. organic, meat quality assurance schemes), and explore ways to strengthen their climate relevance.

Fiscal measures and regulation (demand side)

Demand side regulation has been used actively in the food sector for public health reasons. Examples include restrictions on advertising unhealthy foods to children, and on the use of trans fats in food manufacturing. Fiscal measures (e.g. subsidies, taxes) have also been implemented for health reasons, for example, the Soft Drinks Industry Levy. Both types of measure are associated with stronger behaviour change outcomes than information or labelling. They are also associated with driving positive changes in industry practices, including reformulation of products^[30].

However, these measures are less commonly applied explicitly in relation to climate-friendly diets, as they can have unintended consequences and evidence on effectiveness is mixed^[31]. A risk of taxing high carbon foods like meat, for example, is that some consumers switch to foods of lower nutritional value, such as HFSS foods. As lower income households are already more likely to purchase such foods, such taxes risk exacerbating health inequalities. Furthermore, taxes on domestic high carbon foods may lead to carbon ‘leakage’ through import/export substitution effects, with no net reduction in global climate impact.

Implications for Scotland:

Taxes on foods for climate reasons may lead, unintentionally, to regressive outcomes. To address risks of exacerbating health inequalities, taxes should be partnered with policies to make healthier substitutes affordable and accessible to lower income groups. To address risks of GHG leakages, domestic carbon taxes should be partnered with appropriate trade policies.

Importantly however, not all tax/subsidy powers reside with the Scottish Government. Even those that do are subject to UK-wide agreement under the Internal Market Act 2020 and/or the Subsidy Control Act 2022.^[32] Hence not all fiscal policy options are necessarily feasible within Scotland.

Public catering provision

Public catering is frequently presented as a policy area with the potential for direct behaviour change towards more climate-friendly diets^[33]. There are two main ways this can happen. First, procurement standards and criteria can be revised to be more climate-focused. Criteria can relate to food and non-food purchases, facilities and equipment. Second, catering service practices can be revised to reduce climate impact. This can include, for example, recipe and menu design, and food waste reduction.

Flanders, the Netherlands and Sweden have all taken climate-related public catering actions, including introduction of meat-free days in school menus. To date, these actions have largely been voluntary for their sectors.

Implications for Scotland:
In the Scottish public sector, food procurement and catering provision are governed by separate standards. Often, they are also managed by different teams and processes, which presents challenges to coherent decision-making on climate impact.

To make public food procurement more climate friendly, a higher minimum weighting could be applied to climate criteria in contract awards. Suppliers could be asked to provide more carbon information, or be part of certification schemes. However, such demands may disproportionately impact small suppliers or first-time bidders. This would conflict with wider goals to encourage greater diversity in public procurement. Measures to reduce this risk may include supporting suppliers to meet more exacting climate requirements. Procurement officers could also be offered additional sustainability training.

Catering provision standards vary according to sector. In schools, statutory standards for food are based on nutritional not climate goals^[34]. These standards could be revisited to explore ways to make them more climate-friendly. This would increase their consistency with local authority obligations to measure and reduce the carbon footprints of their services^[35]. Extension of the Food For Life programme to all local authorities (currently voluntary) could also be a route to more climate focus.

In practice, school catering managers are increasingly taking voluntary climate actions, e.g. food waste reduction and meat-free days. Measures are needed to better support these actions, e.g. by strengthening public information on sustainable diets, and offering training and support for climate-friendly catering to service teams.

Influencing voluntary industry actions

Governments have well-established engagement with industry to encourage voluntary actions for public health reasons. Actions are now being encouraged to promote more climate-friendly food choices, for example, by reformulating products or changing microenvironments in-store to shape choice architecture^[36]. Such approaches can be attractive to government since they avoid the time and effort needed to design and implement formal regulatory controls or taxes. However, industry actors may withdraw if market circumstances alter or industry leadership changes. Hence, voluntary agreements need to be monitored. They are often encouraged through the threat of imposing non-voluntary arrangements (e.g. regulation, fiscal measures) if engagement levels drop^[37].

Both Flanders and the Netherlands are currently encouraging voluntary industry agreements related to sustainable diets. Under their Protein Strategies, they are encouraging domestic processors and retailers to increase activity in plant proteins. They have done this by presenting direct investments in domestic plant protein, derived from CAP Green Deal funding, as a market growth opportunity (see below). This is an example of more holistic policymaking, with coherence across supply and demand side measures.

Implications for Scotland:

Persuading industry partners to voluntarily adjust their practices requires either a perceived threat of future regulatory controls/fiscal distinctives from non-adjustment, or perceived benefits from doing so. Achieving either requires repeated engagement with industry stakeholders to establish mutual understanding of objectives, constraints and feasible options. Scottish industry stakeholders are already routinely involved in agricultural and food policy discussions, but voluntary actions by different stakeholders often progress at different rates. This can lead to poorly coordinated outcomes.^[38]

Regulation and fiscal measures (supply side)

Various regulatory controls are applied to agricultural production across the EU, and some of these relate explicitly to mitigating GHG emissions. For example, farmers’ support funding requires adherence to Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) criteria. EU-level efforts also seek to regulate food imports on the basis of their GHG emissions. However, the link between all regulatory measures and domestic dietary guidance is often implicit at best.

Similarly, fiscal support for domestic agricultural production is also deployed under the EU-wide CAP. Much of this takes the form of decoupled payments not tied explicitly to the production of any particular (or indeed any) food product. However, some support is targeted explicitly at specific sectors, such as organic production and plant protein production. For the latter, further public funding from other sources has been deployed for R&D activities and to leverage private funding along the supply chain. This has been the case in Flanders and Netherlands’ Protein Strategies.

Implications for Scotland:

Agricultural production is already subject to various regulatory controls. Revision to agricultural funding support is likely to introduce new requirements related to GHG emissions. This will include obligations to monitor and report emissions^[39]. Such improvements to the climate impact of Scottish agricultural production can be connected to advice within FBDGs, to choose more sustainably sourced foods.

Regulatory controls on imported food items fall outwith Scottish Government devolved powers.

Supply-side fiscal measures are already deployed within Scotland, most notably with respect to holders of agricultural land but also through investment and training grants for other parts of the supply-chain and funding for a range of research institutions. The majority of funding through such measures is not currently linked strongly to climate-related dietary change. However, as in some other countries, there may be scope to do so. This will require greater cross-departmental working and reprioritization of current budgets. Such issues feature in current parliamentary scrutiny of the Agricultural and Rural Communities Bill, including in relation to Good Food Nation ambitions.^[40]

The scope for deploying new tax measures is more limited given constraints on devolved powers.

Conclusions

Listed by project objectives, the key findings are summarised here.

Dietary guidelines and recommendations in other jurisdictions

Out of 33 jurisdictions studied, only seven have FBDGs with extensive climate focus.

The main differences between health-focused and climate-focused guidance are that the latter recommends greater meat reduction, in particular ruminant meat, moderating dairy intake, choosing sustainably sourced foods, avoiding highly processed foods and avoiding food waste.

In three jurisdictions with climate-focused FBDGs (Flanders, the Netherlands, Sweden), the guidance was developed via a ‘science first’ approach, using expert panels and reviews. Stakeholder inputs were restricted to the final steps of messaging and implementation, to preserve the independence of the guidance.

Policies, strategies and actions taken to encourage progress to the guidelines

Policy implementation for climate-focused guidance requires coordination across government departments and budgets, and strategic packages of policy measures. These are needed to tackle food environments holistically, to make climate-friendly choices affordable and accessible.

Policy implementation of FBDGs in the three jurisdictions has lacked coordination, and measures have been largely limited to public information campaigns and encouragement of voluntary actions in public catering (e.g. menu adjustments).

Potential applications in Scotland and impacts on different groups

Adoption of climate-focused FBDGs would be a generally low-regret action, consistent with the direction of travel for policies relating to climate and health.

Some micronutrient deficiency risks are possible for certain population groups, depending on which foods are substituted. These include women, young adults, and lower income households. Other risks include import/export carbon leakage.

To address such issues, a coordinated cross-departmental policy approach would be needed, deploying a mix of supply-side and demand-side measures.

References and other supporting literature

Abrahamse, W., 2020. How to effectively encourage sustainable food choices: a mini-review of available evidence. Frontiers in psychology, 11, p.589674.

Aguirre-Sánchez, L., Teschner, R., Lalchandani, N.K., El Maohub, Y. and Suggs, L.S., 2023. Climate change mitigation potential in dietary guidelines: A global review. Sustainable Production and Consumption.

Ahrens, W., Brenner, H., Flechtner-Mors, M., Harrington, J.M., Hebestreit, A., Kamphuis, C.B., Kelly, L., Laxy, M., Luszczynska, A., Mazzocchi, M. and Murrin, C., 2022. Dietary behaviour and physical activity policies in Europe: learnings from the Policy Evaluation Network (PEN). European journal of public health, 32(Supplement_4), pp.iv114-iv125.

Ammann, J., Arbenz, A., Mack, G., Nemecek, T. and El Benni, N., 2023. A review on policy instruments for sustainable food consumption. Sustainable Production and Consumption.

Andretta, I., Hickmann, F.M., Remus, A., Franceschi, C.H., Mariani, A.B., Orso, C., Kipper, M., Létourneau-Montminy, M.P. and Pomar, C., 2021. Environmental impacts of pig and poultry production: insights from a systematic review. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 8, p.750733.

Angelsen, A., Starke, A.D. and Trattner, C., 2023. Healthiness and environmental impact of dinner recipes vary widely across developed countries. Nature Food, pp.1-9.

Astbury, C.C., Aguirre, E., Cullerton, K., Monsivais, P. and Penney, T.L., 2021. How supportive is the global food supply of food-based dietary guidelines? A descriptive time series analysis of food supply alignment from 1961 to 2013. SSM-Population Health, 15, p.100866.

Bailey, R. and Harper, D.R., 2015. Reviewing interventions for healthy and sustainable diets. Chatham House, The Royal Institute of International Affairs.

Barton, K.L., Wrieden, W.L., Sherriff, A., Armstrong, J. and Anderson, A.S., 2015. Trends in socio-economic inequalities in the Scottish diet: 2001–2009. Public health nutrition, 18(16), pp.2970-2980.

Barton, K.L., Masson, L.F. and Wrieden, W.L., 2018. Estimation of food and nutrient intakes from food purchase data in Scotland, 2001-2015: report to Food Standards Scotland.

Barton, K.L., Ronald, C. and Savage, A., 2022. Estimation of food and nutrient intakes from food purchase data in Scotland between 2001 and 2018. Report to Food Standards Scotland

BDA 2020. Eating patterns for health and environmental sustainability: A Reference Guide for Dietitians. British Association of Dietitians.

Bechthold, A., Boeing, H., Tetens, I., Schwingshackl, L. and Nöthlings, U., 2018. Perspective: food-based dietary guidelines in Europe—scientific concepts, current status, and perspectives. Advances in nutrition, 9(5), pp.544-560.

Benton, T.G. and Bailey, R., 2019. The paradox of productivity: agricultural productivity promotes food system inefficiency. Global Sustainability, 2, p.e6.

Bergman, K., Lövestam, E., Nowicka, P. and Eli, K., 2020. ‘A holistic approach’: incorporating sustainability into biopedagogies of healthy eating in Sweden’s dietary guidelines. Sociology of Health & Illness, 42(8), pp.1785-1800.

Binns, C.W., Lee, M.K., Maycock, B., Torheim, L.E., Nanishi, K. and Duong, D.T.T., 2021. Climate change, food supply, and dietary guidelines. Annual review of public health, 42, pp.233-255.

Blomhoff, R., Anderson, R., Arnesen, A. et al. 2023. Nordic Nutrition recommendations 2023. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.

Brennan, M., 2023. Food Systems Transformation in Scotland—The Journey to, Vision of, and Challenges Facing the New Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act. Sustainability, 15(19), p.14579.

Brink, E., van Rossum, C., Postma-Smeets, A., Stafleu, A., Wolvers, D., van Dooren, C., Toxopeus, I., Buurma-Rethans, E., Geurts, M. and Ocké, M., 2019. Development of healthy and sustainable food-based dietary guidelines for the Netherlands. Public health nutrition, 22(13), pp.2419-2435.

Burke, D.T., Hynds, P. and Priyadarshini, A., 2023. Quantifying farm-to-fork greenhouse gas emissions for five dietary patterns across Europe and North America: A pooled analysis from 2009 to 2020. Resources, Environment and Sustainability, p.100108.

Caleffi, S., Hawkes, C. and Walton, S., 2023. 45 actions to orient food systems towards environmental sustainability: co-benefits and trade-offs. London, UK: Centre for Food Policy

Cámara, M., Giner, R.M., González-Fandos, E., López-García, E., Mañes, J., Portillo, M.P., Rafecas, M., Domínguez, L. and Martínez, J.A., 2021. Food-based dietary guidelines around the world: A comparative analysis to update AESAN scientific committee dietary recommendations. Nutrients, 13(9), p.3131.

Cara, K.C., Goldman, D.M., Kollman, B.K., Amato, S.S., Tull, M.D. and Karlsen, M.C., 2023. Commonalities among dietary recommendations from 2010-2021 clinical practice guidelines: A meta-epidemiological study from the American College of Lifestyle Medicine. Advances in Nutrition.

Cobiac, L.J. and Scarborough, P., 2019. Modelling the health co-benefits of sustainable diets in the UK, France, Finland, Italy and Sweden. European journal of clinical nutrition, 73(4), pp.624-633.

Comerford, K.B., Miller, G.D., Boileau, A.C., Masiello Schuette, S.N., Giddens, J.C. and Brown, K.A., 2021. Global review of dairy recommendations in food-based dietary guidelines. Frontiers in nutrition, 8, p.671999.

Comrie, F., Jaacks, l., Kennedy, J., Mcdonald, A., McNeill, G., Runions, R., Stewart, C., Vonderschmidt, A. (2024). Approaches to modelling impact of reduction in meat and dairy intakes on micronutrient intakes and disease risk. CXC, University of Edinburgh, Food Standards Scotland.

Crippa et al., 2021. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nature Food, 2(3), pp.198-209.

Cullum, A., 2024. Developing food-based dietary recommendations in the UK. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 83(1), pp.55-61.

Darmon N, Drewnowski A. Contribution of food prices and diet cost to socioeconomic disparities in diet quality and health: a systematic review and analysis. Nutr Rev. 2015;73:643–660.

Dawkins, E., André, K., Leander, E., Axelsson, K. and Gerger Swartling, Å., 2023. Policy for sustainable consumptionan assessment of Swedish municipalities. Frontiers in Sustainability, 4, p.1265733.

Djojosoeparto, S.K., Kamphuis, C.B., Vandevijvere, S., Murrin, C., Stanley, I., Romaniuk, P., Harrington, J.M., Poelman, M.P. and PEN Consortium, 2022. Strength of EU-level food environment policies and priority recommendations to create healthy food environments. European Journal of Public Health, 32(3), pp.504-511.

Djojosoeparto, S.K., Kamphuis, C., Vandevijvere, S. and Poelman, M.P., 2022. How can national government policies improve food environments in the Netherlands? International Journal of Public Health, 67, p.1604115.

Drewnowski, A., 2020. Impact of nutrition interventions and dietary nutrient density on productivity in the workplace. Nutrition reviews, 78(3), pp.215-224.

EC. 2023. Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Knowledge Gateway. European Commission https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/health-promotion-knowledge-gateway/food-based-dietary-guidelines-europe-source-documents-food_en

EC. 2023. Food-Based Dietary Guidelines in Europe. European Commission. https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/health-promotion-knowledge-gateway/topic/food-based-dietary-guidelines-europe_en

Eluwa, T.F., Eluwa, G.I., Iorwa, A., Daini, B.O., Abdullahi, K., Balogun, M., Yaya, S., Ahinkorah, B.O. and Lawal, A., 2023. Impact of unconditional cash transfers on household livelihood outcomes in Nigeria. Journal of Social Policy, pp.1-16.

FAO 2023 Food-based dietary guidelines. https://www.fao.org/nutrition/education/food-based-dietary-guidelines/regions/countries/en/

Fischer, C.G. and Garnett, T., 2016. Plates, pyramids, and planets: developments in national healthy and sustainable dietary guidelines: a state of play assessment. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Food Standards Scotland 2020. The Scottish Diet – It needs to change, 2020 update. Food Standards Scotland.

Galli, A., Antonelli, M., Wambersie, L., Bach-Faig, A., Bartolini, F., Caro, D., Iha, K., Lin, D., Mancini, M.S., Sonnino, R. and Vanham, D., 2023. EU-27 ecological footprint was primarily driven by food consumption and exceeded regional biocapacity from 2004 to 2014. Nature Food, 4(9), pp.810-822.

Garnett, T., Mathewson, S., Angelides, P. and Borthwick, F., 2015. Policies and actions to shift eating patterns: what works. Foresight, 515(7528), pp.518-522.

Gladding, T.L., Rolph, C.A., Gwyther, C.L., Kinnersley, R., Walsh, K. and Tyrrel, S., 2020. Concentration and composition of bioaerosol emissions from intensive farms: pig and poultry livestock. Journal of environmental management, 272, p.111052.

Godin, L. and Sahakian, M., 2018. Cutting through conflicting prescriptions: How guidelines inform “healthy and sustainable” diets in Switzerland. Appetite, 130, pp.123-133.

Gržinić, G., Piotrowicz-Cieślak, A., Klimkowicz-Pawlas, A., Górny, R.L., Ławniczek-Wałczyk, A., Piechowicz, L., Olkowska, E., Potrykus, M., Tankiewicz, M., Krupka, M. and Siebielec, G., 2023. Intensive poultry farming: A review of the impact on the environment and human health. Science of the Total Environment, 858, p.160014

Hansen, K.L., Golubovic, S., Eriksen, C.U., Jørgensen, T. and Toft, U., 2022. Effectiveness of food environment policies in improving population diets: a review of systematic reviews. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 76(5), pp.637-646.

Harrington, J., Kenny, T. and O’Mahony, L. 2023. Building ‘sustainability’ into national healthy eating guidelines. Review of international practice and practical implications for policy. Safefood report.

Henchion, M., Moloney, A.P., Hyland, J., Zimmermann, J. and McCarthy, S., 2021. Trends for meat, milk and egg consumption for the next decades and the role played by livestock systems in the global production of proteins. Animal, 15, p.100287.

Hendrie, G.A., Lyle, G., Mauch, C.E., Haddad, J. and Golley, R.K., 2021. Understanding the variation within a dietary guideline index score to identify the priority food group targets for improving diet quality across population subgroups. International journal of environmental research and public health, 18(2), p.378.

Herforth, A., Arimond, M., Álvarez-Sánchez, C., Coates, J., Christianson, K. and Muehlhoff, E., 2019. A global review of food-based dietary guidelines. Advances in Nutrition, 10(4), pp.590-605.

Hoek, A.C., Malekpour, S., Raven, R., Court, E. and Byrne, E., 2021. Towards environmentally sustainable food systems: decision-making factors in sustainable food production and consumption. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 26, pp.610-626.

Jaacks, L., Frank, S., Vonderschmidt, A., Stewart, C., Runions, R., Kennedy, J., McNeill, G., Alexander, P. (2024). Understanding the climate impact of food consumed in Scotland. CXC report.

James-Martin, G., Baird, D.L., Hendrie, G.A., Bogard, J., Anastasiou, K., Brooker, P.G., Wiggins, B., Williams, G., Herrero, M., Lawrence, M. and Lee, A.J., 2022. Environmental sustainability in national food-based dietary guidelines: a global review. The Lancet Planetary Health, 6(12), pp.e977-e986.

Jennings, R., Henderson, A.D., Phelps, A., Janda, K.M. and van den Berg, A.E., 2023. Five US Dietary Patterns and Their Relationship to Land Use, Water Use, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Implications for Future Food Security. Nutrients, 15(1), p.215.

Kirwan, L.B., Walton, J., Flynn, A., Nugent, A.P., Kearney, J., Holden, N.M. and McNulty, B.A., 2023. Assessment of the Environmental Impact of Food Consumption in Ireland—Informing a Transition to Sustainable Diets. Nutrients, 15(4), p.981.

Kovacs, B., Miller, L., Heller, M.C. and Rose, D., 2021. The carbon footprint of dietary guidelines around the world: a seven country modeling study. Nutrition journal, 20, pp.1-10.

Kwasny, T., Dobernig, K. and Riefler, P., 2022. Towards reduced meat consumption: A systematic literature review of intervention effectiveness, 2001–2019. Appetite, 168, p.105739.

Laine, J.E., Huybrechts, I., Gunter, M.J., Ferrari, P., Weiderpass, E., Tsilidis, K., Aune, D., Schulze, M.B., Bergmann, M., Temme, E.H. and Boer, J.M., 2021. Co-benefits from sustainable dietary shifts for population and environmental health: an assessment from a large European cohort study. The Lancet Planetary Health, 5(11), pp.e786-e796.

Lassen, A.D., Christensen, L.M. and Trolle, E., 2020. Development of a Danish adapted healthy plant-based diet based on the EAT-Lancet reference diet. Nutrients, 12(3), p.738.

Leme, A.C.B., Hou, S., Fisberg, R.M., Fisberg, M. and Haines, J., 2021. Adherence to food-based dietary guidelines: a systemic review of high-income and low-and middle-income countries. Nutrients, 13(3), p.1038.

Lindström, H., Lundberg, S. and Marklund, P.O., 2020. How Green Public Procurement can drive conversion of farmland: An empirical analysis of an organic food policy. Ecological Economics, 172, p.106622.

Lobos, M.F., L’Abbé, M., Ng, S.H., Phulkerd, S., Ramirez‐Zea, M. and Rebello, S.A., 2019. An 11‐country study to benchmark the implementation of recommended nutrition policies by national governments using the Healthy Food Environment Policy Index, 2015‐2018. Obesity Reviews, 20, pp.57-66.

Macura, B., Ran, Y., Persson, U.M., Abu Hatab, A., Jonell, M., Lindahl, T. and Röös, E., 2022. What evidence exists on the effects of public policy interventions for achieving environmentally sustainable food consumption? A systematic map protocol. Environmental Evidence, 11(1), pp.1-9.

Martini, D., Tucci, M., Bradfield, J., Di Giorgio, A., Marino, M., Del Bo’, C., Porrini, M. and Riso, P., 2021. Principles of sustainable healthy diets in worldwide dietary guidelines: efforts so far and future perspectives. Nutrients, 13(6), p.1827.

Matthews, A., Candel, J., Mûelenaere, N.D. and Scheelbeek, P., 2023. The political economy of food system transformation in the European Union. In Resnick, D. and Swinnen, J., 2023. Political Economy of Food System Transformation. The Political Economy of Food System Transformation, Routledge.

Mazac, R., Renwick, K., Seed, B. and Black, J.L., 2021. An approach for integrating and analyzing sustainability in food-based dietary guidelines. Frontiers in sustainable food systems, 5, p.544072.

Milner, J., Green, R., Dangour, A.D., Haines, A., Chalabi, Z., Spadaro, J., Markandya, A. and Wilkinson, P., 2015. Health effects of adopting low greenhouse gas emission diets in the UK. BMJ open, 5(4), p.e007364.

OECD. 2021. Making Better Policies for Food Systems. OECD.

Pineda, E., Poelman, M.P., Aaspõllu, A., Bica, M., Bouzas, C., Carrano, E., De Miguel-Etayo, P., Djojosoeparto, S., Blenkuš, M.G., Graca, P. and Geffert, K., 2022. Policy implementation and priorities to create healthy food environments using the Healthy Food Environment Policy Index (Food-EPI): A pooled level analysis across eleven European countries. The Lancet Regional Health–Europe, 23.

Purnell, J.Q., Gernes, R., Stein, R., Sherraden, M.S. and Knoblock-Hahn, A., 2014. A systematic review of financial incentives for dietary behavior change. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 114(7), pp.1023-1035.

Reay, D. et al. 2020. From farm to fork: growing a Scottish food system that doesn’t cost the planet. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 4, p.72.

Reisch, L.A., Sunstein, C.R., Andor, M.A., Doebbe, F.C., Meier, J. and Haddaway, N.R., 2021. Mitigating climate change via food consumption and food waste: A systematic map of behavioral interventions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 279, p.123717.

Reisch, L.A., 2021. Shaping healthy and sustainable food systems with behavioural food policy. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 48(4), pp.665-693.

Romaniuk, P., Kaczmarek, K., Brukało, K., Grochowska-Niedworok, E., Łobczowska, K., Banik, A., Luszczynska, A., Poelman, M., Harrington, J.M., Vandevijvere, S. and Pen Consortium, 2022. The healthy food environment policy index in Poland: implementation gaps and actions for improvement. Foods, 11(11), p.1648.

Röös, E., Bajželj, B., Smith, P., Patel, M., Little, D. and Garnett, T., 2017. Greedy or needy? Land use and climate impacts of food in 2050 under different livestock futures. Global Environmental Change, 47, pp.1-12.

Röös, E., Larsson, J., Sahlin, K., Jonell, M., Lindahl, T., André, E., Säll, NS., Harring, N. and Persson, M. 2021. Policy Options for Sustainable Food Consumption – Review and Recommendations for Sweden. Mistra Sustainable Consumption report 1:10.

Rossi, L., Ferrari, M. and Ghiselli, A., 2023. The Alignment of Recommendations of Dietary Guidelines with Sustainability Aspects: Lessons Learned from Italy’s Example and Proposals for Future Development. Nutrients, 15(3), p.542.

Scheelbeek, P., Green, R., Papier, K., Knuppel, A., Alae-Carew, C., Balkwill, A., Key, T.J., Beral, V. and Dangour, A.D., 2020. Health impacts and environmental footprints of diets that meet the Eatwell Guide recommendations: analyses of multiple UK studies. BMJ open, 10(8), p.e037554

Schwingshackl, L., Watzl, B. and Meerpohl, J.J., 2020. The healthiness and sustainability of food based dietary guidelines. bmj, 370.

Scott, C., Sutherland, J. and Taylor, A., 2018. Affordability of the UK’s Eatwell Guide. The Food Foundation, p.17.

Sinclair, M., Combet, E., Davis, T. and Papies, E.K., 2023. Sustainability in food-based dietary guidelines: a review of recommendations around meat and dairy consumption and their visual representation. University of Glasgow preprint.

Some, S., Roy, J., Chatterjee, J.S. and Butt, M.H., 2022. Low demand mitigation options for achieving Sustainable Development Goals: Role of reduced food waste and sustainable dietary choice. Journal of Cleaner Production, 369, p.133432.

Speck, M., Wagner, L., Buchborn, F., Steinmeier, F., Friedrich, S. and Langen, N., 2022. How public catering accelerates sustainability: a German case study. Sustainability Science, 17(6), pp.2287-2299.

Springmann, M., Spajic, L., Clark, M.A., Poore, J., Herforth, A., Webb, P., Rayner, M. and Scarborough, P., 2020. The healthiness and sustainability of national and global food based dietary guidelines: modelling study. bmj, 370.

Stewart, C., McNeill, G., Runions, R., Comrie, F., McDonald, A. and Jaacks, P.L.M., 2023. Meat and milk product consumption in Scottish adults: Insights from a national survey. Available at SSRN 4628199.

Stoll-Kleemann, S. and Schmidt, U.J., 2017. Reducing meat consumption in developed and transition countries to counter climate change and biodiversity loss: a review of influence factors. Regional Environmental Change, 17, pp.1261-1277.

Strid, A., Hallström, E., Hjorth, T., Johansson, I., Lindahl, B., Sonesson, U., Winkvist, A. and Huseinovic, E., 2019. Climate impact from diet in relation to background and sociodemographic characteristics in the Västerbotten Intervention Programme. Public health nutrition, 22(17), pp.3288-3297

Tetens, I., Birt, C.A., Brink, E., Bodenbach, S., Bugel, S., De Henauw, S., Grønlund, T., Julia, C., Konde, Å.B., Kromhout, D. and Lehmann, U., 2020. Food-based dietary guidelines–development of a conceptual framework for future Food-Based Dietary Guidelines in Europe: report of a Federation of European Nutrition Societies Task-Force Workshop in Copenhagen, 12–13 March 2018. British Journal of Nutrition, 124(12), pp.1338-1344.

The Carnon Trust. 2016. The eatwell guide: A more sustainable diet.

Tucci, M., Martini, D., Marino, M., Del Bo’, C., Vinelli, V., Biscotti, P., Parisi, C., De Amicis, R., Battezzati, A., Bertoli, S. and Porrini, M., 2022. The Environmental Impact of an Italian-Mediterranean Dietary Pattern Based on the EAT-Lancet Reference Diet (EAT-IT). Foods, 11(21), p.3352.

van Dooren, C., Marinussen, M., Blonk, H., Aiking, H. and Vellinga, P., 2014. Exploring dietary guidelines based on ecological and nutritional values: a comparison of six dietary patterns. Food Policy, 44, pp.36-46.

von Philipsborn, P., Geffert, K., Klinger, C., Hebestreit, A., Stratil, J., Rehfuess, E.A. and PEN Consortium, 2022. Nutrition policies in Germany: a systematic assessment with the Food Environment Policy Index. Public Health Nutrition, 25(6), pp.1691-1700.

Vermeir, I., Weijters, B., De Houwer, J., Geuens, M., Slabbinck, H., Spruyt, A., Van Kerckhove, A., Van Lippevelde, W., De Steur, H. and Verbeke, W., 2020. Environmentally sustainable food consumption: A review and research agenda from a goal-directed perspective. Frontiers in psychology, 11, p.520238.

Whybrow, S., Hollis, J.L. and Macdiarmid, J.I., 2018. Social deprivation is associated with poorer adherence to healthy eating dietary goals: analysis of household food purchases. Journal of Public Health, 40(1), pp.e8-e15.

Wijesinha-Bettoni, R., Khosravi, A., Ramos, A.I., Sherman, J., Hernandez-Garbanzo, Y., Molina, V., Vargas, M. and Hachem, F., 2021. A snapshot of food-based dietary guidelines implementation in selected countries. Global Food Security, 29, p.100533.

Wood, A., Moberg, E., Curi-Quinto, K., Van Rysselberge, P. and Röös, E., 2023. From “good for people” to “good for people and planet”–Placing health and environment on equal footing when developing food-based dietary guidelines. Food Policy, 117, p.102444.

Wrieden, W., Halligan, J., Goffe, L., Barton, K. and Leinonen, I., 2019. Sustainable diets in the UK—developing a systematic framework to assess the environmental impact, cost and nutritional quality of household food purchases. Sustainability, 11(18), p.4974.

Yin, J., Hua, J., Zhang, X., Tuyishimire, A. and Yang, D., 2023. Healthy Eating for All? The Challenge of Adhering to Dietary Guidelines for Low-Income Groups in China. Nutrients, 15(12), p.2704.

Yoong, S.L., Turon, H., Wong, C.K., Bayles, L., Finch, M., Barnes, C., Doherty, E. and Wolfenden, L., 2023. An audit of the dissemination strategies and plan included in international food-based dietary guidelines. Public health nutrition, 26(11), pp.2586-2594.

Appendices

Appendix A: Interviewees and discussion guide

Flanders:

Senior professional from Flanders Institute of Healthy Living (Gezonden Leven)

Senior professional from Flanders Department of the Environment and Spatial Planning

Netherlands:

Senior professional from the Netherlands Nutrition Centre (Voedingscentrum)

Sweden:

Senior academic from the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Scotland:

Representative from NESTA

Representative from NFUS

Representative from the British Dietetic Association

Senior academic, University of Edinburgh

Representative from the Soil Association

Two representatives from ASSIST FM

Representative from the Food and Drink Federation Scotland

Other:

Team of academics from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (undertaking similar research on behalf of Defra)

Discussion Guide

Aims of Interview

The Scottish Government currently provides dietary guidance via the EatWell Guide, which promotes better health and nutritional outcomes. Scottish Government is exploring how to align the guidance with its climate objectives, to encourage diets that are both healthy and climate-friendly. The purpose of these discussions is to gather views on what climate-friendly dietary guidelines could look like in Scotland, what actions would be most effective to encourage their uptake, and what barriers, problems or unintended consequences Scottish Government should be aware of, from your perspective as a representative of [name of stakeholder group].

1.Explain privacy notice and confirm consent to undertake the interview [2 mins]

2. Opener [5 mins]

• From the perspective of your organisation/profession, what does a climate-friendly diet mean to you?
  
• What key features, or guidelines, would you expect in a climate-friendly diet?
  
• If interviewees are familiar with the EatWell Guide, could also ask how climate-friendly they think it currently is, and what they would change/revise, to make it more climate-friendly.
  

3. Discussion of climate friendly dietary guidance, using prompt material [10 or 15 mins, depending on interviewee’s expertise]

In advance, we will share the attached montage of dietary guidelines assembled from climate-focused FBDGs, i.e. Flanders, Netherlands, Sweden:

On the slide are examples of climate-friendly dietary guidance, from other countries. Please tell me:

• What is your impression of these dietary guidelines?
  
• To what extent could they apply in Scotland?
  
• In particular, what is your view about the advice to:
  
• Reduce meat consumption, especially red meat (including specifying maximum intake per week)?
  
• Moderate dairy consumption?
  
• From your perspective, what difference does the addition of climate-focused guidance make to nutritional outcomes? Does it create any tensions? Will consumers be more or less receptive?
  
• What problems or unintended consequences might come from guidance such as this in Scotland?
  
• Which groups may particularly benefit, and which groups may be negatively impacted?
  
• (If time – If ScotGov decided to develop climate-friendly dietary guidelines, what would your advice be about which stakeholders should be involved in the development process?
  
• Who should lead the process?
  

4. Discussion of how to encourage take-up of dietary guidance, using prompt material [10 or 15 mins, depending on interviewee’s expertise]

In advance, we will share the attached montage of policy instruments from other jurisdictions, designed to encourage climate-friendly diets.

On the slide are examples of policy actions in other countries to encourage take-up of climate-friendly diets. Please tell me:

• What is your impression of these policy actions?
  
• To what extent could they apply in Scotland?
  
• In particular, what is your view of:
  
• Carbon labelling of food
  
• Subsidising fruit and vegetables to targeted groups
  
• Changing public catering standards to encourage more meat-free menus
  
• Acting on the food environment
  

5. Wrap up

• Do you have any questions you would like to ask?
  
• Confirm how information will be used
  
• Thank participant and end interview
  

Appendix B: FBDG information for selected countries

Dietary Guideline information for selected countries, citing official documentation and showing degree to which guidance is linked to environmental impact. Recommendations included where linked explicitly to environment/climate^[41]

All weblinks accessed during December 2023.

Austria

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

* New Austrian Food Pyramids (plural) are due to be published in the autumn of 2024, https://www.sozialministerium.at/Themen/Gesundheit/Ern%C3%A4hrung/%C3%96sterreichische-Ern%C3%A4hrungsempfehlungen-NEU.html

Australia

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

NB. National level guidelines apply everywhere but supporting policy measures vary across sub-national jurisdictions across Australia.

Belgium (country-wide)

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

NB. Guidance expected to be updated after 2023 see https://www.health.belgium.be/en/advisory-report-9284-fbdg-2019

Belgium (Flanders)

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Brazil

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Canada

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

NB. National level guidelines apply everywhere but supporting policy measures vary across sub-national jurisdictions across Canada.

Chile

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Croatia

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Cyprus

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

NB. National level guidelines apply everywhere but supporting policy measures vary across sub-national jurisdictions across Canada.

Denmark

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Estonia

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Finland

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

France

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Germany

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Greece

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Hungary

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Iceland

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Ireland

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Italy

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Latvia

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Malta

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Netherlands

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

New Zealand

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Norway