Minimising peat excavation is crucial to avoid carbon emissions, protect biodiversity and ensure downstream water quality. Building on peatlands inevitably results in the excavation and disturbance of peat. To inform how best to balance the benefits of renewable energy projects with the requirement to protect and restore peatland habitats, there is a need to gather evidence on the impacts and opportunities regarding the reuse of excavated peat. 

This project investigates the opportunities, impacts, and challenges associated with the reuse of excavated peat from windfarm construction sites. From a  review of published evidence, stakeholder discussions and site visits to peatland wind farms, the researchers have proposed identified three main issues and made three recommendations. 

Issues  

Issue 1: Avoidance of peat excavation: As a critical first step to protect peatland, biodiversity, and maintain water cycle connectivity, peat excavation must be minimised. 

Issue 2: Preparation and planning issues: Site surveys often lack the requisite detail to effectively avoid deep peat areas during construction leading to problems with removal of greater volumes of peat than expected that require reuse.  

Issue 3: Carbon storage: Accurate carbon calculations are needed to fully understand the impact of the wind farm. However, this study found that more peat is often excavated than planned, highlighting the need for greater accuracy in carbon excavation measurements.  

Recommendations 

Recommendation 1: The development of guidance for site planning and peat reuse hierarchy and principles. The guidance should aim to avoid or minimise peat excavation wherever possible and identify locally relevant reuse options. And use of hierarchy and guiding pronicples of peat reuse should aim to maximise the positive environmental outcomes.  

Recommendation 2: Create an environmental outcomes framework to ensure a balanced approach to peat reuse. The framework should prioritise minimising carbon loss, promoting positive biodiversity outcomes and ensuring downstream water quality. 

Recommendation 3: Enhance monitoring of environmental outcomes from reuse of peat to improve and inform the reuse hierarchy and implementation of best practice techniques. This should include:  

• Monitoring accurate peat excavation volumes at the end of construction to build a dataset to be used within the sector for more accurate carbon calculations and reuse planning.  

• Regular monitoring of wetness of the peat, carbon fluxes and vegetation surveys to understand the broader environmental impact of peat reuse.  

• Greater data sharing and collaboration between energy companies and the academic community to refine the reuse hierarchy and best practice in the field. 

For further information, 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. 

Research completed: January 2025

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7488/era/6333

Executive summary

Minimising peat excavation is crucial in order to avoid carbon emissions, protect biodiversity and ensure downstream water quality. Built development on peatlands results in the excavation and disturbance of peat. In order to ensure evidence-based planning and consenting decisions there is a need to gather evidence on the impacts and opportunities regarding the reuse of excavated peat. This will help to inform how best to balance the benefits of renewable energy with the need to protect and restore peatland habitats, ensuring sustainable development practices.

This project investigates the opportunities, impacts, and challenges associated with the reuse of excavated peat from windfarm construction sites. It provides a greater understanding of the current knowledge concerning wind farm development on peatland, peat and peaty soils across Scotland. We propose a hierarchy of peat reuse options based on environmental impact and offer recommendations for data collection and monitoring to enhance the evidence base.

The research combined a review of published evidence with stakeholder engagement and site visits.

Findings

We found very little academic research specifically investigating best practice for the reuse of peat on windfarms. We therefore used stakeholder discussions and site visits to understand the current situation, what is occurring at different sites within Scotland, and likely environmental costs and benefits of different reuse options.

Key issues

Avoidance of peat excavation: Minimising peat excavation is crucial. As a critical first step of the mitigation hierarchy, different stakeholders agree the need to limit volumes to protect peatland, biodiversity, and maintain hydrological connectivity.

Preparation and planning issues: Site surveys often lack the requisite detail to effectively avoid deep peat areas during construction. It also leads to problems with planning how to reuse greater volumes of peat than expected. Additional training for construction operatives would enable them to minimise peat disturbance and maintain the excavated peat’s structure.

Carbon storage: Accurate carbon calculations are needed to fully understand the impact of the wind farm. However, this study found that more peat is often excavated than planned, highlighting the need for greater accuracy in carbon excavation measurements. Monitoring the condition of reused peat is also necessary to enable better understanding of carbon storage and other ecosystem services.

There are a range of construction activities that result in the excavation of peat, such as the construction and maintenance of roads and tracks, compounds and substations, crane pads and turbine blade laydown areas, cabling, drainage ditches and borrow pits. The main reuse methods include borrowpit reinstatement, restoration activities and landscaping. These reuse options may have varying environmental outcomes (Table 1), consideration for which needs to be part of the planning process when constructing a wind farm and planning the reuse of excavated peat within the project.

Recommendations

Recommendation 1: Guidance on excavation peat reuse

Because detailed evidence to confirm the different environmental outcomes is not available, we recommend a simple hierarchy of peat reuse options accompanied by additional guidance and requirements, which are essential for maximising environmental outcomes. We recommend this comprises:

• Recommendation 1a: Preparation and planning steps:
  • Avoid / minimise peat excavation wherever possible and
  • Appraise site circumstances and locally relevant potential reuse options
• Recommendation 1b: Hierarchy of peat reuse
• Recommendation 1c: Peat reuse implementation principles: to guide the site-specific choice of methods and implementation to maximise environmental outcomes.

The hierarchy is not useable as a standalone guide – it must be accompanied by the additional components – as shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 Guidance for Excavated Peat Reuse

Recommendation 2: Environmental outcomes framework

To ensure the multiple potential environmental benefits of peat reuse are considered, avoiding a single-issue focus.

To ensure a balanced approach to peat reuse, we recommend targeting the following environmental outcomes:

• Minimising carbon loss: Reducing carbon emissions from excavated peat.
• Positive biodiversity outcomes: Achieving biodiversity goals at both local and national levels.
• Ensuring downstream water quality: Minimising sediment and nutrient load in water bodies.

Recommendation 3: Enhanced monitoring of environmental outcomes from reuse of peat

Enhanced research and monitoring are required to improve and inform the reuse hierarchy and implementation of best practice techniques going forward:

• Post-construction assessment: Providing accurate peat excavation volumes at the end of construction to build a dataset to be used within the sector for more accurate carbon calculations and reuse planning.
• Post-construction monitoring: Regular monitoring of wetness of the peat, carbon fluxes and vegetation surveys to understand the broader environmental impact of peat reuse.
• Data sharing and collaboration: Encouraging greater data sharing and collaboration between energy companies and the academic community to refine the reuse hierarchy and best practice in the field.

Next steps and future research

These results highlight our current understanding of peat reuse methods occurring in wind farm construction in Scotland. We have highlighted which environmental issues are critical and how the reuse of peat can maintain the habitat, allowing for environmentally conscious construction techniques to take precedence.

However, a clear conclusion from the information gained during this process is that planning prior to construction is key, as well as ensuring that stakeholders work together to achieve best practice.

After these main outcomes from the hierarchy, the attention needs to focus on delivering site specific reuse. It also became apparent that although there is a lot of knowledge within the peatland and wind farm sectors, there have been limited studies collecting data to inform best practice. This needs to be encouraged to understand current research gaps and advise on the right management methods to reduce peatland degradation in the long term.

Table 1: Synthesis of reuse options and simplified overview of potential environmental outcomes (Note: this table summarises potential outcomes indicated by research during this study, but evidence is limited and site-by-site circumstances vary significantly so currently this differentiation on environmental grounds cannot be fully reflected in the recommended ‘hierarchy of peat reuse’.)

Glossary

Abbreviations

Introduction

Aims and scope

This project explored opportunities, impacts and challenges for the reuse of excavated peat from windfarm development sites. It is intended to inform application of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4), regarding the development of wind farms on peatland, peat and peaty soils. It aimed to provide recommendations for a hierarchy of peat reuse options based on environmental impact along with recommendations for data collection and monitoring to continually improve and update the evidence base.

The project focused on gathering evidence of impacts and opportunities for excavated peat reuse on-site but also considered potential for positive off-site opportunities. Evidence of environmental costs and benefits in terms of emissions, peatland function, habitat, biodiversity, hydrology, stability and structure in relation to reuse practices was evaluated.

Defining ‘reuse of peat’ for this report

This report was commissioned to understand the reuse of peat on wind farm sites during the construction process. We recognise there are differing definitions of “reuse”.

Throughout the study we adopted the definition of “reuse” of peat as:

the use of peat and/or peatland vegetation that has been excavated during the construction of a wind farm.

In this context, the “reuse” of peat can involve reinstatement, revegetation or restoration processes both onsite and offsite, during the construction of a wind farm.

Research methods

A combination of research methods were used:

• A Rapid Evidence Assessment to gather and evaluate the academic literature and other relevant studies.
• Desk-based evaluation of existing wind farm developments on peatland in Scotland to understand current practices.
• Site visits to active and completed wind farm developments on peatland to observe examples of reuse practices in situ.
• Stakeholder engagement, via discussions during site visits, individual research interviews and a workshop to complement desk-research.

It was anticipated that there was limited literature available – in the absence of this, the site visits and stakeholder engagement were critical to the project. Full details of methods are provided in the Appendices.

Background

Scotland is committed to reaching net zero by 2045, how we use and manage our land is vital to achieving this, including the use of land to produce renewable energy. Balancing the benefits from renewable energy with land-based emissions and nature and biodiversity goals is vital, particularly where wind farms intersect with sensitive habitats, like peatland and on carbon-rich soils.

Globally, peatlands are the largest terrestrial carbon store estimated to hold 660 gigatonnes of carbon and 10% of non-glacial freshwater, however, only 17% of these ecosystems are protected (Austin et al., 2025). Globally, 20% of all blanket bogs are located within the UK and Ireland[1]. In Scotland alone, blanket bogs cover around 1.8 million hectares, which is 23% of the land area (Ferretto et al., 2019). Situating new wind farms in the right location is crucial. Although wind farm developments are expected to save carbon emissions by offsetting fossil energy sources (Renou-Wilson and Farrell, 2009), where wind farms are situated on peatlands, there is a risk of land-based carbon emissions, negating the reduction associated with offsetting fossil energy sources. The quality of the peatland habitat is an important factor, as areas that are already degraded and emitting carbon, could be improved through restoration of the whole environment. When applications are made for wind farm construction there are often enhancement conditions attached to these new developments leading to restoration, but some restoration may have been necessary without the wind farm construction occurring. Peatland condition categories[2] range from pristine, near natural, modified, drained and actively eroding in relation to GHG emissions and restoration potential. Historically, Scotland’s peatlands have not been protected across the whole habitat, with afforestation being prioritised up until recently. Wind farm construction in these areas, is likely to lead to environmental improvements, with stakeholders working together to reduce peatland degradation and ambitious programmes of peatland restoration being undertaken.

[1] https://www.wwt.org.uk/discover-wetlands/wetlands/peat-bogs

[2] https://www.nature.scot/sites/default/files/2023-02/Guidance-Peatland-Action-Peatland-Condition-Assessment-Guide-A1916874.pdf

Research findings

Availability of literature

Overall, the literature searches presented over fifty academic studies and governmental reports, which provided useful information related to the impact of landscape management on peatland as well as some interactions between peatland and wind farm developments. However, there were no empirical studies monitoring changes in reused peat on windfarm developments over time. This is a major research gap. Understanding how the reuse of peat may change the peat itself had to be extrapolated from studies measuring changes within laboratories or evaluations of the landscape scale after a number of years since wind farm construction had occurred. Studies did consider the impact of peat excavation on the environment, hydrology and risks of erosion or the degradation of the peatland habitat. The literature did present a large number of studies focusing on the restoration of peatland habitats, however, these were not readily extrapolatable to the current study on reuse of peat, as the parameters related to restoration are substantially different. A large number of the papers and reports were focused on the Scottish environment which suggests that Scotland is leading the way in this area of research.

Summary of stakeholder engagement achieved

We obtained contributions from 31 individuals during our stakeholder engagement (for a more in-depth synopsis of stakeholder engagement findings see Appendix). Stakeholders highlighted what they viewed as the positive features of some reuse options, such as where the water flows in borrow pits (one method of peat reuse) have been managed to keep the water table near the surface. Stakeholders we spoke to were aware of the gaps in evidence and lack of specific studies and so based their views on their own observations or monitoring on sites they were involved with. Overall stakeholders agreed that a number of factors need to be considered carefully to have any chance of achieving optimal environmental outcomes from reuse of peat on windfarm sites – simply putting peat in a convenient location on site would not be beneficial as peat would dry out, erode or lose its structure and functioning. Key considerations were – what was the condition of peat prior to excavation, the need to plan how to minimise disturbance, handling, drying and transport of peat after excavation, consideration of the water levels and flows, vegetation cover and the stability of reused peat in situ.

Summary of site research conducted

During five site visits across varied locations in Scotland, a range of different peat reuse practices were observed including:

• different approaches to infilling borrow pits,
• use in landscaping (for example alongside tracks or to cover cables),
• infill of other site features including historical peat cuttings,
• incorporation of peat into peatland restoration.

Across sites the condition of peat prior to excavation and reuse varied, as did the nature of reuse even where the same general type of reuse was used, for example borrow pit size, shape, fill level, structure, hydrology and vegetation varied across sites where this practice was used. For more information related to site visits see the Appendix.

Summary of literature and stakeholder research findings

In Scotland, peatlands store over 2,735 million tonnes of carbon covering approximately two million hectares (Smith et al., 2007), equating to around 25% of Scotland’s land area. These peatlands are often considered good candidates for onshore wind farms due to the windy and exposed environments they are located in and because they are often considered poor (or unprofitable) for other land uses, like forestry and farming activities.

The main construction activities which result in substantial disturbance for a wind farm development are track construction for maintenance and access roads, trenches for cabling, quarried aggregate extraction (borrow pits) and turbine foundation excavation. This large-scale disturbance can affect peat stability, degradation (such as habitat condition, plant assemblages, carbon storage, etc), as well as the hydrology of the habitat. Other disturbances are related to building infrastructure to support the wind farm development like crane pad constructions, temporary and permanent compounds, as well as substations to join the electricity generated to the grid. Estimates of the direct disturbance to the peatland habitat per wind turbine vary greatly but have been reported to be between 0.2 to 1 hectare per turbine, with the turbines within a wind farm usually taking up less than 10% of the wind farm area (Sander et al., 2024). However, if this area is on deep peatland, there will be greater environmental impact, than on shallow peat or mineral soils.

Larger turbines, which are more widely spaced (typically on a 300-500 m grid, with the distance between turbines around five times rotor diameter), capture energy on a much smaller spatial ‘footprint’ than smaller ones on wind farms (Renou-Wilson and Farrell, 2009). However, this is also site-dependent and varies if repowering occurs, as repowering may use the same footprint as the previous turbines, or it could locate the turbines at a new area within the development, thus increasing the environmental impact.

Construction of a wind farm requires a significant array of associated infrastructure to be installed, this infrastructure may have impacts on the surrounding peatland either through the removal of peat from that habitat, removal and replacement of peat in less suitable locations or reducing the quality of the environment within the area the peat was moved to, compression, flooding, drainage, erosion or mass movement of the peat (Lindsay, 2018). Active peatlands are hydrologically linked and naturally stabilised therefore if hydrologically disrupted, the stability can be lost (Wawrzyczek et al., 2018). An unstable habitat can lead to wider environmental problems, with issues greater than just carbon loss, for example peat slides.

Peat and windfarms in Scotland

Peat is an amorphous organic deposit, considered to be the largest terrestrial carbon store. Peat is highly compressible and porous consisting of up to 90% water by volume. Active peat-forming mire has also been found to be effective in delaying storm run-off, reducing soil erosion and retaining inorganic nutrients when it is undrained (Bragg, 2002).

Across Europe it has been calculated that 25% of peatlands are degraded (Tanneberger et al., 2021). Under the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), there are 36 European regions with designated blanket bogs and of these, 12 have wind farm developments, including 644 wind turbines, 253 km of vehicular access tracks and an affected area of ~208 hectares, mainly in Ireland and Scotland where the extent of peatland is also higher (Chico et al., 2023). However, when this is compared to the Scottish soil maps, the extent of wind farm developments in Scotland on peatland is even higher, with 1,063 wind turbines and 635 km of vehicular access tracks on peatland in Scotland alone according to national inventory data (Chico et al., 2023).

Currently, 48% of wind farms in Scotland have already been built on peat[1] with this number likely to increase in the future. Wind farm developments can have an impact on the peatland habitats and emissions, during construction, operation, and decommissioning stages. This reduces the wind farms’ ability to reach the goal of net zero. Using a carbon calculator[2] to assess the carbon saving of wind farm developments compared to carbon lost through construction on Scottish peatland provides guidance on a wind farm’s carbon footprint. However, due to the heterogeneity of peatlands and the lack of detail at the required scale when completing peatland surveys pre-planning, it has been found that the amount of peat excavated is often more than the amounts used within the carbon calculations.

[1] John Muir Trust – Scotland’s peatland policy update.

[2] https://www.gov.scot/publications/carbon-calculator-for-wind-farms-on-scottish-peatlands-factsheet/

Current practices: excavation

Both in discussion with stakeholders and within the literature, the instability of peat deposits was highlighted, with small movements leading to slope terracing, slumps or the collapse of peat banks – these events are relatively common. Furthermore, disturbed peat can lose more than 50% of its strength compared to undisturbed peat and, in many cases, behaves as a viscous material that will readily flow, particularly when affected by high rainfall (Jennings and Kane, 2015). These inherent properties of peat carry risk and need to be considered during the wind farm construction process as the destabilisation of peat mass through drainage or excavation operations could lead to an increase in landslides / bog flow events (Dykes, 2022).

From discussions with stakeholders, it is clear that the exact volume of peat to be excavated can differ from estimates calculated in the EIA at application stage. This is usually due to a combination of initially unknown factors prior to the construction process – the exact depth, viscosity and bulk density of the peat material that needs to be excavated. Calculations are usually based on predefined excavation requirements for the size of the turbine alongside average peat depths for the area provided by preliminary site surveys, using an interpolated model of a peat depth probe survey. However, the depth of peat can also vary significantly over time, with changes in the peatland hydrology, leading to peat shrinkage occurring during drought conditions (Morton and Heinemeyer, 2019). Thus the timing of peat surveys may affect peat excavation calculations, as well as the scale of the survey and heterogeneity of the habitat. Table 2 describes common reasons for excavation as part of the construction process and how they differ in approach.

Table 2. Common reasons for excavation on site and how they differ in approach when applied to peat and peatland.

Roads and tracks

Construction and maintenance roads and tracks are the most extensive direct impact of a wind farm on peatland as the roads need to allow access to every turbine, plus all the other infrastructure buildings but could also provide access to areas for restoration and enhancement activities. Initially, roads were just cuttings made on shallower peat down to the mineral base. However, this meant that the roads were lower than the surrounding peatland and frequently led to drainage issues.

Construction methods have adapted from just cuttings to the ‘cut and fill’ method (where the peat is dug out until the mineral subsoil is reached and backfilling the trench with aggregate until the road is around the same level as the surrounding bog surface (Lindsay, 2018)) or the preferred method of floating roads (using a geotextile mesh on top of deep peat). Floating roads have limited peat removal as a geotextile mesh is laid on top of the peat, with aggregate poured on top. Another geogrid may then be added with more aggregate before the final ‘running surface’ is laid (Lindsay, 2018).

Stakeholders described how the design of the road network through a wind farm is largely driven by the placement of the turbines (often on ridges which may be where the deepest peat is located) and following the contours of slope (increasing the distances of the road network within the peatland habitat). Tracks also need to bear large weights, for example, the cranes used for wind turbine construction can weigh up to 200 tonnes (this also has implications for the construction of crane pads). A study showed the orientation of the road in relation to the flow of water within a peatland had a large impact (Elmes et al., 2022) and led to flow obstruction and changes to the overall hydrology when running perpendicular to the flow in comparison to parallel. However, this sort of nuanced planning is rarely discussed as part of the construction process. Infrastructure like work compounds and substations also require access roads (with drainage). Thus, the size of the area of peat that is disturbed by the development may be greater than first considered.

Drainage

It was highlighted by stakeholders – and during the site visits – that drainage is usually the first construction activity occurring when developing wind farm infrastructure and is often necessary around the turbine bases and accompanying roads and tracks to reduce the risk of surface flooding. Drainage ditches are also excavated around wind farm foundations to improve the stabilisation of the turbine foundations and to protect machinery. This process of draining peatlands is known to be detrimental, causing subsidence through oxidation of the peat (Williams-Mounsey et al., 2021) and carbon loss. However, peat further away from the drainage ditch (> 1m) will only lose 20% of its previous moisture content, with the main effect of peatland drainage leading to removal of surface water rather than deep water-table drawdown (Lindsay, 2014). Drying of the peat may also lead to cracking, which may lead to rainwater penetrating the base of the peat and lubricate the interface between the peat and the mineral subbase (Lindsay, 2018).

Excavation works

Other large-scale disturbances of the peat are through excavation works. This can be for granular material used during construction (taken from borrow pits); excavation of the wind turbine foundations (although piled foundations can reduce the overall negative impact); and trenches for laying cabling/pipework, leading to substantial quantities of peat that may need to be stored prior to reuse. Piled foundations are usually built over deep peat, rather than excavating large quantities of peat; long, thin columns (piles) are driven or drilled into the ground to support wind turbine structures. These foundations reduce the volume of peat needed to be excavated whilst ensuring stability of the structure. Turbine towers experience large forces and must be placed on a solid foundation embedded within the underlying mineral subsoil or bedrock (Lindsay, 2018). Stakeholders said that often large quantities of peat may be deposited on nearby surfaces temporarily, if trucks aren’t continuously available to receive the excavated material, or dependent on the stage of the construction process. However, it is best practice to only move the peat once (to maintain structure and water content) thus, if the requisite planning is in place, a reuse strategy can be implemented where excavated material is moved to its final location in one step.

Stockpiling peat occurs where peat has been excavated and may need to be temporarily stored prior to reuse due to logistical constraints. As well as becoming a potential source of GHG emissions due to its exposure to aerobic conditions, when peat is stored, changes have been observed within its hydrochemistry, leading to it becoming less acidic and less nutrient-rich (Detrey, 2022). Over time, dewatering also occurs, which alters the hydrophysical properties (porosity) of the peat, these are key for sustaining critical peatland ecohydrological functionality (Lehan et al., 2022).

Ground preparation for stablishing crane pads and turbine blade laydown areas often requires excavating peat to create a stable foundation, leading to the removal of substantial peat volumes, with similar issues as discussed related to other excavation works. This will expand the area of impact further away from the turbine, with underlying changes to the hydrology, potential for release of GHG emissions, vegetation changes and degradation of peatland (Wawrzyczek et al., 2018). Some of these areas are temporary. For example, at some sites visited, areas which had previously been turbine blade laydown areas had peat reinstated and vegetation was able to naturally regenerate. However, this only occurs if it is part of the plan created by the developers, as some laydown areas will remain as areas with stable foundations which are available for future use.

Current practices: use of excavated peat – reuse practices

Excavated peat needs to be moved from the excavation site and is often initially stockpiled until an appropriate time for reuse. The time peat is stockpiled can vary substantially and will be impacted by where it was excavated from, the volume, and timing of the excavation related to overall construction of wind farm site. Lehan, et al., (2022) undertook a restoration study, to assess the impact of time on the hydrophysical properties of peat blocks that were stockpiled for 3, 7, 11, and 14 months. In this study, stockpiling peat was differentially impacted dependent on whether it was shallower or deeper peats, where limited impact from stockpiling was observed in the shallower peats, regardless of stockpiling time; however, in the deeper peats as stockpiling time increased there was a decrease in microporosity as well as mobile porosity (drainable porosity) (Lehan et al., 2022). It may be necessary to rewet the peat or aim to keep it wet whilst stockpiled.

Peat that has started to dry out will be less likely to function when reused. When the surface of the peat starts to dry out development of a hydrophobic layer may occur which causes irreversible changes to the ability of peat to be fully rewetted and reduces the infiltration capacity of the peat (Evans et al., 1999), increasing the desiccation of the peat overall and exacerbating the issue over time. There could also be a similar issue occurring around drainage channels, changing the overall hydrology of the habitat. There are a number of different potential reuse practices that occur on site, with varying quantities of peat, depth of peat and aims (Table 3).

Table 3. Generalised overview of current and potential future reuse practices for excavated peat

When excavating peat, it is imperative that the different layers are kept separate (acrotelm, catotelm) and not mixed with the underlying mineral substrate. This is because of the different properties of these layers and mixing will degrade the peat and reduce its function. Although peat excavation during wind farm construction is likely to occur, large excavations of peat should be avoided. Peatland management plans are mandatory when submitting planning applications for wind farm developments on peaty soils (as part of Policy 5 of the NPF4 framework). These plans provide a draft outline of the volume of peat to be excavated and the reuse activities that will be performed as part of the development. The reuse of peat is unlikely to have wider environmental benefits in areas that are not already disturbed by the wind farm construction or considered degraded; depositing excavated peat on undisturbed vegetation is likely to be detrimental.

To prevent the loss of carbon and the increase in GHG emissions which would occur from the degrading peat, it is essential that a considerable time is spent planning prior to the excavation process – reducing the distance the peat is moved, keeping the times the peat is moved to a minimum and understanding the volumes of peat involved. From discussions with a number of stakeholders it was suggested that, although the level of planning and motivations of the energy companies to reuse peat without degrading it is high, it is often dependent on the capabilities and understanding of the operators doing the work. A number of training courses have been organised for the construction sector specifically to improve this. However, these courses are voluntary. Training the construction sector in the importance of peatlands, restoration techniques and sensitivity during construction, will enable greater preservation of this valuable resource. In almost all discussions with stakeholders the reuse of peat occurred onsite, there were discussions regarding offsite use, but these were more abstract in terms of what was possible, rather than what was occurring. The reasoning given that the majority of reuse is on site is because the SEPA guidance[1] states that unless the excavated peat is used for construction purposes in its natural state on the site from where it is excavated, it will be subject to regulatory control and considered waste.

[1] https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/287064/wst-g-052-developments-on-peat-and-off-site-uses-of-waste-peat.pdf

Overall, although the terminology is the same between different wind farm construction sites – the reuse of peat within borrowpits, landscaping or restoration, it is always site specific. There may be commonalities between the sites, for example, the need to maintain hydrological connectivity, and the importance of peatland vegetation. There will also be significant differences related to volume of peat excavated, previous habitat conditions and use, weather conditions and water table level, knowledge and preparedness of the contractors. Within 3.5.2, 3.5.3 and 3.5.4 we present case studies representing recent site visits.

Quantities of peat excavated during wind farm construction

Reviewing a number of reports, for example the “Good Practice during Wind Farm Construction” (NatureScot), “Research and guidance on restoration and decommissioning of onshore wind farms” (NatureScot), “Developments on peatland: guidance on the assessment of peat volumes, reuse of excavated peat and the minimisation of waste” (SEPA[1]), “Developments on Peat and Off-site uses of waste peat” (SEPA), as well as habitat management plans for specific wind farms, all state the importance of collecting relevant and detailed site investigation data at an early stage of the application process to enable a full understanding of the site character and to inform a more accurate design process. This is in full agreement with the academic literature (e.g. Jorat et al., 2024) and discussions with stakeholders. During the planning process the amount of peat that needs to be excavated and how it will be reused is identified (see Table 3 for an example of the average areas involved in excavations). However, due to the heterogeneity of the environment and the lack of granularity of peat depth survey’s there is some ambiguity related to total peat volumes until excavation has started.

[1] Scottish Renewables, Scottish Environment Protection Agency. 2012. Guidance on the Assessment of Peat Volumes, Reuse of Excavated Peat and the Minimisation of Waste

Table 4. Area of turbines adapted from Albanito et al., 2022, also includes calculation of the average volume of peat per turbine taken from reviewed peatland management plans of operational wind farms in Scotland

*Independent of wind farm capacity (MW)

**Average taken from reviewed peatland management plans of operational wind farms in Scotland.

Case studies – Borrow pit reinstatement

To successfully reinstate peat within borrow pit excavations, it is important to consider the borrow pit location, hydrological connectivity, depth, vegetation cover, and to preserve the layering of the peat (Figure 2). It is best practice to reinstate the borrow pit profile to a comparative level to the surrounding landscape, with gentle slopes that blend into the landscape, it’s design should maintain hydrological connectivity with the wider environment whilst also holding water within the peat soil. Often “cells” are created within the borrow pit to enable easier reinstatement, these cells are sometimes lined with clay to reduce the permeability through to the underlying parent material. This is to enhance the hydrological connectivity of the reinstated borrow pit and aims to keep the area wet. However, an outflow is also needed so that the area doesn’t become permanently waterlogged (Figure d). It is assumed that natural regeneration of peatland vegetation will occur, therefore seeding is not usually part of the PMP, however if seeding were to occur this would usually be two years after construction as part of the planning conditions process.

e)

f)

Figure 2. Examples of borrow pits a) newly completed (< 1 year); b) in the process of being in-filled, one cell completed – cell wall construction (light coloured) and peat infill (dark coloured); c) 15-year old borrow pit with examples of functional peatland vegetation (from natural revegetation); d) 15-year old borrow pit that was not designed with drainage, has led to waterlogging (arrow indicates ponding); e) 10-year old borrow pit, quite dry, with more of an acidic grassland habitat; f) newly completed (< 1 year) situated on a slope, quite shallow peat.

Case studies – roadside verges / landscaping

Peat deposited alongside roadside verges often occurs more in terms of landscaping rather than for preservation of the peat (and carbon within it) (Figure 3). However, the volumes are relatively small compared to borrow pit reinstatement. If the peat does not become integrated with the surrounding hydrology, it will likely dry out and decompose over time, releasing CO₂ into the environment and possibly erode away.

a)	b)
c)	d)

Figure 3. Example of peat reused along roadside as part of landscaping process, a) drainage and indication of below ground cabling visible, vegetated peat reused for this infill; b) drainage channels and depth of floating road visible (newly constructed < 1 year), c) newly constructed (<1 year) landscaping, mixing of peat and mineral soil visible; d) Established peat at edge of floating road (15 years after construction), has maintained level and has peatland vegetation growing on it through natural revegetation. (Photographic permissions granted)

Case studies – incorporation within restoration projects

The reuse of peat is not considered for peatland restoration in the majority of cases. However, there are some examples where excavated peat has been used as part of the restoration process but this has only been permitted as an experimental approach. This is because once the peat is excavated (in the quantities it is being removed for wind farm construction), it has often lost structure and hydrological connectivity, and left as a stockpile until reinstatement begins (which varies from site to site).

Thus, the excavated peat has likely started to degrade, using this for restoration is unlikely to improve the habitat to the same level restoration with non-degraded peat would do. However, on some sites there are opportunities for reuse that could enable restoration if the appropriate planning and coordination between experts occurs. An example can be seen in Figure 4 (a and b). Key to the success of this kind of trial is planning how to implement it, for example a) efforts were made to move the peat only once – from excavation to reuse site; b) the layers of peat were kept separate and maintained across translocation; c) training was provided to the contractors involved in this reuse and restoration project. At a different site, excavated peat was used to infill peat cuttings that had occurred previously, however this infill can still be seen 10 years later (Figure 44c – differences in vegetation).

Although there are differences still visible in vegetation, the process for infilling used in situ vegetation. When reinstating the peat within the cuttings, the existing vegetation was stripped off and placed aside, the cuttings were then filled with acrotelmic peat generated from the excavation of nearby turbine bases. The vegetation was then replaced to reinstate the area and stabilise the peat. Although this may not have restored the peatland habitat to equivalent to undisturbed areas, as differences in vegetation are still visible. As the degradation was separate to wind farm construction, comparisons need to be made with how the environment was prior to wind farm construction, rather than comparison to pristine peatlands. Understanding whether the reuse of peat has been successful in maintaining a functioning peatland or at least preventing the loss of peat (and carbon) is very important, vegetation and water table monitoring occurs on some sites regularly to assess this (Figure 44d).

a)	b)
c)	d)

Figure 4. Examples of incorporation in restoration projects – a) Restoration trial (as part of the forest to bog project), where excavated peat was deposited at the side of a constructed track. However, to enhance restoration, prior to peat addition, vegetation was removed and the site ‘smoothed’, before the excavated peat was layered on top (to a depth of 150 mm or 300 mm dependent on trial site), after which the vegetation was put back on top of the reused peat. B) Zoomed in photo of trial site in a) peat vegetation covering trial site, with very little bare peat. C) Landscape restoration through the infill of furrows – here infill is within peat cuttings (but similar infill also occurs within the furrows of former forested sites). D) Dip well monitoring of water levels to assess success of peat reuse. (Photographic permissions granted)

Offsite use of excavated peat

Throughout this research it was discussed with stakeholders whether excavated peat could be used offsite from the wind farm construction; as to date only one paper was found. Balode et al., (2024) discussed various off-site novel uses for peat within the energy sector, building materials and additives, as well as agriculture and the wider environment (Figure 5); however, the paper does not focus solely on reuse and hence these uses are unlikely to occur within wind farm construction industry as the quantities involved in reuse are not going to warrant the creation of a comprehensive supply chain.

It is important to note that throughout the stakeholder consultation, it was repeatedly stated that reuse of peat off-site did not generally occur. Mainly this is due to two reasons, firstly classification – if the peat was taken off-site, it would be categorised as waste, which would likely entail a cost; secondly the necessary volumes of peat and the logistics of transportation would make it too costly to the project. If the reuse of peat offsite from wind farm construction was to be encouraged than new SEPA guidance and recommendations would need to be developed.

Figure 5. Novel applications of peat from Balode et al., (2024).

Environmental outcomes of peat reuse 

The results of the literature review indicates that all anthropogenic activities within a peatland will impact the fate of nutrients. The fluctuating water table, local geochemistry and hydrology are the main drivers of a peatlands’ groundwater chemistry and discharge (Monteverde et al., 2022). Wind farm construction can increase the fluvial macronutrient loading of catchment streams (Heal et al., 2020), however, forest felling has been shown to lead to greater dissolved organic carbon (DOC) within felled areas compared to wind farm catchments (Zheng et al., 2018). It is important to note that often wind farms are developed on felled forest sites that were previously peatland, e.g. Whitelees and Camster, however it has been calculated that nearly 14 million trees have been cut down as part of wind farm construction projects over the last 20 years (2000 – 2020)[1]. Thus, academic studies comparing habitats as if they are discrete categories like a felled forest compared to a wind farm development need to include previous land use as part of their analysis. In other words, undisturbed peatland to forestry to felled forest and windfarm may produce different results compared to an undisturbed peatland to wind farm, but if only considering the final use they would be classed as having the same management factors influencing them. It is also unclear whether the environmental perturbations are additive and would likely occur if the area hadn’t previously been changed? Also the timing of monitoring is important, for example a newly constructed wind farm showed 5 g m² losses in dissolved organic carbon (compared to control samples) over an 18-month period (Grieve and Gilvear, 2008) but it is unclear if losses reduce over time – this is a research gap. Is there an initial flush that quickly dissipates? Or are those losses continuous without signs of improvement. Grieve and Gilvear (2008) believe this 5 g m² loss represents between 25% and 50% of annual carbon sequestration in peatlands in central Scotland, so it is quite substantial.

[1] https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18270734.14m-trees-cut-scotland-make-way-wind-farms

The structure and hydrology of removed and replaced peat will not resemble that of the undisturbed peat and likely undergo further degradation through settlement and oxidation (Lindsay, 2018). Excavated peat is often used to blend the transition from undisturbed areas to those which are part of the construction. The disturbance to the peat results in negative impact to the habitat (Jorat et al., 2024), however using excavated peat to link undisturbed areas with disturbed areas will encourage vegetation regrowth in keeping with the surrounding landscape and may stablise the disturbed peat. Error! Reference source not found. provides an overview of the potential environmental outcomes for some of these reuse options.

Understanding how each reuse option impacts the wider environment will inform the hierarchy. Repowering of wind farms, upgrading the turbines and technology used within a wind farm site once it has reached the end of use-limit, is one method of reducing disturbance on peatland. However, this still requires extensive planning, as the newer turbines are often larger, needing different spacing between turbines and larger foundations. Approximately 30% more land surface area will be disturbed for repowering using a new rather than reengineered foundation (Waldron et al., 2018). If the surrounding peatland has not recovered from the previous development, this could lead to greater degradation than using new locations.

It is unsurprising that wind farm construction leads to wide-scale changes to the peatland habitat, which are known to be sensitive habitats with unique attributes related to their hydrology and carbon richness. Within this report we have been focused solely on the impact of wind farms on the excavation of peat and its reuse, however once in situ wind farms may still have an impact on the surrounding peatland. For example, a study by Moravec et al., (2018) showed that wind turbines can affect ground surface temperatures (which has the potential to change soil hydrology); and these changes varied with proximity to wind turbine (Armstrong et al., 2016). These impacts may also last for the lifetime of the wind farm, a large-scale review of the impacts of pipeline construction on soil and crops found that pipelines caused soil degradation for years and decades following installation and that soil compaction and soil horizon mixing detrimentally impacted soil function (Brehm and Culman, 2022).

Table 5: Synthesis of reuse options and simplified overview of potential environmental outcomes (Note: this table summarises potential outcomes indicated by research during this study, but evidence is limited and site-by-site circumstances vary significantly so currently this differentiation on environmental grounds cannot be fully reflected in the recommended ‘hierarchy of peat reuse’.)

Limitations of data

Through the rapid evidence assessment (REA) we did not consider peatland restoration methods as part of the scope, however there are some strategies that go beyond restoration practices and should be a consideration as part of the reuse of peat. For example, rewetting peatland, drain blocking, revegetation, and fire management (Balode et al., 2024). Although there is academic research on the impact of peatland degradation, how wind farms can reduce reliance on fossil fuels and the social acceptance of wind farms within the environment, there is a lack of published research directly quantifying the impact of wind farms on peatlands, or providing evidence of best practice. Reliance on grey literature and stakeholder discussions is necessary to cover this research gap. For example, where novel reuse methods have been used, the industry has led monitoring of those sites, collected data and written these up as internal reports, which are not obviously available for the wider industry and academia to use. However, “standard practice” is rarely reviewed in academia nor comprehensive data collected, thus it is very difficult to make recommendations on what works best through standard literature reviews. Grey literature may be written with bias, there may be a lack of replication within the data, and it will not have been peer reviewed and is thus less reliable as a data source.

Often there is limited detail within peat management plans and planning applications for wind farms. For example, it is assumed that all excavated material will be peat; differences between peat layers (acrotelm and catotelm) are not distinguished and there is no reference to the vegetation layer. Depending on volumes, the only indication of reuse is stated as backfilling around turbine bases and landscaping around access tracks. As well as the aforementioned issues with the reuse of excavated peat, one important consideration that is often not discussed is that the different layers of peat excavated (acrotelm and catotelm) have different physical properties. Whilst the reuse options discussed above may be appropriate for acrotelm peat, they are unlikely to be suitable for catotelmic peat (generally below 1m depth peat)[1].

[1] https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/287064/wst-g-052-developments-on-peat-and-off-site-uses-of-waste-peat.pdf

Knowledge and evidence gaps

There is a lack of understanding related to the outcome of peat reuse – is it to restore peatland bog function, or is it to try to reduce losses of carbon from the excavated peat? Or is it to do something with the excavated peat that will minimally impact the wider environment? The likelihood is that the overall outcome will be somewhere between these points.

Although there is a significant amount of academic research on the impact of wind farms on peatland, there were clear gaps related to what should be deemed ‘best practice’. For example, there is no published work on the measurement of peatland parameters as part of the reinstatement of borrow pits on wind farms – how can best practice be defined when there is no indication of something working in practice, or a clear understanding of what ‘success’ looks like in this context? There have also not been any in-depth assessments of carbon loss after excavation and reuse – discussions were held in relation to loss of carbon as the peat dried out, but there is a lack of direct studies focusing on this over time. This information is also absent from the grey literature. There was a lot of discussion with stakeholders regarding what they believe works best from a real-world perspective (rather than lab based academic studies), but this still lacked underlying reported evidence, and was only discussed in terms of past experience of what worked (to reuse the peat available, and perceived that it remained within the field rather than eroding) and what hasn’t worked, remaining largely unmeasured and therefore unproven. Interestingly, where a wind farm had used a novel method of reuse, there was a monitoring plan set up by the energy company and evidence was gathered to justify this method. Highlighting how energy companies can lead the way in providing evidence of good practice.

Generally, there was a lack of monitoring occurring, both in terms of whether the construction process adheres to what has been set out in the PMPs but also to ascertain whether the approach has worked (and thus could be referred back to and repeated elsewhere). There is also a disconnect between the desired outcomes compared to the aims of the wind farm operators. For the wind farm developers, there is a need to balance aspects such as effectiveness and safety within the construction process (i.e. the need for drainage), with restoration, when that part of the construction process is complete. Removing drainage if it is no longer necessary within the wind farm infrastructure would enable an area to return to a more natural peatland habitat, although dialogue is required to ensure a shared understanding of how this might be defined.

Legislation and advisory documents change over time, for example “Scotland’s Peatland Standard”[1] (SPS) is currently being developed. This document will provide technical information and guidance to promote peatland protection. It will define the minimum for sustainable management and restoration requirements that Scottish Government expects all peatland owners, managers and contactors to follow. Thus, in future could potentially fill some of these knowledge gaps discussed.

[1] https://www.nature.scot/climate-change/nature-based-solutions/nature-based-solutions-practice/peatland-action/peatland-action-how-do-i-restore-and-manage-my-peatland-0

Recommendations

We have developed the hierarchy below for reuse of peat through the literature review, stakeholder discussions and site visits presented within this report. We considered the role and nature of a potential hierarchy for peat reuse methods during this project, considering:

• What needs to be included in a hierarchy and in which order.
• What additional guidance or principles would help guide an environmentally beneficial approach to peat reuse.
• Highlighting the research gaps at this time that need to be addressed to better inform a hierarchy of peat reuse methods.

Based on the findings of this study we have three recommendations:

Recommendation 1: Guidance on excavation peat reuse

1a: Planning and preparation steps
1b: A draft hierarchy of reuse methods
1c: Peat reuse and implementation principles

Recommendation 2: Environmental outcomes framework to ensure the multiple potential environmental benefits of peat reuse are considered, avoiding a single-issue focus.

Recommendation 3: Enhanced monitoring of environmental outcomes from reuse of peat – these investigations need to be targeted to address the specific research gaps highlighted in our study, and also better routine monitoring of site reuse implementation and environmental outcomes.

Our recommendations come from learnings acquired during this study. Through a rapid evidence assessment, an understanding was gained of the current research occurring on peatlands and wind farm developments, alongside site visits to see what was occurring in the field and a series of stakeholder discussions and workshops to fill in the gaps where reports or data were lacking. An area of clear agreement across stakeholders, both in terms of construction and also the conservation sector, is to minimise the amount of peat excavated. Avoidance of peat excavation can mean different things to different stakeholders, for example:

• Is avoidance about minimising the volume of peat excavated? (reduction of waste and minimising cost) – Yes
• Is avoidance about minimising the areas of carbon-rich soil impacted by excavation? (limited footprint of impact) – Yes
• Is avoidance about minimising the loss of area of peatland in pristine / good conditions? (protected biodiversity) – Yes
• Is avoidance about minimising loss of hydrological connectivity across on-site/off-site peatland and the wider functions of larger peat bodies? (ecosystem services) – Yes

Depending on the perspective of the stakeholder they may agree or disagree with some of the above statements, however they are overlapping in terms of reducing the impact of wind farm construction across peatlands. Avoidance is the essential first step in the hierarchy of reuse.

At times the timeline between site acquirement, site surveys, planning approval, and construction company deployment, leads to issues related to preparation and planning. Discussion with stakeholders highlighted that often the site surveys presented as part of the planning applications may not be at the detailed scale necessary to identify areas with the deepest peat (that should be avoided) at the construction stage. The construction contractors would like to avoid the areas with the deepest peat (due to costs and time, as well as to minimise the amount of peat disturbed) but are limited by what has previously been set out within the planning application. The condition of the existing peatland across the landscape prior to wind farm construction may not have been fully assessed, thus if the peat is already degraded the starting point for the reuse of peat will be lower and has the potential to degrade faster when disturbed.

Understanding the hydrological connectivity of the landscape will enable appropriate placement of drainage, this links closely to site condition – if there are already drier areas within the peatland, they may become drier over time with increased drainage. In some instances it is possible to reduce drainage after construction, if the areas being drained are reinstated with peat, however this is a consideration that should be made at the planning stage. Greater training needs to be provided for the construction operatives, both in terms of implementation of activities, but also to understand why it is important; as key to maintaining the quality of the peat during reuse, is minimising disturbance and maintaining the peat structure from the outset.

The importance of peatland for carbon storage is widely discussed both within the literature and by stakeholders, however, a key disconnection between the planning process and the completion of windfarm construction is the accuracy of the carbon calculations – it was widely discussed that in the majority of developments more peat is excavated than was planned. The actual amount of excavated peat is not used to recalculate the carbon loss and thus the overall impact of the wind farm development is not fully assessed. It also means the contractors inevitably have more peat excavated than was planned for reuse, thus the options for reuse of this peat may lack adequate planning for how to reuse appropriately. It is a pity contractors aren’t required to report how much peat has been excavated during the construction process, as this could improve the accuracy of estimates over time, but currently this data is not available or monitored. The condition of the peat that is reused is rarely monitored (at excavation or afterwards), therefore it is unclear whether this peat will continue storing the carbon it contains or whether carbon will be released into the atmosphere. Academic studies collecting empirical data on the release of carbon from disturbed peat are rare, and do not occur at a field scale or if they do these assessments usually occur in relation to agricultural disturbance rather than windfarm construction and are not wholly applicable. Where the peat was excavated from is also an important consideration for reuse – if it is taken from a borrow pit excavation this lends itself to borrow pit reinstatement, however if it is removed for cabling and road installation than returning the peat to this area (referred to as landscaping) may be a better option.

Recommendation 1: Guidance for Peat Reuse Options

Because detailed evidence to confirm the different environmental outcomes is not available, our recommendation is for a simple hierarchy of peat reuse options accompanied by some additional guidance and requirements which are essential for maximising environmental outcomes:

• Recommendation 1a: Preparation and Planning Steps:
• Avoiding / minimising peat excavation and
• Appraise site circumstances and locally relevant potential reuse options
• Recommendation 1b: Hierarchy of Peat Reuse
• Recommendation 1c: Peat Reuse Implementation Principles: to guide the site-specific choice of methods and implementation to maximise environmental outcomes.

The hierarchy is not useable as a standalone guide – it must be accompanied by the additional components – as shown in

.

Figure 6: Guidance for Excavated Peat Reuse

Recommendation 1a: Preparation and planning steps

Is critical to conduct investigations to inform preparation and planning in order to maximise environmental outcomes – including first taking action to avoid peat extraction. Our recommended preparation and planning steps are set out in Table 6.

Table 6: Preparation and planning steps to accompany the hierarchy of peat reuse

Recommendation 1b: Hierarchy of reuse

The rational for the hierarchy of reuse set out in Table 7 reflects the available evidence for environmental outcomes of peat reuse. The main options all have potential to deliver positive environmental outcomes in comparison to the secondary options or landfilling but there is insufficient evidence to rank the main options further. Their feasibility and environmental outcomes will depend upon the site context and the way they are implemented.

The table provides a supplement to the available information on good practices for use and handling of soil and peat. The evidence of environmental outcomes of reuse options has many gaps currently. Where there is evidence, it cannot always be confidently applied to specific sites and circumstances. Therefore, these principles / considerations are taking the precautionary principal approach and should be used as stepping stones reflecting the consensus amongst technical experts about things which are important to consider in the absence of a complete evidence base.

Table 7: Underlying rationale and details related to hierarchy of reuse of peat

Recommendation 1c: Peat Reuse Implementation Principles

The effectiveness and likely outcomes of different methods of peat reuse is heavily dependent on-site specific context, feasibility of achieving the desired outcome, and the detailed design of the method (such as borrow pit infill design). Thus, any hierarchy needs to be flexible, but decisions should be guided by a set of principles to maximise environmental outcomes. These include:

• Aiming for functioning peatland (as close to natural functioning as possible because full natural functioning is likely to be unachievable in most cases), or other valuable habitat if not possible.
• Maintaining / reinstating vegetation
• Maintaining / reinstating water flows / hydrological functioning, whilst ensuring site stability and safety.
• Minimising peat movement
• Maintain peat structure (layers) where possible.

See Table 8 below for more detail.

Putting these into practice is facilitated by the preparation steps set out in Recommendation 1a above. For example greater detail could be requested prior to planning consent, because most peatland management plans lack depth and site-specific details. Requiring this information prior to the start of the construction process will increase the likelihood that planning, and preparation will be undertaken to the necessary extent to improve the outcomes of peat reuse. This would move the onus from contractor and place it with the energy company / landowner that ‘owns’ the consent and is responsible for full legal compliance. Greater detail within the PMPs would also provide a more accurate understanding of the true quantities of peat to be excavated, by including a requirement under the consent for accurate recording and in turn enhance the reuse strategy to be implemented. This could also provide future developments with more accurate calculations to use within their planning applications and PMPs. However, it is beyond the scope of this research to identify where responsibility lies for receiving and reviewing such additional material.

It was clear through the stakeholder consultation that there are a number of very knowledgeable groups working within the sector (Appendix B, including environmental government organisations, wind farm contractors, energy companies, environmental consultants from the private sector, as well as academics and conservation organisations). Capturing this knowledge to ensure recommendations for best practice are supported by what is practical will improve the wind farm construction process in the future.

Table 8: Peat reuse implementation principles – further explanation

Recommendation 2: Environmental outcomes framework

Multiple environmental outcomes should be targeted through peat reuse. To avoid excessive focus on one environmental measure of success, we recommend the following environmental outcomes should be considered when deciding on which peat reuse option to implement on site. These environmental outcomes should be monitored to assess success (see Table 9 for rationale):

• Minimising carbon loss from excavated peat
• Positive biodiversity outcomes reflecting local and national goals
• Ensuring downstream water quality (sediment / nutrient load)

Following on from Recommendation 1 and the hierarchy of reuse options, environmental outcomes framework indicates the priority environmental outcomes for peat reuse. These should be considered by the consenting authority as part of the planning process, in conjunction with the EIA process and developers should be considering these in their development plans. We recommend the consenting authority to check that the applicant has fully considered these areas within the planning proposal as part of their strategy for reuse. The environmental outcomes framework should also guide subsequent monitoring and evaluation, during and after construction. Clarity on what environmental outcomes could potentially be achieved from peat reuse can support all parties to deliver better environmental outcomes.

Table 9: Rationale for Environmental Outcomes Framework for Peat Reuse

Recommendation 3: Improved research and monitoring

In discussion with stakeholders, some monitoring is occurring post wind farm construction for peat reuse, usually by the landowner or energy company, however as discussed previously this monitoring is not mandatory and usually focuses on novel uses, or where the reuse appears to have been successful. We recommend:

• Monitoring of environmental outcomes of peat reuse for the life of the windfarm, EIAs often require follow up monitoring in relation to biodiversity post-construction, however Peatland Management Plans (PMPs) do not. We recommend greater considerations is given to PMPs as part of follow up monitoring to include:
• Monitoring of peat levels, and wetness around the wind farm, irrespective of reuse option, this should occur to identify areas that may be drying out due to drainage, or where too much waterlogging may be occurring because of the changes in hydrology caused by the construction process.
• Monitoring of vegetation cover and types, for example through vegetation surveys are used as indications of functioning peatlands, but other measures (like DOC within the water catchment or carbon fluxes) could provide a more nuanced understanding of the impact reuse is having on the wider environment.
• Greater sharing of this data and collaboration with the academic community, would also enable further distinctions of best practice to occur. We recommend a formal advisory relationship to form between developers and the research community facilitated by Scottish Government, so that data sharing can occur and consenting authorities have access to better knowledge of effective peat reuse being undertaken. Data that has historically been collected but has not been reported on could be shared initially to assess how a collaborative data sharing process may work. The current lack of data sharing and credible longitudinal studies was noticeable at the site visits for wind farms that had been commissioned 10+ years previously – key details had been lost with job changes / retirement that could have benefitted the wind farm sector as a whole, with improved understanding of what is now visibly working and what hasn’t worked so well.

Research gaps

There are many research gaps that have been highlighted throughout this study. These could be addressed through the following actions:

• The exact volume of peat excavated across a wind farm development is not known at completion of construction → We recommend asking the contractors to update records at the end of construction. Building on this we recommend a study to assess the differences between the amount of peat stated to be extracted prior to the wind farm development commencing compared to the wind farm after construction has finished. This could also be used to improve the accuracy of the carbon calculator providing a more accurate picture of the true carbon losses after completion of construction.
• Understanding how the carbon content changes within the peat volume over time for all reuse options → We recommend monitoring projects focusing on carbon loss and GHG emissions
• Seeing how the full GHG balance for infilled borrow pits changes dependent on size and age of the borrowpit → We recommend that monitoring of infilled borrow pits including size and volume, and hydro connectivity needs to occur at regular intervals
• The environmental outcomes of borrow pits have not been fully assessed → We recommend collecting monitoring data of the regeneration of plants and biodiversity over time will enable this.
• Reviewing available printed information on best practice (and standard practice) → Likely this is very limited and may involve contacting energy companies to access internal data and reports. We recommend greater collaboration between the energy companies and academia, with a greater amount of data sharing. Funding opportunities are usually the best way to encourage engagement between different stakeholders.
• The level of revegetation on peat that had previously been excavated appears to be reliant on natural recolonisation, how well this occurs is not thoroughly understood. → We recommend monitoring how plants recolonise the excavated peat that has been reused which would enable a better understanding of best practice. From discussions with stakeholders there is limited reseeding occurring and it is largely left to natural revegetation. However, this is more likely to occur if the surface plants are maintained (removing the in situ plants, redistributing the reused peat and returning the plants on top should enhance recolonisation rates).

Conclusions

These results highlight our current understanding of peat reuse methods occurring in wind farm construction in Scotland. We have identified the critical environmental issues and how the reuse of peat can maintain the habitat, allowing for environmentally conscious construction techniques to take precedence.

However, the overriding synthesis of the information gained during this process is that planning prior to construction is key, as well as ensuring that stakeholders work together to achieve best practice. Avoidance of excavation of deep peat is the first priority. Next, acknowledging that once peat is excavated full consideration of how best to reuse it (ideally only moving it once and keeping the different layers separate, while aiming to keep the peat wet and/or maintaining hydrological connectivity) are crucial.

After these main outcomes from the hierarchy, attention needs to focus on delivering site specific reuse. It also became apparent that although there is a lot of knowledge within the peatland and wind farm sector, there has been limited studies collecting data to inform best practice. This needs to be encouraged to understand current research gaps and advise on the right management methods to reduce peatland degradation in the long term.

References

Albanito, F., Roberts, S., Shepherd, A., Hastings, A., 2022. Quantifying the land-based opportunity carbon costs of onshore wind farms. Journal of Cleaner Production 363, 132480.

Armstrong, A., Burton, R.R., Lee, S.E., Mobbs, S., Ostle, N., Smith, V., Waldron, S., Whitaker, J., 2016. Ground-level climate at a peatland wind farm in Scotland is affected by wind turbine operation. Environmental Research Letters 11, 044024.

Austin, K.G., Elsen, P.R., Coronado, E.N.H., DeGemmis, A., Gallego-Sala, A.V., Harris, L., Kretser, H.E., Melton, J.R., Murdiyarso, D., Sasmito, S.D., Swails, E., Wijaya, A., Winton, R.S., Zarin, D., 2025. Mismatch Between Global Importance of Peatlands and the Extent of Their Protection. Conservation Letters 18, e13080.

Balode, L., Bumbiere, K., Sosars, V., Valters, K., Blumberga, D., 2024. Pros and Cons of Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Peatlands: Review of Possibilities, Applied Sciences.

Bragg, O.M., 2002. Hydrology of peat-forming wetlands in Scotland. Science of the Total Environment 294, 111-129.

Brehm, T., Culman, S., 2022. Pipeline installation effects on soils and plants: A review and quantitative synthesis. Agrosystems, Geosciences & Environment 5, e20312.

Chico, G., Clewer, T., Midgley, N.G., Gallego-Anex, P., Ramil-Rego, P., Ferreiro, J., Whayman, E., Goeckeritz, S., Stanton, T., 2023. The extent of wind farm infrastructures on recognised European blanket bogs. Scientific Reports 13, 3919.

Detrey, I., 2022. Bog in a Box: Is long term peat storage for future restoration viable? University of the Highlands and Islands, UHI.

Dykes, A.P., 2022. Landslide investigations during pandemic restrictions: initial assessment of recent peat landslides in Ireland. Landslides 19, 515-525.

Elmes, M.C., Petrone, R.M., Volik, O., Price, J.S., 2022. Changes to the hydrology of a boreal fen following the placement of an access road and below ground pipeline. Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 40, 101031.

Evans, M.G., Burt, T.P., Holden, J., Adamson, J.K., 1999. Runoff generation and water table fluctuations in blanket peat: evidence from UK data spanning the dry summer of 1995. Journal of Hydrology 221, 141-160.

Ferretto, A., Brooker, R., Aitkenhead, M., Matthews, R., Smith, P., 2019. Potential carbon loss from Scottish peatlands under climate change. Regional Environmental Change 19, 2101-2111.

Grieve, I.C., Gilvear, D., 2008. Effects of wind farm construction on concentrations and fluxes of dissolved organic carbon and suspended sediment from peat catchments at Braes of Doune, central Scotland. Mires and Peat 4.

Heal, K., Phin, A., Waldron, S., Flowers, H., Bruneau, P., Coupar, A., Cundill, A., 2020. Wind farm development on peatlands increases fluvial macronutrient loading. Ambio 49, 442-459.

Jennings, P., Kane, G., 2015. Geotechnical engineering for wind farms on peatland sites, Geotechnical Engineering for Infrastructure and Development, pp. 595-600.

Jorat, M.E., Minto, A., Tierney, I., Gilmour, D., 2024. Future Carbon-Neutral Societies: Minimising Construction Impact on Groundwater-Dependent Wetlands and Peatlands, Sustainability.

Kareksela, S., Haapalehto, T., Juutinen, R., Matilainen, R., Tahvanainen, T., Kotiaho, J.S., 2015. Fighting carbon loss of degraded peatlands by jump-starting ecosystem functioning with ecological restoration. Science of the Total Environment 537, 268-276.

Lehan, K., McCarter, C.P.R., Moore, P.A., Waddington, J.M., 2022. Effect of stockpiling time on donor-peat hydrophysical properties: Implications for peatland restoration. Ecological Engineering 182, 106701.

Lindsay, R., 2014. Impacts of artifical drainage on peatlands. IUCN UK Committee Peatland Programme. Briefing Note Number 3.

Lindsay, R., 2018. Peatlands and Wind farms: Conflicting Carbon Targets and Environmental Impacts, In: Finlayson, C.M., Milton, G.R., Prentice, R.C., Davidson, N.C. (Eds.), The Wetland Book: II: Distribution, Description, and Conservation. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 413-425.

Monteverde, S., Healy, M.G., O’Leary, D., Daly, E., Callery, O., 2022. Management and rehabilitation of peatlands: The role of water chemistry, hydrology, policy, and emerging monitoring methods to ensure informed decision making. Ecological Informatics 69, 101638.

Moravec, D., Barták, V., Puš, V., Wild, J., 2018. Wind turbine impact on near-ground air temperature. Renewable Energy 123, 627-633.

Morton, P.A., Heinemeyer, A., 2019. Bog breathing: the extent of peat shrinkage and expansion on blanket bogs in relation to water table, heather management and dominant vegetation and its implications for carbon stock assessments. Wetlands Ecology and Management 27, 467-482.

Natural England, 2013. Natural England Evidence Reviews: guidance on the development process and methods (NEER001). Natural England.

Renou-Wilson, F., Farrell, C., 2009. Peatland vulnerability to energy-related developments from climate change policy in Ireland: the case of wind farms. Mires and Peat 4.

Sander, L., Jung, C., Schindler, D., 2024. Global Review on Environmental Impacts of Onshore Wind Energy in the Field of Tension between Human Societies and Natural Systems, Energies.

Scottish Environment Protection Agency, 2017. Developments on peatland: guidance on the assessment of peat volumes, reuse of excavated peat and the minimisation of waste. SEPA Guidance, WST-G-052, version 1, available from https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/287064/wst-g-052-developments-on-peat-and-off-site-uses-of-waste-peat.pdf

Scottish Natural Heritage, 2013. Research and guidance on restoration and decommissioning of onshore wind farms. NatureScot Commission Report No 591, available at https://www.nature.scot/doc/naturescot-commissioned-report-591-research-and-guidance-restoration-and-decommissioning-onshore

Scottish Renewables, Scottish Natural Heritage, Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Forestry Commission Scotland and Historic Environment Scotland, 2015. Good Practice during Wind Farm Construction, version 3, available from https://www.nature.scot/doc/good-practice-during-wind-farm-construction

Smith, J., Nayak, D.R., Smith, P., 2014. Wind farms on undegraded peatlands are unlikely to reduce future carbon emissions. Energy Policy 66, 585-591.

Smith, P., Smith, J., Flynn, H., Killham, K., Rangel-Castro, I., Foereid, B., Aitkenhead, M., Chapman, S., Towers, W., Bell, J., Lumsdon, D., Milne, R., Thomson, A., Simmons, I., Skiba, U., Reynolds, B., Evans, C., Frogbrook, Z., Bradley, I., Whitmore, A., Falloon, P., Scottish Executive, Welsh Assembly Government, 2007. ECOSSE: Estimating Carbon in Organic Soils – Sequestration and Emissions: Final Report, Web only.

Tanneberger, F., Moen, A., Barthelmes, A., Lewis, E., Miles, L., Sirin, A., Tegetmeyer, C., Joosten, H., 2021. Mires in Europe—Regional Diversity, Condition and Protection, Diversity.

Waldron, S., Smith, J., Taylor, K., McGinnes, C., Roberts, N., McCallum, D., 2018. Repowering onshore wind farms: a technical and environmental exploration of foundation reuse. Carbon Landscapes and Drainage KE Network-led report. DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/SCZDE

Wawrzyczek, J., Lindsay, R., Metzger, M.J., Quétier, F., 2018. The ecosystem approach in ecological impact assessment: Lessons learned from wind farm developments on peatlands in Scotland. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 72, 157-165.

Williams-Mounsey, J., Grayson, R., Crowle, A., Holden, J., 2021. A review of the effects of vehicular access roads on peatland ecohydrological processes. Earth-Science Reviews 214, 103528.

Zheng, Y., Waldron, S., Flowers, H., 2018. Fluvial dissolved organic carbon composition varies spatially and seasonally in a small catchment draining a wind farm and felled forestry. Science of the Total Environment 626, 785-794.

Appendix A – Research scope, questions and methods

Research Scope and Questions

To provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge, identify key knowledge gaps, and highlight areas for future research and policy development in sustainable peatland management within the context of renewable energy infrastructure, particularly in Scotland, this review has centred on the below questions:

Current practices:

• How are excavated peat management and reuse practices being employed (of relevance for Scottish wind farm developments) both on-site and off-site?

Environmental impacts of current methods:

• What are the impacts and/or benefits of current peat reuse practices in relation to hydrology and water quality, carbon emissions and storage, biodiversity and habitats?
• Are there any environmental risks associated with current peat reuse practices, such as increased sediment load, erosion or landscape instability?
• How do impacts change over time – what timeframes are relevant and are there long-term impacts of peatland disturbance and reuse practices?

Limitations and challenges:

• What are the technical limitations of using excavated peat on-site?
• How do regulatory frameworks impact the options for peat reuse?

Best practices:

• From current available evidence, what peat reuse practices are preferable for minimising GHG emissions and wider negative environmental impacts?
• How can peat management plans be optimised to maximise environmental benefits and minimise carbon losses?

Development of a reuse hierarchy

• Hierarchy of Peat Reuse
• Preparation and Planning Steps
• Peat Reuse Implementation Principles

Research Methods

The following sections describe the information collation methods and data sources used in this study, these methods have been kept purposefully brief here, for more detail please see the appendices. A project database was compiled in Excel and is supplied separately to this project report.

Rapid Evidence Assessment

The method used for performing the evidence review was based on the Natural England (2013) evidence review methodology to ensure that the approach was transparent, objective and rigorous, allowing for robust evidential conclusions to be drawn from the available information for a full description see Appendix A.

Rapid Evidence Assessment methodology

The method used for performing the evidence review was based on the Natural England (2013) evidence review methodology to ensure that the approach was transparent, objective and rigorous, allowing for robust evidential conclusions to be drawn from the available information.

Scope

This rapid evidence assessment (REA) focused on synthesizing current evidence related to peatland excavation and reuse within the context of wind farm construction and similar large-scale developments. The assessment covered:

• Current standard practices of peatland excavation and management in development projects.
• Environmental impacts of peatland disturbance.
• Opportunities for reuse of excavated peat on-site and off-site, including their environmental benefits and limitations over different timescales
• Best practices for minimizing peatland disturbance and optimizing peat management plans.

Evidence search approach

The methodology comprises five main steps:

• Define search strategy including keyword list compilation and define inclusion/exclusion criteria.
• Searching for evidence and record findings.
• Title and abstract screen.
• Evidence extraction.
• Evidence synthesis and evidence gap identification.

Step 1: Keyword list compilation

To establish a systematic search strategy, a list of key search words, search terms and suitable combinations were developed (included in separately shared document). These search terms were recorded for systematic use by the review team to reduce bias.

Step 2: Identification of information sources

In order to develop a comprehensive and relevant evidence base, appropriate information sources were identified. To reduce the risk of publication bias on the evidence base a range of information sources were used, which enabled access to peer-reviewed literature, grey-literature, and unpublished sources.

For this review Science Direct and Scopus were used to identify peer-reviewed information. Google Scholar and Research Gate provided further access to peer-reviewed information to enhance the literature search. Grey literature was also identified in the search and included industry reports and relevant committee proceedings.

Step 3: Evidence search

To facilitate the repeatability and transparency of the search process evidence searches were carried out as Boolean searches (AND, OR, NOT, etc). For example, using Boolean operators we searched (“excavated peat” OR “peatlands” OR “peat bogs” OR “carbon rich soils”) AND (“reuse” OR “recycling” OR “repurposing” OR “reclamation” OR “displaced” OR “borrow pits”) AND (“wind farms” OR “wind turbines” OR “wind energy” OR “onshore wind” OR “renewable energy”) AND (“sustainability” OR “environmental impact” OR “eco-friendly” OR “carbon footprint” OR “climate change” OR “carbon flux” OR “soil restoration” OR “land rehabilitation” OR “habitat restoration” OR “conservation”). The results of each search were recorded, including the number of search hits and number of relevant records returned, date of search and database used. Any other sources, such as evidence provided by stakeholders or generated through stakeholder engagement meetings were also documented similarly.

Developing and establishing search strings was treated as an iterative process and, as such, search strings were amended or adapted to optimise search relevance particularly where the number of search hits or relevance of records retrieved are excessively large or small.

Step 4: Title and abstract screen

In order to allow for a systematic and repeatable approach to screening whilst minimising individual subjectivity and bias, results of the evidence search were screened by title and abstract against pre-established inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review question(s). Evidence that did not satisfy the inclusion criteria were not taken forward for further analysis. References and key details (search date, search terms, publication name, database source and a DOI) were captured for all selected literature. Duplicates are also removed at this stage.

Step 5: Evidence extraction

To allow for interpretation and evaluation of the available literature evidence. A consistent, systematic approach to extracting evidence was taken for each item in the evidence item. Information was extracted on the basis of the review questions. Collated information included details of the type of study, the situation studied, key outcomes, endpoints and geographical extent (reported in separately shared excel document).

Step 6: Evidence synthesis and evidence gap identification

The compilation of evidence allowed for the type and amount of evidence obtained to be scrutinised and for any key evidence gaps or conversely areas of extensive evidence to be highlighted. This allowed for conclusions to be drawn based on the findings review and further enabled the appraisal of whether the collated evidence was adequate and suitable for addressing the review question. The collated information from the review of the literature is detailed in Supplementary Document 1 (finalisation in process).

Availability of the literature

The Rapid Evidence Assessment methodology used (Appendix A) obtained over 250 articles and reports through a range of keyword searches, in Science Direct and Google Scholar as described above. These were screened based on their title and abstract to identify relevant articles. This resulted in 50 articles and reports that were flagged as relevant for further scrutiny. These articles were then reviewed, and key information was extracted and is included within this report.

Desk-based research into current practices

A list of current wind farms in Scotland was obtained from the renewable energy planning database^[12] (October 2024, quarter 3) sorted by energy type, location and whether they were currently operational (Figure 7). A sample of wind farms were chosen (as examples of a range of sizes of wind farms and locations across Scotland), to review the information provided within the peatland management plans, amount of peat to be excavated (if stated within application) and other related environmental planning information where obtained.

Figure 7. The distribution of wind farms across Scotland with peatland also highlighted. A list of current wind farms in Scotland was obtained from the renewable energy planning database^[13] (October 2024, quarter 3) sorted by energy type, location and whether they were currently operational these were plotted on to a map of Scotland along with the distribution of peatland taken from Carbon and Peatland 2016 map^[14].

Site visits

Five wind farm site visits were undertaken in November 2024 (Figure 3), these included three wind farms in the North-east of Scotland and two wind farms in the South-west of Scotland. These sites were chosen to cover a broad geographic distribution, a range of ages (different amounts of time since construction), and variation in peat depth. Visiting these sites provided a greater understanding of what was happening as part of the wind farm construction process, alongside providing context as to how peatland management plans are implemented and the many possible variations which can occur due to the amount of peat extracted, weather conditions and the inherent habitat quality prior to wind farm construction. These site visits also provided ‘real world’ examples of management practices in use, including (a) borrow pit reinstatement (over varying time periods – currently under construction, recent construction (< 5 years), 5-10 years since reinstatement, 10+ years since reinstatement), and (b) the replacement of peat at the side of the constructed roads (as part of the landscaping process and/or to maintain peat levels across the habitat).

Stakeholder Engagement Methods

During the study stakeholders were engaged for the following reasons:

• To gain insights into current practices for reuse of peat excavated on wind farms in Scotland.
• To gather views on the strengths, weaknesses, applicability and environmental outcomes of different reuse methods.
• To gather suggestions for examples and sites which could provide learning about the two points above.
• To gain input into the development of recommendations for reuse of excavated peat.

Appendix B Stakeholder engagement

Summary stakeholder engagement approach

Methods of stakeholder engagement:

Several different types of stakeholder engagement were employed in the study to gain further insights into relevant issues, current and potential future peat reuse methods, related considerations and impacts and to help identify sites to visit, get sign-posted to relevant documentation and research resources, and to understand considerations which are being or could be taken into account when decisions about reuse of excavated peat are made. Table 10 provides a brief overview of methods.

Table 10. Overview of stakeholder engagement methods

Approach to identifying and selecting stakeholders to engage:

The project sought engagement with a range of different types of stakeholders academics and experts, such as those with a track record of relevant publications (i.e. on topics linked to the use of peat on wind farms in Scotland); practitioners from the energy sector (e.g. Ecological Clark of Works (ECoW) / Ecology officers) with wind farm sites in Scotland and from the construction sector that have been involved in building wind farms in Scotland; Civil Servants (Forestry and Land Scotland, PEAG); and conservation organisations (IUCN UK Peatland Programme). A selection of stakeholders were invited to attend the academic workshop, as well as a series of one-to-one discussions.

This approach to stakeholder engagement enabled the facilitation of site visits along with group discussions.

We identified stakeholders via:

• Introduction / recommendations from the project steering group – a group of specialists from across relevant Scottish Government Agencies (see Section 8.1.7.3)
• Desk research / REA – to identify relevant academics
• ‘Snowballing’ – asking our contacts and contacts via the steering group or other interviewees to recommend relevant technical experts or industry contacts who could provide access or insights about wind farm sites.
• We have sought a diversity of sites, with reasonable access – but to include a site further North if possible due to variation in vegetation colonisation rates for reuse on site.

When selecting wind farm sites to visit we aimed to achieve a diverse range of sites with reasonable access where we would be able to observe a range of different types and ages of reuse of excavated peat. We chose to include sites in different locations, including some further North due to variation in vegetation colonisation rates which we were advised in earlier stakeholder interviews could likely influence the outcome / progression of reuse methods. We contacted several wind farmer developers / operators – some via introduction and some via publically available contact details and also landowners such as Forestry and Land Scotland. The final selection of sites for visit was based on who was willing to host a visit and practical feasibility in the project timescale and available resources (see Section 9.4). During the visits our hosts often shared wider insights about considerations for reuse of peat and examples from other sites which had worked well or less well – these insights are included in the summary findings here.

When selecting stakeholders to interview we tried to ensure a diverse range of perspectives, but we did not set out to achieve a rigorous sampling approach – we had to take a more pragmatic approach to gather insights from willing participants. The snow-balling approach was valuable in helping us identify people to speak to with relevant scientific and technical knowledge and who could provide insights into what had happened on specific sites. We made a deliberate effort to speak to some stakeholders from outside industry organisations, including academics, non-profit organisations and contractors/technical consultants to achieve some balance in our research. A full list of interviews is in Section 8.1.7.1.

Stakeholder workshop

We held an online workshop for academics and technical specialists on 16^th December 2025 from 14:00 to 16:30. In total, 23 people attended (in addition to the Ricardo project team) including academic researchers, non-profit organisations, government agencies, energy company peatland specialists, see Section 8.1.7.2 for the list of attendees.

Workshop aims and objectives:

• Gather insights from previous research and ongoing studies which may not yet be published, to fill research gaps.
• Get insights into challenges / complexities which may need to be taken into account as we develop recommendations e.g. considerations for applying research results to different contexts / climates.
• Discuss, test and refine initial ideas for a hierarchy of excavated peat reuse (or similar simple structured approach which could help guide decisions on peat reuse, depending on what has come from our earlier research.

Whilst the focus of the workshop was to engage academic researchers and technical experts, we also had attendees from industry who were technical specialists with relevant insights to share about their experiences with peat reuse in practice and the day-to-day challenges associated with planning, implementation and evaluation of peat reuse.

Workshop agenda:

Table 11. Workshop agenda

Findings from the workshop are incorporated into the stakeholder research results below (Section 8.1.6) and results of polls in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Results of word cloud (a) and other polls (b and c) undertaken during stakeholder workshop

a)

b)

c)

Method of analysis of stakeholder engagement findings:

Key findings from stakeholder engagement

Current peat reuse practices

During the workshop and stakeholder interviews a variety of practices were explained, along with associated issues, challenges and likely environmental outcomes or state of knowledge about the outcomes. The approaches are summarised in Table

Table 12. Current peat reuse practices

Other feedback provided by stakeholders on current practices included:

• Variable ‘aims’ of reuse currently – ranging from developers who are trying to create functioning peatland on previously degraded land through to examples where people suggested there was no clear intention beyond finding a place to put the excess peat.
• Compliance with guidance: multiple stakeholders shared a view / example that guidance is not always followed particularly in relation to peat infill depths and handling practices – reasons were unclear, although separately a skills gap was mentioned.
• Quality of PMPs: varied – some followed fairly standard practice without consideration of the uniqueness of the site, whilst some were more nuanced / based on more detailed analysis of possibilities and potential outcomes
• Enforcement / monitoring of PMPs: enforcement / monitoring during constructure can be inconsistent – sometimes very good collaboration and active consideration of effective approaches to achieve good environmental outcomes and sometimes poor / ineffective. Monitoring after construction and commissioning is not common practice, except were linked to habitat management plans which have a formal requirement for monitoring over the life of the site.
• Influence of contracting process and responsibilities: separate contracts for different parts of the windfarm design and construction are commonly let which can make it difficult to develop and maintain a coherent plan for peat management through from planning permission through to final build and ongoing management. The wind turbine specification can also dictate excavation e.g. to achieve desired gradient for installation, but with more site surveys and consideration between developer, turbine supplier and site works contractor there may be potential to develop techniques which require less excavation.
• Important of site selection / micro-siting: the flexibility to move turbines, based on more detailed site surveys of peat is important to reduce peat excavation.
• Reuse of peat is well policed – must be in line with SEPA Reuse Guidance and therefore industry stakeholders follow this approach without feeling able to vary from this.

Potential future reuse practices

Insights about environmental outcomes from peat reuse

Examples and comments on positive environmental outcomes:

• Peat / vegetation recovery in restoration / hag infill – appears successful (in short-term) on flatter ground.
• Softer trackside verges – vegetation and less slope – can prevent silt migrating into bogs.
• Typical vegetation recovery: acid grassland mix initially, then (5-10yrs later) heathers / heath, and then hopefully wetter ones will progress to bog.

Examples and comments on negative environmental outcomes:

• Most peat reused on wind farms turns into non-peatland habitat – it doesn’t function as peatland because hydrological conductivity is lost. At best going to form an upland wet heath, more likely to be an acid grassland.
• If non-functioning peatland carbon will not be saved within the system Need to keep the carbon gaining and building within the system.
• With poor water management silt is migrating into wet bogs.
• Contamination of nutrient poor peatbog with mineral sources changes nutrient balance and therefore makes peatbog hard to achieve in reuse/restoration – flushed peat or fen more likely. Several stakeholders flagged that it can be challenging to prevent mineral contamination – storage and handling care is needed, and isn’t always feasible in practice.

Other comments on environmental outcomes:

• Potential measurement approaches:
• GI stage, peat probing / wetness, catchment mapping, qualitative sample (no one does this despite guidance), Van Post Scale (peat character).
• Dip wells – across sites.
• Water index via satellite imagery linked to Sentinal programme.
• Pressure loggers – data recording for three months.
• Options for assessing carbon; current government calculator, in house planning tools; revised carbon calculated – potential for different assumptions about loss of carbon on excavated peat.
• Important to balance carbon / biodiversity outcomes. Some stakeholders flagged this in general and also one highlighted the challenge of balancing this in the context of deciding whether to rewet peat during storage – if abstraction from river is required this could have negative consequences for river habitat.
• Several flagged nervousness about assuming reused and restored peat delivers the same environmental outcomes as natural peatlands.

Other considerations for excavated peat reuse

Drainage installation, maintenance and infill: stakeholders agreed that ensuring the right amount of drainage during construction and afterwards is important, but did not all agree on how well this is currently being achieved and whether it is possible provide clearer guidance on this.

Peat handling & storage: many stakeholders flagged the need to minimise movement and handling of peat, aim to keep peat local, minimise handling / travel distance. Use of large diggers and trucks makes this hard. Issues included:

• Need to keep the peat moist: actively or passively
• Need to maintain layers / structure and avoid contamination with mineral soils / aggregate as this will change the nutrient profile and functional structure of the peat.
• Peat can liquify in trucks if handled.
• Cost for moving peat
• Some flagged that temporary storage in ‘groins’ between road junctions is often preferred as there is more space to work there, whilst other advocated designated storage areas. What is practical will vary site to site.

‘Land-made-available’ limitation: land envelope can restrict end destination of any peat reuse ‘on site’ – instances where sensible areas for ‘peat reuse’ are outside the envelope.

Site data availability: planning the peat re-use in advance would be good but often don’t get chance to plan until actually on site and work starts – trees often obscure lidar data.

Excavation timing: contractors don’t get much choice/penalties for delays – timing will influence ability to keep peat wet, keep structure etc.

Evidence gaps

Stakeholders flagged the following issues and gaps in evidence:

• Limited monitoring of implementation and outcomes of Peatland Management Plans (PMPs). Monitoring isn’t required for PMPs in the same way as for Habitat Management Plans (which are monitored for the life of the wind farm), and therefore limited data is available on prior land condition, peat reuse/management methods, and environmental outcomes.
• Approach and quality of assessments and monitoring could be better. Current over reliance on the presence or absence of specific vegetation as an indicator was highlighted – finding a species at a specific location in a large site doesn’t represent the entire site. Better quality peatland condition assessments are needed, ideally landscape based incorporating species, hydrology and other factors rather than quadrat based. This would provide better data for planning reuse / management and a better baseline for impact monitoring, particularly important as construction is often on degraded peat.
• Lack of longitudinal studies into environmental outcomes of peat reuse/management approaches. People cited specific gaps such as study of behaviour and environmental outcomes of peat drying at the side of the road after reinstatement; impacts of storage techniques such as surface roughing to help water infiltration vs allowing crust to form; GHG emissions following disturbance and reinstatement.
• General gap in terms of the understanding of peatland and peat behaviour in the context of wind farm construction. This includes peatland hydrology and how this is affected by disruption, how peat behaves in storage, the impact of movement on peat quality and potential for reestablishment in new destination
• Evidence of the validity of measures such as water table and indicator species as indictors of GHG emissions / ‘functioning peat bog’ for reinstated / restored peatlands. Stakeholders flagged there is no research on peatland excavation and then reuse, hence need to establish the relationship with vegetation, hydrology.
• Limited literature on remote sensing for wind farm monitoring.
• Lack of clear guidance on some aspects of engineering and site management e.g. balancing drainage and wetness, storage practices.
• Lack of research to show whether implementation of best practice is feasible. NPF4 Policy 5 states that ideally carbon rich soils are actively sequestering carbon, and this should be the aim of the PMP. There is a need for research to show if this is possible – this relates to points above about behaviour of peat after disturbance / validity of indicators.

Priorities and recommendations

In general stakeholders were reluctant to give detailed feedback on which methods of peat reuse on site should be a priority because of variability of site circumstances (e.g. land capability, condition) and the lack of concrete research to provide evidence of the environment outcomes which could be anticipated.

Some key comments and points on priorities were:

• Revegetation and minimising bare peat is key to avoid negative cycle of drying and/or erosion: to help success it is important to have follow up surveys and action if issues are identified.
• Need to minimise extraction of peat.
• Advice must allow for flexibility and be nuanced due to the diversity of peatlands.
• Suggested hierarchy:
• Avoid;
• Reinstate in location contiguous to other peatland where carbon can be retained and retain hydrology and long-term species composition will be at least consistent with species within the species disturbed.
• Re-use off site to the same effect.
• Alternative suggestion: two different hierarchies, one with the aim of functioning peatland, and one for the aim of using peat in a way that would result it being used for another purpose e.g. wet heath, dry heath.
• Essential component is maintaining connectivity of the re-use areas with the hydrology and its immediate area, but also looking further at the wider hydrological unit. This also includes connectivity with the peatland restoration areas that will be undertaken on the site.
• Guidance documents can be perfect, however, on the ground can be challenging e.g. to ensure hydrological connectivity – potential need for incentive to go for the best outcome and need to involve different parties to achieve this.

List of stakeholder discussion interviews and workshop attendees

Interviewees

Workshop attendees

Project steering group

Ben Dipper (Scottish Government)

Kerry Dinsmore (Scottish Government)

Patricia Bruneau (Nature Scot)

Scottish Government policy team representatives

Appendix C Wind Farm Site Research (site visits & desk research)

Wind farm planning document review

This section reviews the desk-based research describing existing wind farms management plans including data on numbers of wind farms across Scotland on peat soils.

Wind farm site visit summary

This section combines the results of the desk-based research describing existing wind farm management plans alongside the information gathered during the site visits. We aimed to visit a diverse range of sites with reasonable access where we would be able to observe a range of different types and ages of reuse of excavated peat. We chose to include sites in different locations, the north-east and south-west of Scotland. In both areas we visited a newly constructed wind farm, alongside older wind farms within the same locality. This provided examples with different vegetation colonisation rates which could influence the success of reuse methods. We contacted several wind farmer developers / operators, the final selection of sites for visit was based on who was willing to host a visit and practical feasibility in the project timescale and available resources.

Desk-based findings

We reviewed the planning information prior to site visits. This included information on when the work was completed / site commissioned to generate energy, the number of turbines that had been built (both initially and in phased extensions), land ownership and whether other stakeholder were involved in the process (e.g. wildlife rangers based on site, ECoW’s).

Sample site selection

Site selection was undertaken taking into account key variables to ensure that a representative sample of wind farms across Scotland was obtained. Primarily, this included considering a range of development site sizes and locations across Scotland, while ensuring that wind farms were both operational and included relevant Peat Management Plans (PMPs). To note, the number of wind turbines was used as a proxy for development size, while the requirement for developments to have PMPs significantly reduced availability of case studies (even though this is an NPF4 requirement).

Peatland management plans

The key limitations in the approach concerned the accuracy of the data held within the PMPs, for which accessing documents with the requisite information (peat depths and volumes) was the first challenge. In those PMPs that were available, the peat volumes were based on peat survey depths, which are extrapolated across sites via peat probe information, meaning that there is a degree of uncertainty between distinct probe points. There is therefore a high degree of mathematical assumption based on converting peat depth extrapolations to volumes via combining this data with site stripping boundaries. Utilising survey information also assumes competence of all surveyors, despite peat surveys (and peat identification more generally) being a highly specialist skill that geo-environmentalists, geotechnical specialists and even soil scientists would not necessarily have experience of. In addition, peat volumes included in PMPs can change during the construction phase, such as where design is updated, or due to poor implementation of PMP measures. This means that volumes at project inception are often unlikely to be the same once wind farms are conducted, given the dynamic nature of the construction phase and typically iterative design approaches.

Overview of key finding from site visits

Key highlights are included in the main section 3.5.2, 3.5.3 and 3.5.4. A number of borrow pits were visited at each of the sites – these varied in effectivity, levels of monitoring and time since reinstatement. Landscaping examples where peat had been put down along the roadside were clearly visible in the newly constructed wind farms, in the older wind farms this was less obvious, in some cases the peat had become part of the surrounding peatland, however the likelihood was that in some areas it had been lost to the wider environment through erosion. Novel restoration reuse was seen, this was experimental and not common practice. No peat was taken off-site for reuse elsewhere.

Limitations of site visits

Although we were very grateful to the stakeholders for taking the time to show us the wind farms and distil their knowledge of the process, it was clear that this view was only able to provide a snapshot in time analysis of what had occurred at that site. Also depending on time from commissioning, some key details related to the reuse of peat were lost (e.g. exact volumes of peat used within infill of peat excavations, how borrow pit reinstatements were originally designed). Thus, it is harder to identify best practice and what has worked and what hasn’t if the methodology is unreported. The site visits could have been impacted by the weather conditions on the day (e.g. low cloud and drizzle for the final site visit), this made note taking and photographing examples harder and some of the finer details may not be visible in the photographs.

How to cite this publication:

Crotty, F., Dowson, F., Schofield, K., Barker, M., Ginns, B., David, T., Herold, L. (2025) ‘Reuse of excavated peat on wind farm development sites’, ClimateXChange. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7488/era/6333

© The University of Edinburgh, 2025
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 as at the date of the report, 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.

This work was supported by the Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division of the Scottish Government (CoE – CXC).

ClimateXChange

Edinburgh Climate Change Institute

High School Yards

Edinburgh EH1 1LZ

+44 (0) 131 651 4783

info@climatexchange.org.uk

www.climatexchange.org.uk

1. 
   

   https://www.wwt.org.uk/discover-wetlands/wetlands/peat-bogs ↑

   
   
2. 
   

   https://www.nature.scot/sites/default/files/2023-02/Guidance-Peatland-Action-Peatland-Condition-Assessment-Guide-A1916874.pdf ↑

   
   
3. 
   

   John Muir Trust – Scotland’s peatland policy update. ↑

   
   
4. 
   

   https://www.gov.scot/publications/carbon-calculator-for-wind-farms-on-scottish-peatlands-factsheet/ ↑

   
   
5. 
   

   https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2011/228/contents ↑

   
   
6. 
   

   https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/287064/wst-g-052-developments-on-peat-and-off-site-uses-of-waste-peat.pdf ↑

   
   
7. 
   

   Scottish Renewables, Scottish Environment Protection Agency. 2012. Guidance on the Assessment of Peat Volumes, Reuse of Excavated Peat and the Minimisation of Waste ↑

   
   
8. 
   

   https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18270734.14m-trees-cut-scotland-make-way-wind-farms ↑

   
   
9. 
   

   https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/287064/wst-g-052-developments-on-peat-and-off-site-uses-of-waste-peat.pdf ↑

   
   
10. 
    

    https://www.nature.scot/climate-change/nature-based-solutions/nature-based-solutions-practice/peatland-action/peatland-action-how-do-i-restore-and-manage-my-peatland-0 ↑

    
    
11. 
    

    Micro-siting is where small adjustments to the wind farm lay out are made to avoid / minimise damage to peat (or other sensitive environments) on site. ↑

    
    
12. 
    

    Renewable Energy Planning Database: quarterly extract – GOV.UK ↑

    
    
13. 
    

    Renewable Energy Planning Database: quarterly extract – GOV.UK ↑

    
    
14. 
    

    https://www.data.gov.uk/dataset/ed1922b7-1136-442c-af4d-a36ebad8839f/carbon-and-peatland-2016-map-wind-farm-spatial-framework ↑

    
    
15. 
    

    It was unclear whether stakeholder was referring to current or previous guidance. ↑

    
    
16. 
    

    A method described to us where rocks are piled, rather than smaller aggregate to create a more porous substrate allowing for greater water flow. ↑

    
    

The Climate Change Committee’s 2023 Report to the Scottish Parliament called for stronger action on food system emissions. Policy interventions need to address the environmental impacts of food production and consumption while ensuring dietary improvements and economic sustainability.  

This report assesses Scotland’s diet and climate policy landscape, identifying areas for policy development and providing recommendations to support the Scottish Government’s climate, public health and food security goals going forward.  

The study combined desk-based research, stakeholder engagement and categorisation using a PESTLE (Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal, and Environmental) framework. 

Summary of findings

Scotland’s complex diet and climate policy landscape includes several emerging developments and opportunities, yet challenges persist. These challenges typically reflect areas that would benefit from policy coordination and development.  

• Political alignment and coordination: Scottish Government has taken steps to articulate sustainable food ambitions through legislation such as the Good Food Nation Act. Fragmentation across different policy fields (health, agriculture, environment, economy) limits integrated food system transformation. Coordination between local, devolved, and UK governments remains limited, leading to conflicting priorities. The absence of clear emissions targets for food production constrains alignment with net-zero ambitions. 

• Economic levers and constraints: Investments in local food initiatives and growing interest in sustainable supply chains signal progress. Fiscal policies have the effect of benefiting high-emission food production over sustainable alternatives. Financial barriers constrain local authorities, small producers, and community groups in adopting agroecological approaches. The cost of sustainable food options continues to limit access and dietary change. 

• Social attitudes and engagement: Public interest in sustainable diets is increasing, and some awareness campaigns have gained traction. Cultural traditions, cost concerns, and inconsistent messaging shape public resistance to reducing red meat consumption. Food insecurity remains a barrier to sustainable diet access for lower-income households. Greater public engagement is needed to build trust and understanding of dietary policy aims. 

• Technological tools and innovation: Advances in precision agriculture and digital tools offer potential for more sustainable production. Lack of a standardised food emissions-tracking system limits evidence-based policymaking for reducing environmental impact. Rural areas often lack the digital infrastructure to adopt new technologies. Inadequate sustainability labelling limits informed consumer choice. 

• Legal frameworks: The Good Food Nation Act provides a foundation for coordinated food policy development. The evidence suggests a lack of strong enforcement mechanisms to drive change. Regulation of food marketing, labelling, and ultra-processed foods is limited. Devolved and UK-wide inconsistencies create legal misalignment across food, health, and trade policy. 

• Environmental integration: Scotland has made progress in climate policy and land stewardship through initiatives like the Land Use Strategy. There are challenges in balancing different land use functions such as forestry, agriculture, and biodiversity protection. Climate adaptation strategies for agriculture need to be better developed, due to increasing climate risks. The ecological role of grazing land in biodiversity and carbon sequestration is underutilised in policy planning. 

For further information, 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. 

Research completed: March 2025

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7488/era/6180

Executive summary

The Climate Change Committee’s 2023 Report to the Scottish Parliament called for stronger action on food system emissions. Policy interventions need to address the environmental impacts of food production and consumption while ensuring dietary improvements and economic sustainability.

This report assesses Scotland’s diet and climate policy landscape, identifying areas for policy development and providing recommendations to support the Scottish Government’s climate, public health and food security goals going forward.

The study combined desk-based research, stakeholder engagement and categorisation using a PESTLE (Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal, and Environmental) framework.

Key findings

Scotland’s complex diet and climate policy landscape includes several emerging developments and opportunities, yet challenges persist. These challenges typically reflect areas that would benefit from policy coordination and development.

• Political alignment and coordination: Scottish Government has taken steps to articulate sustainable food ambitions through legislation such as the Good Food Nation Act. Fragmentation across different policy fields (health, agriculture, environment, economy) limits integrated food system transformation. Coordination between local, devolved, and UK governments remains limited, leading to conflicting priorities. The absence of clear emissions targets for food production constrains alignment with net-zero ambitions.
• Economic levers and constraints: Investments in local food initiatives and growing interest in sustainable supply chains signal progress. Fiscal policies have the effect of benefiting high-emission food production over sustainable alternatives. Financial barriers constrain local authorities, small producers, and community groups in adopting agroecological approaches. The cost of sustainable food options continues to limit access and dietary change.
• Social attitudes and engagement: Public interest in sustainable diets is increasing, and some awareness campaigns have gained traction. Cultural traditions, cost concerns, and inconsistent messaging shape public resistance to reducing red meat consumption. Food insecurity remains a barrier to sustainable diet access for lower-income households. Greater public engagement is needed to build trust and understanding of dietary policy aims.
• Technological tools and innovation: Advances in precision agriculture and digital tools offer potential for more sustainable production. Lack of a standardised food emissions-tracking system limits evidence-based policymaking for reducing environmental impact. Rural areas often lack the digital infrastructure to adopt new technologies. Inadequate sustainability labelling limits informed consumer choice.
• Legal frameworks: The Good Food Nation Act provides a foundation for coordinated food policy development. The evidence suggests a lack of strong enforcement mechanisms to drive change. Regulation of food marketing, labelling, and ultra-processed foods is limited. Devolved and UK-wide inconsistencies create legal misalignment across food, health, and trade policy.
• Environmental integration: Scotland has made progress in climate policy and land stewardship through initiatives like the Land Use Strategy. There are challenges in balancing different land use functions such as forestry, agriculture, and biodiversity protection. Climate adaptation strategies for agriculture need to be better developed, due to increasing climate risks. The ecological role of grazing land in biodiversity and carbon sequestration is underutilised in policy planning.

Opportunities for action and policy implications

A summary of key opportunities for action is presented in the table below. A fuller articulation of these opportunities, with supporting detail, is included in Section 6, Conclusions and policy implications.

Glossary and abbreviations table 

Table 1: Glossary and abbreviations used in the report

Introduction

How can Scotland balance climate goals, public health, and economic resilience in food policy?

Scotland’s diet and climate policy landscape is shaped by multiple, often competing priorities, making policy development and implementation particularly complex. Scotland’s net-zero ambitions don’t sit in isolation and delivery is influenced by UK Government food policy and wider cross-border complexities. Any approach must align with, Scotland-specific advice such as Recommendation R2024-003 from the Climate Change Committee’s (CCC) 2023 Report to the Scottish Parliament, which calls for stronger action on food system emissions (CCC, 2023). The CCC’s carbon budget for Scotland is due to be published in May 2025, and the CCC has highlighted that agriculture is projected to become the second-highest emitting sector by 2040. Efforts to reduce the environmental impact of food consumption need to be balanced with public health goals, economic considerations, and social acceptability. While the Scottish Government plans to introduce measures such as restricting unhealthy food promotion and encouraging sustainable agricultural practices, significant barriers remain. Public resistance to dietary change, particularly reductions in red meat consumption, reflects deep-seated cultural attitudes and concerns about choice, affordability and accessibility. Furthermore, promoting lower meat diets could lead to economic contraction in agriculture-related sectors, especially the red meat sector (Allan, Comerford & McGregor, 2019). If food system transitions are to be just, they must ensure that rural economies and farming communities remain viable while meeting climate targets, requiring sensitive and adaptive policy solutions.

Another layer of complexity arises from policy fragmentation and governance challenges. Responsibilities for food, health, environment, and agriculture are divided across multiple sectors and levels of government, including devolved and UK-wide authorities, leading to inconsistencies in strategy and implementation. Furthermore, the socio-economic impacts of dietary policy shifts, including how changes affect low-income households or food supply chains, are not yet fully understood due to limited data and evaluation frameworks. Addressing these challenges will require a holistic approach that integrates cross-sectoral collaboration, rigorous evidence, and stakeholder engagement to navigate trade-offs and identify the most feasible pathways for change.

Aims of the project

This report addresses two primary aims:

• Analysis of a mixed-method evidence base for diet and climate policy in Scotland using a structured PESTLE framework.
• Identification of evidence gaps and the proposal of actionable recommendations to inform future policy development.

These two aims seek to support the Scottish Government in developing policies aligned with climate targets, while also advancing a just transition that considers the nutritional needs of communities, and the livelihoods of people employed in the food system.

Methodology

Research design

This research adopted a mixed-method design to analyse the intersection of diet and climate policy in Scotland. It combined desk-based research, stakeholder engagement, and thematic categorisation using a PESTLE framework (Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal, and Environmental dimensions).

Research approach and evidence sources

The study integrated three core sources of evidence:

• Literature review: A systematic review of academic, grey, and policy literature, including documents from the Scottish Government, Climate Change Committee, Food Standards Scotland, and international case studies. Further detail on the literature review method can be found in Appendices C and D.
• Stakeholder engagement: 14 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders from government, academia, and civil society provided insight into governance challenges, socio-economic impacts, and practical barriers to policy implementation. Further detail on the method can be found in Appendix E.
• Workshops: Three stakeholder workshops (one in-person, two online)^[1] were conducted to validate findings, prioritise areas for further policy development, and co-develop recommendations. These involved scenario planning and structured group discussion. Workshop protocols and details of participating stakeholders are displayed in Appendix F.

Ethics and data management

The research followed ethical guidelines from the University of Bath and ClimateXChange. All participants gave informed consent and were offered anonymity. Data handling adhered to the Scottish Government’s “open as possible, closed as necessary” principle. Triangulation across data sources helped ensure reliability and consistency.

Stakeholder mapping

Stakeholders were identified through desk research and consultations (see Appendix A) and classified into categories including government, academia, third sector, public health, industry, and community groups. A database of 447 stakeholders was compiled (Appendix B).

PESTLE framework

The PESTLE framework guided the thematic analysis of areas for policy development and opportunities, ensuring comprehensive coverage of structural, social, and environmental dimensions. It helped surface interdependencies and evidence gaps across policy domains.

Limitations and future research

Due to time constraints, the analysis could not include quantitative modelling or longitudinal data. While the research drew from diverse sectors, representation from the food industry was more limited. Further research should explore economic modelling of dietary transitions, consumer behaviour dynamics, and legal feasibility of regulatory measures.

Further methodological detail, including workshop protocols and stakeholder lists, is available in the Appendices.

Analysis of diet and climate policy evidence

While the literature, stakeholder meetings, and workshops all highlighted the need for more integrated, cross-sectoral approaches to diet and climate policy, each source also highlighted distinct emphases.

• The literature focused on systemic analysis and policy gaps, often referring to structural barriers, need for further regulation, and the dominance of voluntary policy mechanisms.
• The stakeholder meetings added a degree of nuance on political sensitivities, informal policymaking, and institutional fragmentation, often surfacing insights that were missing from the literature, such as the influence of farming identities, lobbying, and inter-departmental misalignment (i.e. the lack of coordination between government departments, such as health, agriculture, and climate, which can lead to contradictory or disconnected policies).
• The stakeholder workshops, by contrast, reflected the practical and lived experience of policy implementation, giving voice to tensions related to affordability, cultural norms, and supply chain dynamics, and offering grounded ideas for cross-sector collaboration.
• Taken together, these sources converged on key challenges but revealed gaps in empirical evidence on effective interventions and highlighted the need for more inclusive, community-informed policy processes.

The following sections present an analysis of the issues shaping diet and climate policy, drawing on insights from the literature review, stakeholder meetings, and workshops.

We begin by outlining key areas for policy development, offering a comprehensive view of the diverse factors influencing policy in Scotland. For clarity, each PESTLE dimension is analysed separately, although we recognise that many issues cut across multiple dimensions. In addition to the summaries in Sections 5.1–5.6 of the report, extended analyses and illustrative examples are provided in Appendices G–L.

PESTLE Political dimension

The PESTLE Political dimension highlights key political drivers and barriers shaping Scotland’s food system, focusing on governance, policy coherence, and regulatory alignment. Despite ambitious climate and health goals, food policy remains fragmented; characterised by siloed strategies, short-term political cycles, and limited public engagement.

There are clear opportunities to improve alignment between national and local policies, embed measurable targets under the Good Food Nation Act, and integrate food more fully into net-zero strategies. Policy coherence is particularly lacking in areas such as dietary change, where targets, especially for meat reduction, are absent or politically sensitive.

Public procurement and food supply chain resilience require stronger alignment with sustainability priorities. Resistance to livestock reduction, driven by cultural, economic, and political factors, continues to constrain progress. Meanwhile, policy support for plant-based foods, oversight of emissions-intensive agriculture, and trade resilience post-Brexit, remain underdeveloped.

Improving citizen participation and learning from international best practice are also essential to ensure legitimacy and policy effectiveness. Overall, stronger strategic leadership and more integrated, inclusive policymaking are critical to enable a just transition in Scotland’s food system.

For further detail and illustrative examples, see Appendix G.

PESTLE Economic dimension

This section outlines key economic enablers and constraints in Scotland’s transition to a more sustainable and just food system. While the need for climate-compatible diets and resilient supply chains is increasingly recognised, economic policy and market structures remain poorly aligned with sustainability goals.

The analysis highlights persistent gaps in financial incentives for low-carbon agriculture, agroecology, and alternative proteins. Current financial support regimes continue to favour high-emission livestock production, while support for biodiversity and ecosystem services is limited. High upfront costs and infrastructure barriers also constrain farmers’ ability to adopt sustainable practices.

Trade and supply chains add further complexity to the landscape. Import/Export policies risk carbon leakage and should go further to reflect Scotland’s net-zero ambitions. Small producers face limited access to public procurement and mainstream markets, which are dominated by large retailers and multinationals.

A lack of stable, long-term funding also undermines urban agriculture, community food initiatives, and public food provision. Consumer incentives are misaligned; VAT law and pricing structures serve to limit the uptake of plant-based foods, while environmental and health costs remain externalised. Without targeted interventions, dietary shifts might also result in greater reliance on ultra-processed food or alternative animal products, with implications for health.

A clear transition strategy is needed to support rural economies, address workforce shortages, and align financial incentives, trade policies, and consumer support with Scotland’s net-zero goals.

For further evidence and examples, see Appendix H.

PESTLE Social dimension

The next section explores the social factors that influence dietary behaviours, food access, cultural norms, and public engagement with food system sustainability in Scotland. While awareness of sustainable diets is growing, economic inequality, cultural barriers, and information gaps continue to limit equitable access to healthier and more climate-compatible food choices.

The analysis shows that low-income, rural, and marginalised groups face structural challenges to adopting sustainable diets, including affordability, limited access to healthy food options, and digital exclusion. Taxation policies, such as levies on red meat, may also disproportionately affect households with limited economic flexibility unless protections are in place. High energy costs, limited cooking facilities, and restricted access to healthy food outside the home reduce the feasibility of dietary shifts for many communities.

Consumer environments and behaviours present further challenges. Ultra-processed foods dominate many retail and foodservice settings, while alternative proteins remain scarce or poorly understood. Misperceptions, unclear labelling, and cultural or sensory barriers to meat alternatives reduce consumer confidence in plant-based foods. Public institutions, such as schools and hospitals, have been slow to integrate sustainability into procurement and meal provision, missing valuable opportunities to shape norms and access around sustainable food.

Cultural identity, health concerns, and trust also play a critical role in shaping diet. Intergenerational tensions, media confusion, and stigma around plant-based eating reinforce resistance to change. The term “sustainable diet” is understood in multiple ways, and guidance on nutritional adequacy, especially for meat reduction, remains limited. There is also a need to strengthen support for regenerative and culturally inclusive farming practices.

Crucially, the evidence highlights an over-reliance on individual responsibility for dietary change, which overlooks the need for supportive food environments and system-level shifts. Policies that reshape food environments, through procurement, pricing, education, and public messaging, are likely to be more effective and equitable in the longer term. More specifically, focusing on health-based messaging, trusted community voices, and social norm–based approaches would help build broader public support.

In summary, socially informed policies must address structural inequalities, cultural diversity, and behavioural dynamics to ensure a just transition toward sustainable diets. This includes improving affordability and access, embedding sustainability in public food settings, and aligning dietary policies with both climate and public health goals.

Further detail and evidence examples are available in Appendix I.

PESTLE Technological dimension

Technology plays a critical role in shaping the sustainability, efficiency, and resilience of Scotland’s food system. The analysis highlights the lack of a comprehensive monitoring framework to evaluate the impact of dietary shifts on emissions, public health, food security, and biodiversity. Without clear indicators and centralised data systems, it is difficult to assess progress toward climate and health goals or ensure that dietary policies are evidence driven. Metrics for agroecological practices and sustainable diet transitions remain underdeveloped, impeding efforts to support and scale lower-impact farming approaches.

Digital infrastructure limitations, particularly poor rural broadband, continue to restrict the uptake of precision livestock farming and climate-smart technologies. Awareness of these tools remains low among producers, while Government support for adoption is often fragmented. Similarly, industry accountability is weakened by the absence of transparent data reporting and standardised carbon footprinting systems. Inconsistent greenhouse gas accounting methods, a lack of methane tracking at farm level, and the need for sector-specific targets for beef production further undermine emissions mitigation efforts.

Food system resilience also depends on improved technological capacity in supply chains. Current systems do not adequately support food origin tracking, nor do they account for high-emission foods in dietary data, weakening emissions attribution and policy precision. The sustainability impacts of emerging plant-based products remain poorly assessed, and infrastructure gaps limit the scaling of regional food systems and local supply chain technologies.

Digital tools could be used more effectively to promote sustainable consumer choices and increase transparency in food sourcing, animal welfare, and product quality. However, greater investment in infrastructure, digital literacy, and data coordination is required to unlock this potential.

In summary, a more technologically enabled food policy landscape in Scotland will require investment in data infrastructure, tailored emissions metrics, precision agriculture, and digital tools to support both consumer engagement and policy accountability. Doing so will help ensure that Scotland’s net-zero, biodiversity, and health ambitions are underpinned by robust evidence and smart, scalable solutions.

Further detail and evidence examples are available in Appendix J.

PESTLE Legal dimension

With reference to the role of legal and regulatory frameworks, the PESTLE analysis reveals that Scotland currently lacks targeted legal mechanisms to incentivise low-carbon food production. Regulatory gaps and weak enforcement of environmental standards limit the transition to sustainable agriculture, while power imbalances in the supply chain, favouring large corporations over smaller producers, remain largely unaddressed. The Good Food Nation Act, though an important step forward, does not extend regulatory authority over retailers, large-scale producers, or food manufacturers, limiting its system-wide impact.

Other issues requiring attention exist in consumer protection and information. Weak regulation of unhealthy food marketing, especially in out-of-home settings, undermines public health efforts. The continued reliance on voluntary reformulation agreements with industry, combined with the lack of mandatory carbon footprint labelling, limits consumers’ ability to make informed dietary choices aligned with Scotland’s climate and health goals. Meanwhile, the absence of mandatory nutritional fortification, such as for non-dairy milk products, can impede public health initiatives aimed at addressing nutritional deficiencies.

Legal and governance barriers also slow policy implementation. Complexities in devolved and UK-level responsibilities contribute to policy inconsistency, particularly on dietary and emissions targets. Additionally, legal risks around nutrient adequacy in meat and dairy reduction strategies may discourage more ambitious dietary guidance.

Within agriculture, current carbon audit schemes lack sufficient enforceable emissions targets and are perceived as bureaucratic, offering limited incentives for change. Unclear guidance on carbon markets and inconsistent rules on emissions reporting (including Scope 3 emissions from retailers) reduce transparency and slow investment in climate-smart farming.

In summary, legal reform is needed to strengthen regulatory levers across the food system, extending beyond the public sector to include retailers and industry, enforcing sustainability and nutrition standards, and improving consumer protections. Aligning governance frameworks, reducing administrative burdens, and embedding human rights principles into dietary policy are therefore needed to enable effective system-wide change.

Further detail and evidence examples are available in Appendix K.

PESTLE Environmental dimension

This final section examines the environmental factors affecting Scotland’s transition to a sustainable food system. The evidence highlights that many community food initiatives and new entrants to agroecological farming face significant barriers, particularly in accessing secure land and financial support. Temporary land use agreements and bureaucratic processes can limit the growth of community food systems, despite existing policy. In some cases, unregulated forestry expansion can risk displacing agricultural land, with limited assessment of net carbon impacts or broader public interest outcomes.

Scotland’s climate mitigation policies in agriculture remain focused on food-based emissions without addressing the wider transformation needed across the food system. Adaptation strategies for extreme weather, water resource management, and soil health are underdeveloped, leaving farmers vulnerable to increasingly unpredictable conditions. Localised environmental impacts of emissions-intensive farming are often overlooked in national-level emissions data, reducing policy responsiveness to regional ecological pressures.

The analysis also highlights the need for a more strategic approach to land use. With the majority of Scottish farmland classed as “Less Favoured”^[2] and unsuitable for plant protein production, blanket approaches to livestock reduction may generate trade-offs for biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and rural livelihoods. Well-managed grazing land has shown potential to support biodiversity and store more carbon than forestry in some contexts, yet these contributions are not widely acknowledged in land-use planning.

From a consumption perspective, the environmental footprint of ultra-processed and highly standardised food products remains a concern, as do the resilience risks associated with crop monocultures and supply chain vulnerabilities. There is growing recognition that agricultural technologies, diversification, and the promotion of locally adapted crop varieties can play a role in building resilience, but these approaches require greater policy support and coordination.

In summary, delivering a climate-resilient and environmentally sustainable food system in Scotland will require integrated land-use and adaptation planning, support for agroecological transitions, and a shift toward more diverse and regionally appropriate production systems. Environmental priorities must be balanced with social and economic sustainability to secure long-term food system resilience.

Further detail and evidence examples are available in Appendix L.

Analysis of areas for policy development

We next move on to consider evidence linked to the foregoing PESTLE analysis. The PESTLE analysis of diet and climate areas for policy development in Scotland has revealed several critical evidence gaps that limit progress towards a sustainable, resilient, and equitable food system. This section summarises areas for development, evaluates the feasibility of addressing them through targeted initiatives, and prioritises areas for immediate and long-term action. A summary of identified areas for further policy development, feasibility of addressing issues, scope for collaboration, and suggested priority levels for each PESTLE dimension are set out in Table 4.1.1.1.

Disclaimer: While this report identifies multiple areas for policy development, it is acknowledged that various initiatives and programmes may already be addressing some of these areas to differing extents. The intention is not to overlook ongoing efforts, but to highlight where further action, coordination, or scaling may still be required.

PESTLE evidence analysis of areas for further policy development

In summary, addressing areas for policy development identified through the evidence review would require a combination of more immediate actions, pilot initiatives, and longer-term policy reforms. Targeting governance and coordination should be prioritised as a foundation upon which to develop emissions tracking, economic incentives for sustainability, and environmental resilience strategies. Based on the analysis of evidence, addressing these areas through targeted research, cross-sector collaboration, and data standardisation would be essential for leveraging meaningful progress on sustainable diet transitions.

Conclusions and policy implications

Diet, climate, and public health intersect in complex ways with food systems, shaping both environmental sustainability and human well-being. Dietary patterns influence greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity, and resource use, whilst also influencing non-communicable diseases and health risks. A transition to sustainable diets presents an opportunity to improve public health and reduce environmental impact, though significant barriers including affordability and accessibility must be tackled. In Scotland, the transition to sustainable diets is complicated by cultural and economic reliance on established food industries, particularly livestock farming. Whilst high red and processed meat consumption poses health and environmental concerns, economic dependencies, consumer habits, and social norms around food identity and tradition all contribute to resistance to change.

Crucially, policymakers must navigate inevitable trade-offs between economic stability and sustainability. The Scottish red meat sector supports jobs and rural economies, making policies to reduce meat consumption economically sensitive. Furthermore, plant-based diets remain costly due to supply chain and financial support structures, with change carrying the risk of exacerbating social inequalities. Balancing voluntary industry commitments with regulatory measures and fiscal policies is needed to drive change whilst minimising economic disruption.

This report has highlighted the complex connections between diet, climate, and public health in food systems, and the urgent need for integrated policy responses for sustainable diet transitions. The UK’s 7th Carbon Budget (CB7) (Climate Change Committee, 2025) reinforces this urgency, proposing a substantial reduction in livestock numbers and a shift towards more sustainable dietary patterns. Scotland’s food system has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while improving public health, yet fragmented policies, gaps in governance, and limited economic incentives inhibit meaningful progress. In line with CB7, this report underscores the importance of policy coherence, aligned with public engagement, agricultural and industry support, fiscal measures, and public health initiatives.

Informing next steps for policy development

Whilst significant strides have been made with policies like the Good Food Nation Act (Scottish Government, 2022a), further action is needed to strengthen accountability, set clear sustainability targets, and improve cross-sectoral collaboration. Managing the economic implications of dietary transitions is also crucial to ensuring a just transition—without targeted support, rural inequalities may deepen, and resistance to change may grow. Lessons from other countries have shown that a mix of financial incentives, public procurement reforms, and consumer engagement strategies can drive sustainable dietary shifts while maintaining economic stability.

Such goals require coordinated action across government, agriculture, the food industry, public health, and civil society. A whole-systems approach must ensure sustainability policies are both equitable and inclusive. Priorities could therefore include:

• Strengthening governance and policy coordination: Develop a cross-sectoral food policy framework aligning climate, health, and agricultural objectives. Enhance local-national coordination for food system implementation. Establish clear emissions reduction targets for food production and dietary transitions and clarify the role of dietary transitions in meeting this target.
• Improving economic incentives for sustainable food systems: Redirect agricultural support payments towards sustainable and regenerative farming. Explore the role for fiscal policies (e.g. e.g. support payments or taxation) to make sustainable food choices more affordable. Invest in local food infrastructure and supply chains to reduce dependence on imports.
• Addressing social and cultural barriers to dietary change: Expand public, agricultural, and food system engagement and participation and leverage procurement opportunities to increase awareness and availability of climate-friendly diets. Improve policies regarding food affordability to ensure sustainable diets are accessible to all income groups. Develop culturally sensitive strategies for dietary shifts, considering food traditions.
• Investing in technology and data monitoring for food system resilience: Support the development of a UK-wide standard for emissions tracking in food production and consumption, recognising the complexity of this task and the need for cross-jurisdictional coordination. Introduce digital food labelling to increase consumer awareness of sustainability impacts.
• Supporting legal and regulatory measures: Enforce sustainability standards in food production and marketing. Align devolved and UK-wide dietary policies for consistency. Improve public procurement regulations to prioritise sustainable food sourcing.
• Integrating environmental considerations into food policy: Develop land-use policies balancing food security, biodiversity, and climate goals. Strengthen climate adaptation strategies for Scottish agriculture. Explore the potential role of well-managed grazing land in supporting biodiversity and contributing to carbon sequestration, while recognising that evidence on sequestration benefits remains contested.

Scotland has an opportunity to lead in sustainable food policy by embedding climate and health goals into food system governance. A cross-sectoral, just transition approach is essential to creating a food system that protects the environment, supports local economies, and enhances public health to secure long-term benefits for both people and the planet.

References

Allan, G., Comerford, D. and McGregor, P., 2019. The system-wide impact of healthy eating: Assessing emissions and economic impacts at the regional level. Food Policy, 86, p.101725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2019.05.008

Ambler-Edwards, S., Bailey, K.S., Kiff, A., Lang, T., Lee, R., Marsden, T.K., Simons, D.W. and Tibbs, H., 2009. Food futures: Rethinking UK strategy. London: Chatham House. [online] Available at: Food futures: rethinking UK strategy. A Chatham House report -ORCA (Accessed: 25/11/24).

Attorp, A. and Hubbard, C., 2022. Governing the UK agri-food system post-Brexit, in Shucksmith, M. and Bosworth, G. (eds.) Rural governance in the UK. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 78–98.

Baker, P., Conquest, A. and Moxey, A., 2023. The evidence for private sector drivers for climate action in Scottish agriculture. LUC. [online] Available at: The evidence for private sector drivers in the Scottish agricultural supply chain (Accessed: 17/12/24).

Bauer, J.M., Aarestrup, S.C., Hansen, P.G. and Reisch, L.A., 2022. Nudging more sustainable grocery purchases: Behavioural innovations in a supermarket setting. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 179, p.121605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121605

Beckert, M., Smith, P. and Chapman, S., 2016. Of trees and sheep: Trade-offs and synergies in farmland afforestation in the Scottish uplands. In: S. Kratzer and M. Schönhart, eds. Land use competition: Ecological, economic and social perspectives. Cham: Springer, pp.183–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33628-2_11

Bellamy, A.S., Furness, E., Mills, S., Clear, A., Finnigan, S.M., Meador, E., Milne, A.E. and Sharp, R.T., 2023. ‘Promoting dietary changes for achieving health and sustainability targets’, Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 7, 1160627. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1160627.

Bhunnoo, R. and Poppy, G.M., 2020. A national approach for transformation of the UK food system. Nature Food, 1(1), pp.6–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-019-0003-3

Billen, G., Aguilera, E., Einarsson, R., Garnier, J., Gingrich, S., Grizzetti, B., Lassaletta, L., Le Noë, J. and Sanz-Cobena, A., 2021. Reshaping the European agro-food system and closing its nitrogen cycle: The potential of combining dietary change, agroecology, and circularity. One Earth, 4(6), pp.839–850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.05.011

Booth, A., 2006. Clear and present questions: Formulating questions for evidence based practice. Library Hi Tech, 24(3), 355-368. https://doi.org/10.1108/07378830610692127

Boyle, N.B., Jenneson, V., Okeke-Ogbuafor, N., Morris, M.A., Stead, S.M., Dye, L., Halford, J.C. and Banwart, S.A., 2024. ‘Connected Food: First steps for an ambitious national food strategy’, Nutrients, 16(19), p. 3371. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16193371.

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. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914579

Brett, S.N., 2022. Examining the opportunities for agricultural experiences as part of Scottish secondary school pupils’ learning under Curriculum for Excellence. Doctoral dissertation, University of Glasgow. [online] Available at: Examining the opportunities for agricultural experiences as part of Scottish secondary school pupils’ learning under Curriculum for Excellence – Enlighten Theses (Accessed: 14/1/25).

Briggs, H.R., Tallontire, A.M. and Dougill, A.J., 2019. Exploring the contribution of vertical farming to sustainable intensification from the point of view of the innovator and the farmer. Sustainability Research Institute, University of Leeds. [online] Available at: https://sri.leeds.ac.uk/publications/vertical-farming-sustainability (Accessed: 25/1/25).

Brodie, E., 2023. The potential for nature-based solutions in Scottish agriculture. [online] Available at: The Potential for Nature-based Solutions in Scottish Agriculture (Accessed: 25/11/24).

Bryant, C., Couture, A., Ross, E., Clark, A. and Chapman, T., 2024. A review of policy levers to reduce meat production and consumption. Appetite, p.107684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2024.107684.

Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations (CAST), 2024. Briefing 31: How Wales can speed up decarbonisation: Insights from transport and mobility, food and agriculture, and the circular and sharing economy. [online] Available at: CAST Briefing 31: How Wales can speed up decarbonisation: Insights from transport and mobility, food and agriculture, and the circular and sharing economy – CAST (Accessed: 3/11/24).

Cleland, E., McBey, D., Darlene, V., McCormick, B.J. and Macdiarmid, J.I., 2025. Still eating like there’s no tomorrow? A qualitative study to revisit attitudes and awareness around sustainable diets after 10 years. Appetite, 206, p.107799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2024.107799.

Climate Change Committee (CCC) (2025) The Seventh Carbon Budget. Climate Change Committee. [online] Available at: https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/7th-carbon-budget/ (Accessed: 4/3/25).

Climate Change Committee (CCC), 2023. Progress on reducing emissions in Scotland-2023 Report to Parliament. [online] Available at: https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/progress-in-reducing-emissions-in-scotland-2023-report-to-parliament/ (Accessed 21/10/24).

Climate Change Committee (CCC), 2020. The Sixth Carbon Budget: The UK’s path to Net Zero. [online] Available at: https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/sixth-carbon-budget/

(Accessed 25/11/24).

Comrie, L., Wilson, C., Nneli, A., Whybrow, S., Chalmers, N., and Macdiarmid, J.I., 2024. Modelling the impact of reductions in meat and dairy consumption on nutrient intakes and disease risk. [online] Available at: https://www.foodstandards.gov.scot/publications-and-research/publications/modelling-the-impact-of-reductions-in-meat-and-dairy-consumption-on-nutrient-intakes-and-disease-risk (Accessed: 14/12/24

Cotton, C., Gosschalk, K., Gray, H. and White, E., 2024. Consumer Scotland Net Zero 2024. Consumer Scotland. [online] Available at: [xm24-02-consumers-and-net-zero-net-zero-consumer-survey-yougov-final-report-pdf-version-for-publication.pdf] (Accessed: 14/1/25).

Culliford, A.E., Bradbury, J. and Medici, E.B., 2023. Improving communication of the UK sustainable healthy dietary guidelines—the Eatwell Guide: A rapid review. Sustainability, 15(7), p.6149. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15076149

Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra), 2024. Assessing carbon displacement risk in the agri-food sector: The development and application of a carbon displacement and wider impacts framework. October 2024. Defra. [online] Available at: ADAS Collaborate on Project Investigating Carbon Displacement (Accessed: 25/11/25).

Dogbe, W., Revoredo-Giha, C. and Russell, W., 2024. An analysis of the current and potential market opportunities for hempseed and fibre: the case of Scotland? Agriculture & Food Security, 13(1), p.57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-024-00388-6.

Dogbe, W., Wang, Y. and Revoredo-Giha, C., 2024. Nutritional implications of substituting plant-based proteins for meat: Evidence from home scan data. Agricultural and Food Economics, 12(1), p.30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-024-00272-2.

EAT (n.d.) Summary Report of the EAT-Lancet Commission. [online] Available at: https://eatforum.org/eat-lancet-commission/eat-lancet-commission-summary-report/

(Accessed: 2/11/24).

Eating Better, 2022. Sandwiches unwrapped 2022. [online] Available at: eb_sandwichreport_may22_final.pdf (Accessed 24/3/25).

Edwards-Jones, G., 2010. Does eating local food reduce the environmental impact of food production and enhance consumer health? Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 69(4), pp.582–591. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665110002004

Ellis, N.R. and Tschakert, P., 2019. Triple-wins as pathways to transformation? A critical review. Geoforum, 103, pp.167-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.04.017

Eory, V., Topp, K., Rees, B., Jones, S., Waxenberg, K., Barnes, A., Smith, P., MacLeod, M. and Wall, E., 2023. A scenario-based approach to emissions reduction targets in Scottish agriculture. ClimateXChange (CXC). [online] Available at: A scenario-based approach to emissions reduction targets in Scottish agriculture (Accessed 14/1/25).

Fardet, A. and Rock, E., 2020. Ultra-processed foods and food system sustainability: What are the links? Sustainability, 12(15), p.6280. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156280

Nourish Scotland, 2021. Farming for 1.5° final report. [online] Available at: https://www.farming1point5.org/publications [Accessed 17/12/24].

Ferguson, H.J., Bowen, J.M., McNicol, L.C., Bell, J., Duthie, C.A. and Dewhurst, R.J., 2024. The impacts of precision livestock farming tools on the greenhouse gas emissions of an average Scottish dairy farm. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 8, p.1385672. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2024.1385672

Follett, E., Davis, L., Wilson, C. and Cable, J., 2024. Working for the environment: farmer attitudes towards sustainable farming actions in rural Wales, UK, Environment, Development and Sustainability, pp. 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-03764-7.

Food and Drink Federation (FDF), 2020. Product reformulation: Understanding Scottish consumer attitudes. [online] Available at: Research shows consumers are actively seeking healthier food | The Food & Drink Federation (Accessed: 3/11/24).

Food, Farming and Countryside Commission (FFCC), 2024. From food security to food resilience. [online] Available at: From Food Security to Food Resilience – Food, Farming and Countryside Commission (Accessed: 17/12/24).

Food, Farming and Countryside Commission (FFCC), 2023. So, what do we really want from food? Citizens are hungry for change: Starting a national conversation about food. [online] Available at: [So, what do we really want from food? – Food, Farming and Countryside Commission] (Accessed: 3/11/24).

Food Standards Agency (FSA), 2022. Alternative proteins consumer survey. [online] Available at: FSA report template (Accessed: 23/1/25).

Food Standards Scotland (FSS) (2024) New research shows existing dietary advice can help us meet climate change mitigation goals. Food Standards Scotland. [online] Available at: https://www.foodstandards.gov.scot/news-and-alerts/new-research-shows-existing-dietary-advice-can-help-us-meet-climate-change-mitigation-goals (Accessed: 23/1/25).

Food Standards Scotland (FSS), 2023. Consumer attitudes towards the diet and food environment in Scotland. Food Standards Scotland. [online] Available at: https://www.foodstandards.gov.scot/publications-and-research/publications/consumer-attitudes-towards-the-diet-and-food-environment-in-scotland (Accessed: 17/12/24).

Food Standards Scotland (FSS), 2021a. Overview of the total food and drink landscape in Scotland 2021. [online] Available at: https://www.foodstandards.gov.scot/publications-and-research/publications/overview-of-the-total-food-and-drink-landscape-in-scotland-2021

(Accessed: 25/11/24).

Food Standards Scotland (FSS), 2021b. The out of home environment in Scotland. Food Standards Scotland. [online] Available at: https://www.foodstandards.gov.scot/publications-and-research/publications/the-out-of-home-environment-in-scotland (Accessed: 3/11/24).

Foster, J.A. and Poston, A., 2024. Occupant experience of domestic kitchen environments in low-energy social and affordable housing in Scotland. Building Research & Information, 52(7), pp.799–816. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2024.2312504.

Gargano, G., 2021. The bottom-up development model as a governance instrument for the rural areas: The cases of four Local Action Groups (LAGs) in the United Kingdom and in Italy. Sustainability, 13(16), p.9123. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169123.

Gill, M., Fowler, K. and Scott, E.M., 2024. ‘Bridging the gap between science and food policy: nutrition as a driver of policy drawing on Scotland as a case study’, Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, pp. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665124000267.

Hasnain, S., Green, R., Williams, A., Dangour, A.D., Smith, P. and Hillier, J., 2020. Mapping the UK food system – a report for the UKRI Transforming UK Food Systems Programme. University of Oxford. [online] Available at: https://www.foodsystemresearch.org.uk/publications/mapping-the-uk-food-system (Accessed: 3/11/24).

Hielkema, M.H. and Lund, T.B., 2021. ‘Reducing meat consumption in meat-loving Denmark: Exploring willingness, behavior, barriers and drivers’, Food Quality and Preference, 93, 104257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104257.

Holmes, E.J., 2018. Brexit, beef, and beans: a sustainable food-system approach for the UK. Master’s thesis, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås. [online] Available at: 249964646.pdf (Accessed: 18/2/25).

Houzer, E. and Scoones, I., 2021. Are livestock always bad for the planet? Rethinking the protein transition and climate change debate. Institute of Development Studies. [online] Available at: https://www.ids.ac.uk/publications/are-livestock-always-bad-for-the-planet-rethinking-the-protein-transition-and-climate-change-debate/ (Accessed: 26/1/24.

Hunt, L., Pettinger, C. and Wagstaff, C., 2023. A critical exploration of the diets of UK disadvantaged communities to inform food systems transformation: A scoping review of qualitative literature using a social practice theory lens. BMC Public Health, 23(1), p.1970. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-16775-3.

Jaacks, L., Frank, S., Vonderschmidt, A., Stewart, C., Runions, R., Kennedy, J., McNeill, G. and Alexander, P., 2024. Understanding the climate impact of food consumed in Scotland. University of Edinburgh. [online] Available at: https://era.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1842/41611/CXC-Understanding-the-climate-impact-of-food-consumed-in-Scotland-evidence-assessment-February-2024.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y (Accessed: 27/10/24).

Jenkins, B., Avis, K., Willcocks, J., Martin, G., Wiltshire, J. and Peters, E., 2023. Adapting Scottish agriculture to a changing climate – assessing options for action. Ricardo Energy & Environment. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/adapting-scottish-agriculture-to-a-changing-climate (Accessed: 25/10/24).

Jenkins, B., Herold, L., de Mendonça, M., Loughnan, H., Willcocks, J., David, T., Ginns, B., Rock, L., Wilshire, J., Avis, K., 2024. Breeding for reduced methane emissions in livestock. ClimateXChange. [online] Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.7488/era/5569 (Accessed: 3/11/24).

Kemper, J.A., 2020. ‘Motivations, barriers, and strategies for meat reduction at different family lifecycle stages’, Appetite, 150, 104644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.104644.

Kennedy, J., Clark, M., Stewart, C., Runions, R., Vonderschmidt, A., Frank, S., Scarborough, P., Comrie, F., McDonald, A., McNeill, G., Alexander, P. and Jaacks, L., 2025. Impact of reducing meat and dairy consumption on nutrient intake, health, cost of diets and the environment: A simulation among adults in Scotland. Research Square [online] Available at: Impact of reducing meat and dairy consumption on nutrient intake, health, cost of diets and the environment: A simulation among adults in Scotland (Accessed: 3/3/25).

Kmetkova, D., Zverinova, I., Scasny, M. and Máca, V., 2024. Acceptability of meat tax and subsidy removal by meat-eaters: insights from five European countries (No. 2024/42). Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies. [online] Available at: https://ies.fsv.cuni.cz (Accessed: 14/1/25).

Kwasny, T., Dobernig, K. and Riefler, P., 2022. ‘Towards reduced meat consumption: A systematic literature review of intervention effectiveness, 2001–2019’, Appetite, 168, 105739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105739.

Lambe, F., Weitz, N., Hilgert, A., Kemp-Benedict, E. and Carlsen, H., 2025. Applying the Unlocking a Better Future framework for a just transition in Scotland: Opportunities for the Scottish Government to promote socio-economic transformations needed to help tackle the climate and nature emergencies. Stockholm Environment Institute. [online] Available at: https://www.sei.org/publications/just-transition-scotland-unlocking-a-better-future/ (Accessed: 17/1/25.

Lampkin, N., Shrestha, S., Sellars, A., Baldock, D., Smith, J., Mullender, S., Keenleyside, C., Pearce, B. and Watson, C.A., 2021. Preparing the evidence base for post-Brexit agriculture in Scotland – case studies on alternative payments. Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC) and Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP). [online] Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/preparing-the-evidence-base-for-post-brexit-agriculture-in-scotland/ (Accessed: 3/2/25).

Leat, P., Revoredo-Giha, C. and Lamprinopoulou, C., 2011. ‘Scotland’s food and drink policy discussion: Sustainability issues in the food supply chain’, Sustainability, 3(4), pp. 605–631. https://doi.org/10.3390/su3040605.

Lee, A.J., Cullerton, K. and Herron, L.M., 2020. ‘Achieving food system transformation: Insights from a retrospective review of nutrition policy (in) action in high-income countries’, International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 10(12), pp. 766–776. https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2020.69.

Lozada, L.M. and Karley, A., 2022. The adoption of agroecological principles in Scottish farming and their contribution towards agricultural sustainability and resilience. The James Hutton Institute. [online] Available at: https://www.hutton.ac.uk/research/projects/agroecology-scotland (Accessed: 1/11/24).

Malone, T. and Lusk, J.L., 2017. Taste trumps health and safety: Incorporating consumer perceptions into a discrete choice experiment for meat. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 49(1), pp.139–157. https://doi.org/10.1017/aae.2016.39.

McAreavey, R., Choudhary, S., Obayi, R., Attorp, A., Barbulescu, R., Martinez Perez, A. and Nayak, R., 2023. The impact of labour shortages on UK food availability and safety. [online] Available at: https://www.food.gov.uk/research/the-impact-of-labour-shortages-on-uk-food-availability-and-safety (Accessed: 14/1/25).

McBey, D., McCormick, B.J.J., Hussain, M. and Macdiarmid, J.I., 2024. ‘Does sociodemographic strata determine local access to plant-based meat alternatives?’, Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 83(OCE4), p. E350. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665124003723.

McBey, D., Rothenberg, L., Cleland, E., McCormick, B.J. and Macdiarmid, J., 2024. What do young people think about sustainable diets? The Rowett Institute, University of Aberdeen. [online] Available at: https://aura.abdn.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/2164/24312/McBey_etal_What_do_young_VOR.pdf?sequence=1 (Accessed: 20/1/25).

McBey, D., Sánchez, G.M., McCormick, B.J.J., Horgan, G.W. and MacDiarmid, J.I., 2024. Consumer ranked likely effectiveness of interventions to reduce meat consumption, Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 83(OCE4), p. E296. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665124002963.

McBey, D., Watts, D. and Johnstone, A.M., 2019. Nudging, formulating new products, and the lifecourse: A qualitative assessment of the viability of three methods for reducing Scottish meat consumption for health, ethical, and environmental reasons, Appetite, 142, 104349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104349.

McNicol, L.C., Bowen, J.M., Ferguson, H.J., Bell, J., Dewhurst, R.J. and Duthie, C.A., 2024. Adoption of precision livestock farming technologies has the potential to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from beef production, Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 8, 1414858. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2024.1414858.

Meyerricks, S. and White, R.M., 2021. Communities on a threshold: Climate action and wellbeing potentialities in Scotland, Sustainability, 13(13), 7357. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137357.

Milner, J., Green, R., Dangour, A.D., Haines, A. and Wilkinson, P., 2015. Health effects of adopting low greenhouse gas emission diets in the UK, BMJ Open, 5(4), e007364. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007364.

Mitev, A., Portes, J., Osman, M., Codur, A.M., Abraham, C. and Kroll, L., 2023. The implications of behavioural science for effective climate policy: Output 1: Literature review and background report. Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations (CAST) and The Behavioural Insights Team. [online] Available at: https://cast.ac.uk/resources/reports/the-implications-of-behavioural-science-for-effective-climate-policy/ (Accessed: 15/10/24).

Myrgiotis, V., Williams, M., Rees, R.M. and Topp, C.F., 2019. Estimating the soil N₂O emission intensity of croplands in northwest Europe. Biogeosciences, 16(8), pp.1641–1655. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-16-1641-2019.

National Farmers’ Union Scotland (NFUS), n.d. Written evidence from the National Farmers Union Scotland (NFUS) (MET0027). Available at: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/110519/pdf/ (Accessed: 19/1/25).

Nneli, A., Revoredo-Giha, C. and Dogbe, W., 2023. ‘Could taxes on foods high in fat, sugar and salt (HFSS) improve climate health and nutrition in Scotland?’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 421, 138564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138564.

Obesity Action Scotland (OAS), 2019. Reformulation. [online] Available at: https://www.obesityactionscotland.org/publications/reformulation/ (Accessed: 2/11/24).

Pechey, R., Reynolds, J.P., Cook, B., Marteau, T.M. and Jebb, S.A., 2022. Acceptability of policies to reduce consumption of red and processed meat: A population-based survey experiment, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 81, 101817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101817.

Public Health Scotland (PHS), 2024. Action needed to prioritise health in Scotland’s food environment. [online] Available at: https://www.publichealthscotland.scot/news/2024/march/action-needed-to-prioritise-health-in-scotlands-food-environment/ (Accessed: 16/12/24).

Pultar, A., Ferrier, J. & Jahanbakhsh, A., 2024. Transforming industry: Strategic policy insights for Scotland’s industrial decarbonisation. [online] Available at: [https://pure.hw.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/139634343/IDRIC_Policy_Synthesis_Report_for_Scotland_-_2024.pdf (Accessed: 25/11/24).

Rathnayaka, S.D., Revoredo-Giha, C. and de Roos, B., 2024. Assessing Scotland’s self-sufficiency of major food commodities, Agriculture & Food Security, 13(1), p. 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-024-00452-3.

Reay, D.S., Warnatzsch, E.A., Craig, E., Dawson, L., George, S., Norman, R. and Ritchie, P., 2020. ‘From farm to fork: growing a Scottish food system that doesn’t cost the planet’, Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 4, 72. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.00072.

Rhymes, J., Stockdale, E. and Napier, B., 2023. The future of UK vegetable production: Technical report. WWF. [online] Available at: https://www.wwf.org.uk/ourreports/future-uk-vegetable-production-technical-report (Accessed: 3/11/24).

Ruani, M.A., Reiss, M.J. and Kalea, A.Z., 2023. Diet-nutrition information seeking, source trustworthiness, and eating behavior changes: An international web-based survey. Nutrients, 15(21), p.4515. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15214515.

Rubio Ramon, G., 2024. Building animal nations: industrial animal agriculture in the making of Catalonia and Scotland. ERA [online] Available at: https://era.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/41639 (Accessed: 26/1/25).

SAC Consulting, n.d. The impact of extreme weather events on Scottish agriculture. WWF Scotland. [online] Available at: https://www.wwf.org.uk/scotland/reports/impact-of-extreme-weather-on-scottish-agriculture (Accessed: 29/11/24.

Scottish Government, 2024. Local food for everyone: Our journey. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/local-food-for-everyone-our-journey/ (Accessed: 15/12/24).

Scottish Government, 2023. Reducing emissions from agriculture – the role of new farm technologies. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/reducing-emissions-from-agriculture-role-of-new-farm-technologies/ (Accessed: 2/11/24).

Scottish Government, 2022a. National Good Food Nation Plan. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/national-good-food-nation-plan/ (Accessed: 19/10/24).

Scottish Government, 2022b. The next step in delivering our vision for Scotland as a leader in sustainable and regenerative farming. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/next-step-in-delivering-our-vision-for-scotland-as-a-leader-in-sustainable-and-regenerative-farming/ (Accessed: 27/10/24).

Scottish Government, 2013. Revised dietary goals for Scotland. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/revised-dietary-goals-for-scotland/ (Accessed: 28/10.24).

Scottish Government, n.d.(a). Agriculture and the environment. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.scot/policies/agriculture-and-the-environment/ (Accessed: 21/10/24).

Scottish Parliament, n.d.(b). Briefing for the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee on Petition PE1963: Phase in meat production ban by 2040. [online] Available at: Briefing for petition PE1963: Phase in meat production ban by 2040 (Accessed 23/1/25).

Shortland, F., Hall, J., Hurley, P., Little, R., Nye, C., Lobley, M. and Rose, D.C., 2023. Landscapes of support for farming mental health: Adaptability in the face of crisis. Sociologia Ruralis, 63, pp.116–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12399.

Smith, A.M., Duncan, P., Edgar, D. and McColl, J., 2021. Responsible and sustainable farm business: Contextual duality as the moderating influence on entrepreneurial orientation. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 22(2), pp.88–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465750320939779.

Sovacool, B.K., Bazilian, M., Griffiths, S., Kim, J., Foley, A. and Rooney, D., 2021. ‘Decarbonizing the food and beverages industry: A critical and systematic review of developments, sociotechnical systems and policy options’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 143, 110856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110856.

Spiro, A., Hill, Z. and Stanner, S., 2024. Meat and the future of sustainable diets—Challenges and opportunities’, Nutrition Bulletin, 49(4), pp. 572–598. https://doi.org/10.1111/nbu.12685.

Sutherland, L.A., Banks, E., Boyce, A. and Martinat, S., 2023. Establishing an agricultural knowledge and innovation system. The James Hutton Institute. [online] Available at: establishing-an-agriculture-knowledge-and-innovation-system-in-scotland-workshop-report-jan-2023.pdf (Accessed: 17/12/24).

Sutherland, L.A. and Burton, R.J., 2011. Good farmers, good neighbours? The role of cultural capital in social capital development in a Scottish farming community. Sociologia Ruralis, 51(3), pp.238–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2011.00536.x.

Thomson, S.G., Moxey, A.P. and Hall, J., 2021. The transition to future (conditional) agricultural support – NFU Scotland’s approach. NFU Scotland. [online] Available at: https://www.nfus.org.uk/news/news/conditional-agricultural-support (Accessed: 8/1/25).

Tregear, A., Morgan, E., Spence, L., and Bell, M., 2024. Dietary guidance for healthy and climate friendly diets: A review of international evidence. Food Standards Scotland. [online] Available at: https://www.foodstandards.gov.scot/publications-and-research/dietary-guidance-for-healthy-and-climate-friendly-diets (Accessed: 20/10/24).

van der Horst, D., Lane, M., Creasy, A., Gillette, K., Soriano-Hernández, P., Jia, H. and Smith, R.S., 2021. Edinburgh and the n-minute neighbourhood concept: an exploratory study. Available at: https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/en/publications/edinburgh-and-the-n-minute-neighbourhood-concept-an-exploratory- (Accessed: 14/1/25).

Vittersø, G., Torjusen, H., Laitala, K., Tocco, B., Biasini, B., Csillag, P., de Labarre, M.D., Lecoeur, J.L., Maj, A., Majewski, E. and Malak-Rawlikowska, A., 2019. Short food supply chains and their contributions to sustainability: Participants’ views and perceptions from 12 European cases’, Sustainability, 11(17), p. 4800. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174800.

White, J.T. and Bunn, C., 2017. Growing in Glasgow: Innovative practices and emerging policy pathways for urban agriculture, Land Use Policy, 68, pp. 334–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.07.052.

Wiltshire, J., Freeman, D., Willcocks, J. and Wood, C., 2021. The potential for leguminous crops in Scotland. Ricardo Energy & Environment. [online] Available at: The potential for leguminous crops in Scotland (Accessed: 23/1/25).

Witheridge, J. and Morris, N.J., 2016. An analysis of the effect of public policy on community garden organisations in Edinburgh, Local Environment, 21(2), pp. 202–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2014.940357.

Appendix A: Diet & climate policy stakeholder identification and mapping methodology 

Purpose and Scope

The stakeholder mapping exercise aimed to identify and understand the individuals and organisations who influence or are affected by climate and diet policies in Scotland. It was designed to support inclusive, evidence-informed policy review by incorporating a broad range of perspectives.

The mapping focused on ten key policy areas:

• Agriculture
• Food systems
• Public health
• Carbon emissions
• Land use and forestry
• Water use and pollution
• Economic and social impacts
• Food security
• Consumer behaviour and education
• Urban planning and food infrastructure

Stakeholders were assessed for their relevance to these areas and the potential for involvement in the policy process.

Methods

• Desk research: Systematic searches of government documents, NGO and advocacy websites, academic literature, and media reports to compile a draft list of stakeholders.
• Expert consultation: Meetings with policymakers, researchers, and advisors to validate the list and identify additional stakeholders.
• Categorisation: Stakeholders were grouped by type (e.g., government, academia, NGOs, industry, health, community, media, public).
• Influence–Interest Mapping: Stakeholders were classified based on their level of influence over, and interest in, diet and climate policy. A rubric guided the assignment of High, Medium, or Low categories for each.

Stakeholder Categories

Stakeholders were grouped into eight high-level categories:

• Government bodies and regulators (e.g., Scottish Government, SEPA, Food Standards Scotland)
• Research and academia (e.g., University research centres, think tanks)
• NGOs and advocacy groups (e.g., Nourish Scotland, Friends of the Earth Scotland)
• Agriculture and food industry (e.g., NFU Scotland, food producers, retailers)
• Public health bodies (e.g., NHS Scotland, Public Health Scotland)
• Community organisations (e.g., local sustainability hubs, rural associations)
• Media and influencers (e.g., journalists, campaigners)
• General public and citizen groups (e.g., low-income groups, consumer organisations)

Ongoing Adaptation

Stakeholder positions and influence are dynamic. The mapping process includes continuous review to respond to evolving policy priorities and to adapt engagement strategies accordingly.

Appendix B: Findings from the stakeholder identification and mapping analysis

Appendix C: Systematic literature review methodology

Two main citation indexes were used to systematically search for articles: Scopus (for published academic literature); and Publish or Perish (for unpublished ‘grey’ literature).

In addition, a set of non-systematically derived articles supplemented the main systematic literature review protocol and more detail can be found below.

For the systematic search protocol, search parameters comprised Title-Abstract-Keyword searches of articles published in English since 2015. Because of the breadth of the topic, no categories were excluded from the search parameters. As Publish or Perish searches Google Scholar records, articles were limited to the first 200 returns by relevance.

The SPICE framework (Booth, 2006) was used to configure the systematic review search string and incorporated the following framework: 

• Setting: E.g. Scotland’s policy environment and the social, economic, and environmental factors specific to Scotland. 
• Perspective: E.g. policymakers, public groups, industry stakeholders, and other groups affected by diet and climate policies. 
• Intervention: E.g. climate-related dietary policy actions, public health initiatives, economic incentives, or educational campaigns. 
• Comparison: E.g. other regional or international diet and climate policies or scenarios where similar policy interventions are absent. 
• Evaluation: E.g. outcomes in terms of emissions reductions, public health improvements, economic impacts, or stakeholder engagement effectiveness. 

The Title-Abstract-Keyword citation indexes were searched using the following strings, which were adapted during pilot searches because of limitations to search capabilities across each index and to optimise returns:

Scopus: TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“scot*” OR “united kingdom” OR “wales” OR “england” OR “northern ireland”) AND (“diet*” OR “food”) AND (“climate” OR “carbon” OR “emissions” OR “environment*”) AND (“policy*” OR “regulat*” OR “strateg*” OR “lever*” OR “mechanism*”) AND (“behaviour*” OR “percept*” OR “attitud*” OR “consum*” OR “meat” OR “dairy” OR “vegan” OR “vegetarian” OR “plant-based” OR “nutrition” OR “health” OR “wellbeing” OR “equit*” OR “sustainab*” OR “adaptation” OR “mitigation” OR “resilien*” OR “biodiver*” OR “econom*” OR “cost” OR “agricultur*” OR “produc*” OR “process*” OR “retail*” OR “trade*” OR “import*” OR “export*”))

Publish or Perish: scot* AND diet* OR food AND climate OR carbon OR emissions OR environment* AND policy* OR regulat* OR strateg* OR lever OR mechanism* AND behaviour*

Search results from each index were imported into Zotero where duplicates were removed.

Titles/abstracts were screened for eligibility based on the following criteria:

• Inclusion criteria:
• Publication language English
• Published since 2020
• Scotland, UK or other devolved policy contexts
• Relevant to one or more of the five PESTLE dimensions
• Availability of full text by 31/1/25
• Exclusion criteria:
• Publication language not English
• Published before 2020 or focused on policy contexts prior to 2015
• Without direct or indirect relevance to Scottish, UK or other devolved policy contexts
• Without relevance to at least one of the five PESTLE dimensions
• Conference proceedings
• Methodological papers and study protocols

Each article was screened and assigned to one of three Zotero folders: Include; Exclude; Unsure. With reference to the latter, at the end of the initial screening these articles were re-examined and re-categorised to the Include or Exclude folder.

• The following data were extracted from all included articles:
• Article title
• Last name of first author
• Year of publication
• Article URL
• Article type (e.g., empirical study, policy document)
• Study context and Aims/Objectives
• Results:
• Key findings
• Conclusions
• Areas for policy development

In addition to the systematic literature review, relevant articles from a variety of other sources supplemented the review to ensure a comprehensive and contextually relevant analysis. Articles were identified through:

• Stakeholder Contributions – During stakeholder one-to-one discussions, participants suggested key reports, policy documents, and research papers that they considered highly relevant to the topic.
• Citation Searches – Both forward citation searches (identifying newer papers that cited key sources) and reverse citation searches (reviewing references cited within important papers) were conducted to expand the review.
• General Web Searches – Broader searches using Google were performed to capture relevant grey literature, media reports, and other non-peer-reviewed sources that may not be included in academic databases.
• Targeted Website Searches – Specific searches were conducted on Scottish Government, NGO, and stakeholder websites to access reports, policy briefings, and unpublished data relevant to the research focus.

Appendix D: Systematic literature review flowchart

Appendix E: Stakeholder meeting methodology

Purpose and Overview:

The one-to-one stakeholder meetings^[10] were conducted to gather qualitative insights into Scotland’s complex diet and climate policy landscape. These conversations were intended to complement the literature review and stakeholder workshops by eliciting the perspectives of individuals with practical experience and policy insight across relevant sectors of Government (supplemented by Third Sector and Academia).

Stakeholder Identification and Selection

Stakeholders were purposively selected based on their relevance to the intersecting themes of diet and climate policy, including specific expertise or engagement in areas such as emissions reduction, food security, policy development and advocacy, rural and environmental science, public health, environmental policy, agriculture, food production, and food insecurity. The selection process drew on:

• Expert recommendations from Scottish Government contacts and members of the research steering group.
• A stakeholder mapping exercise (see Appendices A and B).

Format and Approach

• A total of 14 semi-structured informal online meetings were conducted.
• Meetings followed a tailored topic guide to allow flexibility while covering core themes such as governance, policy coherence, barriers to implementation, and perceived gaps in evidence or support.
• Discussions typically lasted 30–60 minutes and were designed to be conversational, allowing participants to reflect on both strategic and operational aspects of policy and practice.
• Meetings were not recorded, but the researcher took detailed notes throughout.

Ethical Considerations and Data Management

• Ethical approval was obtained through the University of Bath.
• All participants were provided with information on the project and gave informed verbal consent.

Analytical Use

Insights from the stakeholder meeting notes were synthesised alongside the literature review and workshop outputs. They fed directly into the PESTLE analysis, helping to identify areas for policy development, clarify governance issues, and shape recommendations across the political, economic, social, technological, legal, and environmental dimensions.

Semi-structured meeting protocol

The following questions guided the meetings:

1. Understanding their role and work  

• Can you tell me about your current role and your team’s focus within the Scottish Government?  
• Does your work intersect with diet policy in Scotland, and what are the key objectives your team is working towards in this area?  

2. Stakeholder relationships and collaboration  

• Who are the key stakeholders you collaborate with (e.g., other government departments, industry, civil society)? 
•  Are there any stakeholders or groups whose influence or involvement you feel is missing or underrepresented in this policy area?  
• How would you describe the strength of your collaboration with other key stakeholders? Are there any gaps or challenges in communication or partnership?  

3. Policy levers for diet change  

• What policy levers do you believe are most effective for promoting dietary changes that would both improve public health and reduce environmental impact? 
• In your view, are there particular dietary behaviours or food systems that should be prioritised for change in order to meet Scotland’s climate and health goals?  
• What challenges do you see in implementing these policies, either from a political, social, or logistical standpoint?  

4. Identifying gaps in existing policy  

• Do you think there are any gaps in current diet-related policies that hinder progress towards climate goals or healthier diets?  
• Are there areas where more integration or alignment between climate and health policies could be beneficial?  
• Where do you see the biggest opportunities for new or improved policies in this space?  

5. Future policy directions and needs  

• What emerging trends or issues do you think will have the biggest influence on future diet, and climate or health policy in Scotland?  
• In what ways do you think Scottish diet policy could evolve to address both climate change and public health more effectively? 

Meeting participants

The following table summarises details of meeting participants

Appendix F: Stakeholder workshop protocols 

Workshop Purpose

The workshops aimed to explore stakeholder perspectives on Scotland’s diet and climate policy landscape, identify priority issues and gaps, and generate ideas for practical cross-sector solutions. These sessions supported the development of policy-relevant insights through collaborative, activity-based engagement. Stakeholders were identified based on the mapping exercise and consultations with Scottish Government colleagues to identify a range of interests and influence (including Government, third sector organisations, academics, agriculture and food producers, health, community, and environmental groups).

Workshop Formats

Three stakeholder workshops were delivered:

• One in-person workshop (full protocol detailed below)
• Two online workshops, which followed a shortened format with similar core activities

In-Person Workshop Structure and Schedule

Online Workshop Structure and Schedule^[11]

Participant Recruitment
Stakeholders were purposively recruited based on a preceding stakeholder mapping exercise. This mapping exercise identified relevant individuals and organisations across key sectors including Scottish Government, public health, agriculture, environment, food industry, third sector, and academia. The rationale for recruitment was guided by the segmentation of stakeholders within the mapping process, ensuring representation across high-interest and high-influence categories, as well as those with complementary or contrasting perspectives. All workshops included a cross-sector mix to support inclusive dialogue and the development of well-rounded policy insights.

Facilitation and Materials
Workshops were facilitated by a research team using a structured agenda and visual/interactive materials. In-person materials included A0 wall charts, colour-coded sticky notes, printed worksheets, and feedback forms. Online workshops used virtual whiteboards, editable templates, and polling tools to replicate similar participatory methods in a digital environment.

Core Activities (all formats)

• Activity 1: Priority Mapping
  Stakeholders identified sector-specific priorities, areas for policy development, and coordination needs using a structured mapping exercise. These inputs were categorised visually (in-person) or on a shared document (online) and discussed in plenary.
• Activity 2: Policy Challenge Brainstorm
  Mixed-sector groups tackled pre-defined policy challenges (e.g., reducing meat consumption, supporting farmers, addressing inequalities). Each group identified key barriers and proposed short-term policy solutions, then shared findings with the wider group.
• Activity 3: Prioritisation and Feedback
  Stakeholders reviewed the workshop’s emerging priorities and selected the most important using voting dots (in-person) or virtual polling (online). This was followed by group discussion and final reflections.

Additional In-Person Activity

• Future Diet Scenarios
  Small groups considered hypothetical future policy scenarios for 2040 (e.g., localisation of food systems, technological innovation, policy-led dietary shifts). Discussions explored sector-specific impacts, challenges, opportunities, and future policy needs.

Data Collection and Follow-Up

Participant contributions were captured via workshop artefacts (e.g., sticky notes, templates, whiteboards), discussion summaries, and anonymised feedback forms. An optional follow-up survey was distributed by email. Thematic analysis of all outputs informed policy insights and recommendations.

To support co-production and refine the emerging findings, we incorporated iteration loops for feedback. Formative workshop outputs were shared with participants and relevant stakeholders following the sessions, and feedback was actively invited to validate interpretations, identify omissions, and strengthen final conclusions.

Participating stakeholders

Appendix G: Extended Political analysis: Areas for further policy development and supporting evidence