Research completed September 2024

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7488/era/6005

Executive summary

Aims

This evidence review addresses: (1) the climate change risks to mental health and wellbeing internationally and in Scotland, (2) the nature and prevalence of eco-distress in Scotland, (3) interventions for mental health and wellbeing in a climate change context from international literature, and (4) the evidence of co-benefits for mental health and wellbeing from climate action.

We undertook the review between February and July 2024 largely drawing on peer-reviewed studies and, where relevant, government strategy documents, risk assessments and evaluations of interventions.

The Scottish National Adaptation Plan (2024-2029) sets out actions to build Scotland’s resilience to climate change, it notes that: ‘Climate change means that Scotland will be wetter in winters, drier in summers, sea level rise will continue, and our weather will become more variable and unpredictable. Extremes will be more common.’ This review explores the possible effects of these changes on mental health and wellbeing in Scotland.

Findings

Climate-related risks and impacts to mental health

We found an increasing quantity of evidence that climate change can have substantial effects on mental health and wellbeing. The review found limited primary evidence of the impact of climate change on mental health and wellbeing for Scotland specifically, so these findings reflect the international evidence relevant to a Scottish context.

• These effects are the result of key climate change-related hazards: acute weather events such as floods; sub-acute weather events such as longer periods of high temperature; or chronic climate changes, such as sea-level rise.
• Each hazard can lead to negative mental health outcomes through direct pathways (injury, traumatisation, property loss) and indirect pathways (on livelihoods and social networks). There is also increasing evidence that awareness of climate change can affect mental health and wellbeing.
• Internationally, the reported mental health and wellbeing effects of climate change can include heightened risk of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), suicide, depression, anxiety and overall poorer mental wellbeing. This varies in type and severity depending on the nature of the hazards.
• Climate change amplifies existing mental health risks, affecting already vulnerable groups more. It presents particular challenges for coastal and island communities, and workers in agriculture and fisheries.

Definition and prevalence of ‘eco-distress’

Eco-distress (including eco-anxiety) is a psychosocial response to the awareness of climate change. While eco-distress currently lacks a consistent definition in published literature, common themes are (a) its future-oriented nature, (b) association with feelings of uncertainty and being overwhelmed, and (c) its rationality as a response to an existential threat.

• Early evidence indicates that distress about climate change is widespread. As many as 70 percent of people in Scotland worry about climate change, with 25 percent reporting it affects their mental wellbeing.
• Eco-distress appears to be more prevalent among young people, those with pre-existing mental health conditions and members of marginalised groups.

Evidence on effective intervention on mental health and wellbeing risks of climate change

The current evidence base for interventions in this field is limited, with few evaluated studies conducted in Scotland. The evidence reviewed in this study comes from a range of international studies and data sources.

Evaluated interventions predominantly focused on building psychological resilience, social connections, nature connection, building capacity of communities and encouraging climate action.

Evaluated interventions measured a wide range of outcomes including improved wellbeing, improved ability to cope and relief from psychological disorders.

Evidence of co-benefits and risks for mental health and wellbeing from climate action

Climate action can lead to improved mental health and wellbeing through addressing some of the social determinants of mental health such as financial security and quality housing. Key areas for action include energy efficiency measures, which can improve financial security and general physical health, active transport measures, which can improve mental health through increased physical activity and greater social participation, and nature-based climate solutions, which can improve mental health and wellbeing through increased physical activity, nature connection and a greater sense of community.

Lessons for policy in Scotland

Our review suggests that action to address the mental health and wellbeing impacts of climate change should focus on lessening the frequency and severity of hazards and managing the severity of their impacts. In general, responses should consider reducing exposure and vulnerability to hazards through adaptation and mitigation, increasing access to resources and support to recover from climate related hazards, and targeting support at the most vulnerable groups.

To reduce eco-distress, the findings support government taking visible action in relation to adaptation and mitigation that is clearly communicated to the public and that seeks to harness public concern about climate change to support climate action.

Finally, monitoring the prevalence and distribution of climate-related mental health and wellbeing effects and evaluating interventions and adaptations to address these, could help better understand the level of need and what best can be done to address this.

Glossary

Introduction

Context for the study 

Scotland’s climate is already changing. It has become warmer and wetter over the last two decades with changes projected to intensify in the coming years (UK Climate Risk, 2021). As the Scottish National Adaptation Plan 2024-2029 states (Scottish Government, 2004): “Climate change means that Scotland will be wetter in winters, drier in summers, sea level rise will continue, and our weather will become more variable and unpredictable. Extremes will be more common”.

While there is a substantial body of scientific literature on the damaging effects of climate change on physical health (e.g., Costello et al. 2009; Rocque et al. 2021), the mental health and wellbeing effects of climate change remain comparatively under-explored. This is despite the growing recognition that climate change can have a significant impact on mental health and wellbeing (Vigo et al, 2016). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) have both highlighted the risks climate change presents for mental health and wellbeing and have called for greater understanding of these issues and the evidence around the impact of mitigation and adaptation strategies on mental health and wellbeing (Vigo et al, 2016).

Scotland continues to develop a range of responses to the impacts of climate change, built around their national adaptation plan, Climate Ready Scotland 2019-2024, and its successor. This plan already acknowledges the mental health and wellbeing impacts of a changing climate in terms of the risks to the general population and how to support vulnerable groups, as well as the readiness of services to meet the emerging needs. Scotland’s Climate Change Plan 2018 – 2032, which sets out Scotland’s approach to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions and achieving its Net Zero goal, also emphasises the importance of supporting population wellbeing and health throughout the necessary transformations. These strategies are supported by Scotland’s Just Transition plan, which sets out a vision of how the transition to net zero and climate resilience can be done in a fair way that reduces existing health inequalities.

Research aims

Our research has been conducted to support the Scottish Government in developing its adaptation and mitigation plan for climate change. We have done this by reviewing the latest available evidence on how climate change affects mental health and wellbeing, which groups are particularly vulnerable to these effects, and what steps can be taken to mitigate and protect against the worst impacts. Specifically, we answer four research questions:

1. What is the evidence of climate related risks and impacts to mental health and wellbeing in Scotland, and how these might differentially affect population groups?
2. How is ‘eco-distress’ (including ‘eco-anxiety’) currently defined, what is the current/potential prevalence in Scotland and how might this differentially affect population groups?
3. What is the evidence on effective prevention and early intervention, and on responding to mental health and wellbeing risks and impacts in a climate change context in Scotland?
4. What is the evidence of co-benefits and risks, or unintended consequences, for mental health and wellbeing from climate action (both mitigation and adaptation) relevant in a Scottish context?

Methodology

This rapid evidence review (RER) was conducted between February and July 2024. A rapid evidence review is a type of systematic review which takes place over a relatively short period of time. Rapid reviews are accelerated by focused research questions, scope restrictions, and a narrower search strategy (Smela, 2023; Klerings et al., 2023). Given the research had four broad research questions and a limited time frame, our rapid review systematically focused on the most relevant literature with a narrow focus; for instance, secondary effects of climate change, such as climate migration, were not considered as within scope for this review. This allowed us to explore the research questions in depth, though with the limitation that some possible secondary or tertiary effects of climate change on mental health were not within scope.

This review was conducted in five stages: (1) key informant interviews; (2) refinement and agreement of research design; (3) scoping, collating, and assessment of a longlist of relevant literature as per the research questions in Appendix A; (4) collating and assessing our shortlist; and (5) synthesising the results and reporting on them. Appendix A gives a full overview of the methodology which is represented in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 Process of the Rapid Evidence Review

Research design

We began the review with a scoping stage which had two objectives: to agree the review procedures and to understand the scope of the research through key informant interviews. In total we undertook four interviews, with two policy staff and two academics. The purpose of these interviews was to understand the scope of literature, relevant national policies, contextual factors, and adaptation/mitigation interventions which were less likely to be identified in databases.

The review procedures were agreed during the scoping phase. These set out the longlisting, shortlisting and analysis processes for the study. For longlisting, this included data sources, search terms, procedures for entering items in extraction spreadsheet, inclusion/exclusion criteria and scoring of items added to the longlist. Whilst the methodology is presented in full in Appendix A, it is worth providing and overview of the principles of the review here to guide the reader. Our team of four researchers were assigned to a research question each. The researchers undertook their reviews in parallel with frequent team meetings. Each researcher used search terms which differed according to the research question. We used four different sources for the search terms: academic search engines, generic search engines for grey literature, Scottish and other government websites, and references of relevant documents including documents referred to by experts. Each relevant item found was input to a shared database, and each item was checked for quality assurance purposes by at least one other researcher. Reviewers also noted which research questions the item was relevant to, since many covered multiple questions.

In terms of the criteria for inclusion, as a Rapid Evidence Review, items were only included if they directly addressed both climate change and mental health/wellbeing. Items were excluded from the long list if they did not fulfil this criterion. Items were scored out of ten on the criteria shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1 Scoring criteria for the evidence review

The longlisting process resulted in 267 items being scored and considered for further analysis. Most items were recent, with 87 percent of items written since 2015. 45 percent of the items were either a systematic or a scoping review. The majority of studies were not Scotland specific, with only 34 items (13 percent) concerning Scotland directly. Items were scored 0-10 according to these criteria and, in total, 55 items scored 7 or above.

Following the scoring process, each researcher filtered the longlist for studies that related to their specific research question and then selected the most relevant items for their purposes. This process led to a total shortlist of 72 items for Research Questions for 1,2 and 4, which can be seen in Appendix C. The unit of analysis for Research Question 3 differed from the rest of the study, being concerned with interventions (programmes, policies, and practices) that have been delivered to support mental health/wellbeing in the context of climate change. Literature from the longlist was extracted to identify relevant interventions, resulting in a list of 60 interventions relevant to Research Question 3, which can be viewed in Appendix D.

In the analysis phase, we conducted a shortlist analysis for each research question. We scanned each item in the shortlist manually, and iteratively developed a classification framework and coding constructs to ensure that each finding was directly derived from the literature and traceable. This helped us to develop themes for each domain to understanding relationship between themes for each research question. Our classification frame and set of constructs were added to and modified as new material came to light. Following synthesis and reporting, the report underwent a series of feedback and revision cycles, to address concerns from multiple stakeholder groups.

Describing the field 

Defining mental health and wellbeing 

In answering the research questions, we have adopted a broad definition of mental health and wellbeing, encompassing a range of concepts, including ‘mental health’, ‘mental wellbeing’, ‘mental disorder,’ and ‘mental illness.’

In its broadest sense, mental health refers to an aspect of overall health that includes our emotional, psychological, and social wellbeing. It describes how we think, feel, and act, how we cope with challenging situations, how we relate to others, and how we generally function in our lives. Good mental health and wellbeing is understood to be more than simply the absence of mental illness. Good mental health is a positive psychological state of functioning well in the world (WHO, 2022b).

We drew on the current Scottish Government definitions as set out in the 2023 Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy (Scottish Government, 2023). These suggest: 

• Mental health is a part of our overall health, alongside our physical health. It is what we experience every day, and like physical health, it ebbs and flows daily. Good mental health means we can realise our full potential and feel safe and secure. It also means we thrive in everyday life. 
• Mental wellbeing is our internal positive view that we are coping well psychologically with the everyday stresses of life and can work productively and fruitfully. We feel happy and live our lives the way we choose. 
• Mental illness is a health condition that affects emotions, thinking and behaviour. Mental illness substantially interferes with or limits our life. If left untreated, mental illnesses can impact daily living, including our ability to work, care for family, and relate and interact with others (WHO, 2022a).^[1]

The impact of climate change on mental health and wellbeing can be seen in several ways: the overall population may have poorer mental health and wellbeing, those with existing mental health conditions may deteriorate, or more people may develop mental illnesses. We have found variation in the literature we reviewed, both in terms of the focus of different studies and the terminology they used to describe mental health. Some studies focused on the impact of climate change on clinical diagnosis such as Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) or PTSD. Others described effects on this wider conception of mental health and wellbeing that encompasses general life satisfaction, and social and emotional functioning. Where we draw on evidence from studies focused on a specific or narrow aspect of mental health, we state this in the text.

Wider determinants of mental health 

An individual’s mental health is shaped by a wide variety of contextual factors. These are often referred to as the ‘social’ or ‘wider determinants’ of mental health (Allen et al, 2014). These are defined as:

“…the set of structural conditions to which people are exposed across the life course, from conception to death, which affect individual mental health outcomes, and contribute to mental health disparities within and between populations.” (Kirkbride at al., 2024)

These determinants operate at individual, social, and societal levels. This includes an individual’s social relationships and networks, their living conditions, income, education, employment status, as well as wider factors such their exposure to inequality or discrimination. These wider determinants can act as risks or protective factors in relation to mental health. For example, mental health is protected by secure housing, stable employment, and supportive social networks. Mental health is put at risk by poverty, unemployment, social isolation, and exposure to trauma. We acknowledge the wider determinants of mental health to help explain why some groups within society are at greater risk of poor mental health than others (WHO and Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, 2014.). This report explores these determinants in the context of climate change. 

Climate change related hazards 

When describing the mental health impacts of climate change, the scientific literature tends to distinguish between different types of climate change related hazards. These are the impacts of climate change that people are most likely to encounter and therefore are most likely to have an impact on their mental health. Major reviews in this field (Charlson et al, 2021; Hayes et al. 2018; Manning and Clayton, 2018; Cianconi et al, 2020) demonstrate a high level of consensus on the classification of these phenomena, dividing them into three categories based on their duration in time:

1. ‘Acute’ (or ‘extreme’) weather events such as floods, wildfires, storms, and hurricanes (lasting days or weeks)
2. Sub-acute weather events, including droughts and long-periods of high temperatures (lasting months or years)
3. ‘Chronic’ climate changes such as loss of habitat and biodiversity, sea-level rises, coastal erosion, and permanently higher temperatures (lasting centuries)

Major climate related hazards in Scotland

Of these hazards, the third UK Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA3) highlights flooding, overheating, and coastal change as the most severe climate risks for Scotland. Increased winter rainfall and heavy rainfall events make flooding a major threat, impacting communities and infrastructure, with vulnerable populations at greater risk (UK Climate Risk, 2021). High temperatures pose risks to health and wellbeing due to overheating which are known to disproportionately affect vulnerable groups such as care home residents (UK Climate Risk, 2021). Loss of and change to coastal areas due to rising sea levels threatens 19 percent of Scotland’s coastline within 30 years, posing significant risk to coastal communities and essential infrastructure.

Defining causal pathways between climate change on mental health and wellbeing 

Several evidence reviews in this field highlight that the relationship between climate hazards and mental health and wellbeing outcomes is complex and multi-faceted. These reviews found many pathways through which each hazard disrupts the conditions that support good mental health and wellbeing (Lawrance et al, 2020). These effects occur by disrupting the conditions for positive physical health, for positive social relationships, and for economic and political security.

Most major reviews adopt and build on the conceptual framework for these pathways. This framework, first proposed by Berry, Bowen, and Kjellstrom (2008) and Fritze et al. (2008) aimed to differentiate the causal relationships into ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ effects of climate events through disruption to the determinants of mental health. Subsequent reviews argue for the inclusion of a third pathway that is understood to result from psycho-social and emotional response to climate change awareness rather than experience of events. This third pathway has latterly been described as ‘overarching’ (Hayes et al. 2018) and is commonly described as ‘climate’ or ‘eco-distress’.

More recently, some authors have also argued for the direct/indirect frame to be understood as a continuum, ranging from more direct to more indirect (Lawrance et al. 2022). An explanatory figure for the direct-indirect continuum is provided in Appendix B. For this report, the causal relationship between climate change and mental health includes:

1. Direct causal pathways:

• via traumatic events (such as risk to life, injury, or witnessing injury)
• loss of or damage to property
• via physical health such as the effects of high temperature

1. Indirect causal pathways:

• via effects on food supply and diet, increased risk or spread of infectious diseases
• via community wellbeing (such as effects on livelihoods, economic and social functioning, service disruption, poverty, isolation, bereavement, and displacement)

1. Overarching psycho-social response to climate change awareness (climate or eco- distress):

• A type of indirect pathway related to how people respond psychologically and emotionally to the fact of climate change and news/information about its effects

While conceptualising causal pathways in this way is helpful to demonstrate the full range of possible mental health effects of climate change. In real world scenarios, single events may have both direct and indirect effects on mental health as well as increased eco-distress over time. For example, a flood can cause injury and trauma immediately and lead to longer term economic disruption to local businesses, and increased anxiety about climate change more generally for those caught up in the events.

Given the wide range of factors that influence mental health, and the range of pathways through which climate change interacts with these, many authors stress that the effects of climate change are not distributed equally across populations. Certain groups are especially vulnerable to its mental health impacts. They describe climate change variously as an ‘exacerbator’ (Berry et al, 2010) ‘amplifier’, or ‘multiplier’ (Lawrance et al. 2022) of risk. This means that climate change related hazards interact with existing vulnerabilities to poor mental health such as deprivation, marginalisation, poor health, or existing mental health problems to create greater negative effects for some groups.

Report structure

The report is structured in line with the research questions. Chapter 4 addresses both Research Questions 1 and 2 as these both focus on the impact on climate change on mental health, its prevalence in Scotland, and an analysis of vulnerable populations. Chapter 5 addresses Research Question 3 with an analysis of available evidence on effective measures to mitigate negative mental health outcomes. Chapter 6 addresses Research Question 4 about the co-benefits and unintended mental health effects of climate action more generally. Chapter 7 contains the conclusion of our review including a section on policy implications.

Limitations of the study

We drew on aspects of systematic review methodology in the identification and appraisal of relevant evidence. However, given the breadth of the research questions, the quantity of potentially relevant evidence, and the time available to conduct the review, this paper is not a systematic review. We therefore acknowledge the risk that some key evidence on these topics may have been missed by our search and appraisal procedures.

This report is based predominantly on UK and international literature (rather than being specific to Scotland) that draws its findings from the study of climate change and mental health in different countries and geographies around the world. Inevitably, some of these studies are more relevant than others to a Scottish context. Through our appraisal process we have sought to identify evidence from settings that share similar features to Scotland, in terms of climate, populations demographics, and social and political context, for example particularly drawing on studies based in the UK and Northern Europe. However, it remains a possibility that research evidence quoted in the report from other regions is not fully applicable to Scotland. The literature reviewed is provided in Chapter 12: References.

The researchers note that in the international literature reviewed, the terms such as mental health, mental illness, wellbeing are defined in different ways, with occasional conflation of clinical mental illness and negative impacts on wellbeing. Where possible we refer to the definitions set out in the Scottish Government Mental Health Wellbeing strategy but urge the reader to proceed on the basis of a broader understanding of the range of concepts as set out in 3.4.1.

Climate related risks and impacts to mental health and wellbeing

Summary of findings from Chapter 4

This chapter addresses two research questions:

1. What is the evidence of climate related risks and impacts to mental health and wellbeing in Scotland, and how these might differentially affect population groups?
2. How is ‘eco-distress’ (including ‘eco-anxiety’) currently defined, what is the current/potential prevalence in Scotland and how might this differentially affect population groups? 

Evidence of climate-related risks and impacts to mental health:

We found strong evidence that links climate change to increased mental health risks. Scotland specific studies focus on the impacts of flooding.

• Scotland’s main climate change-related hazards are flooding, higher temperatures, and coastal changes due to sea-level rises.
• Each of these hazards can lead to various negative mental health outcomes. These can happen through direct pathways (injury, traumatisation, property loss) and indirect pathways (impacts diet, livelihoods, social networks, or displacement).
• The negative effects on mental health have a wide range in their severity depending on the nature of the hazard and the degree of disruption caused.
• Vulnerable groups are disproportionately affected by these effects. These include older people, children, women, ethnic minorities, individuals with low-income, those with pre-existing conditions, coastal and island communities, and workers in agriculture and fisheries.

Definition and prevalence of ‘eco-distress’:

Eco-distress (including eco-anxiety) is a psychosocial response to the awareness of climate change.

• There is currently no consistent definition for eco-distress in published literature. We found definitions ranged from any distressing psychological response to climate change, to a narrow focus on specific severe responses.
• Common themes in eco-distress are (a) its future-oriented nature, (b) association with feelings of uncertainty and being overwhelmed, and (c) its rationality as a response to an existential threat. Eco-distress can lead to positive, pro-environmental behaviours.
• Early evidence indicates that distress about climate change is widespread. As many as 70 percent of Scottish people worry about climate change, with 25 percent reporting it affects their mental wellbeing.
• Eco-distress is associated with certain sub-groups, including youth, people with pre-existing mental health conditions, and being a member of a marginalised group.

Introduction

In this chapter we present the available evidence on links between climate change and mental health. We divide this into two parts: Section 4.2 and 4.3 address Research Question 1 and describe the current evidence about ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ impacts of climate change related hazards on mental health. Section 4.5 addresses Research Question 2 and focuses on the nature of psycho-social responses to an awareness of climate change, what is often described as ‘climate anxiety, ‘climate distress’, or ‘eco-emotions.’ Here we outline the current state of research in relation to these emerging concepts, their definitions, their measurement, and research gaps.

Methodology

We undertook content analysis of the material related to Research Questions 1 and 2 through the ‘inspection’ method. We read the material manually to create a classification framework that logged each item by name, source, and summary of the content. Each item was then analysed across three dimensions: themes, constructs, and codes. We highlighted evidence particularly relevant to Scotland, research examining Scottish or UK populations; relating to common climate change hazards in Scotland (e.g., flooding); or from similar climatic, geographical, or social/governmental contexts.

Our searches in relation to Research Questions 1 and 2 revealed a high number of primary research outputs accompanied by a growing amount of literature and evidence reviews that summarise the overall state of the field. We focused our analysis on the most recent and most highly cited literature and evidence reviews, supplementing review findings with reference to original studies or additional evidence where useful.

The reader should note that the evidence identified for this section is drawn from international and UK literature and therefore caution should be taken in applying directly the lessons from other geographies to a Scottish context. To aid with this we have marked throughout the section where evidence in international or Scottish/ UK based.

Direct effects of climate change on mental health

We found strong evidence^[2] of the direct effects of climate change impacts on mental health outcomes drawn from research conducted around the world. These occurred through the increased likelihood of experiencing traumatic events as the result of extreme weather events, or through the direct physiological effects of increased higher temperatures.

As we described in Section 3.4.5, some climate events, including flooding, have both direct and indirect mental health effects (i.e., can cause both injury and loss of property in the short run and impact livelihoods or social networks in the longer-term). The types of events examined in this section are those identified in the literature as causing, as a first step, direct mental health impacts, though in most cases they will have both direct and indirect effects.

Flooding

Flooding is the most common extreme weather event globally, accounting for 47 percent of all weather-related disasters (CRED, 2015; CRED, 2019).

Scottish context

A recent comprehensive review of climate risks in Scotland states that flooding is among the most severe risks (UK Climate Risk, 2021). Winters have been 19 percent wetter in the last decade (2010-2019) compared to 1961-1990 with a rising proportion of rainfall coming from heavy rainfall events (UK Climate Risk, 2021). Flooding poses a risk to people, communities, buildings, infrastructure, and businesses. In the coming decades, flooding in Scotland is likely to be more frequent and more severe (UK Climate Risk, 2021). It is also likely to affect food availability, affect agriculture and food production, cause damage to cultural heritage assets, and impact ecosystems. A study on the public awareness of climate risks in Scotland showed that flooding was also seen as one of the most urgent weather-related problems. In a nationally representative survey of the Scottish public, 51 percent of respondents indicated that flooding is already a serious problem (Millar et al, 2022). We know from the CCRA3 (UK Climate Risk, 2021) that those living in the Glasgow City Region, coastal areas, and rural communities are most likely to be at flood disadvantage. This is the result of a combination of flood risk due to where people live and wider social vulnerabilities.

We found that flooding in the UK has been extensively studied over the last 10 years providing high quality, relevant evidence for a Scottish context. A narrative review and meta-analysis of the effects of flooding in the UK found that flood victims show higher levels of common mental health problems compared with the wider public, displaying higher rates of PTSD and anxiety disorders (Cruz et al, 2020). The meta-analysis found flood victims were up to four times as likely to report long-term mental health problems, including PTSD, and anxiety, compared to the general population. We do not know what the mental health status of individuals was prior to the flooding event or that of other individuals living in a similar area but not exposed to flooding.

Flood victims also reported relationship difficulties, and sadness around ‘a loss of a sense of place and security’ after loss of or damage to possessions (Cruz et al, 2020). These issues often persisted in the long-term (sometimes years after the floods) with flood victims more likely to report anxiety during heavy rain, which was associated with heightened stress, poor sleep, panic attacks, mood swings and increased use of alcohol or prescription drugs. Physical health problems linked with the flooding (such as waterborne diseases) were also associated with psychological distress (Cruz et al, 2020).

A study in Scotland on the floods in Ballater and Garioch in 2016-17 (Margaret, Philip, and Dowds, 2020) supported these findings. This study used a validated measure of wellbeing (Short Warwick and Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale) at two time points to track the wellbeing of those affected by flooding in combination with interviews. This found that those whose homes had been flooded had significantly lower mental wellbeing immediately after the floods than those from the same areas whose homes had not been. While both groups’ wellbeing improved as time went on, those whose homes had been flooded continued to lag at the 18-month follow-up. In this follow-up, the findings showed that that the communities of Ballater and Garioch were still grappling with emotional repercussions following the floods. Residents, even those whose homes were not flooded, continue to experience high levels of anxiety, particularly triggered by rain and flood warnings. Interviewees reported sleep disturbances, increased stress, and worsened health conditions. The stress of dealing with insurance claims, home renovations, and financial burdens compounded these impacts. These findings highlight the long-lasting negative impact of flooding on mental wellbeing.

Vulnerable groups – UK context

We found that several factors worsened the mental health impacts of flooding. These included: the flood water depth; lack of flood warning; repeat flooding; evacuation and/or temporary rehousing, and disruption to domestic utilities. Each of these factors led to higher rates of anxiety, depression, and PTSD. As well as this, issues with home or property insurance were associated with greater stress levels and difficulties recovering from the flood, either from being uninsured or facing difficulties claiming insurance. The review also noted that when little support arrived from relevant authorities, this also led to poor mental health outcomes (Cruz et al, 2020).

In keeping with the factors above, the meta-study found that the severity and duration of the mental health impact of flooding varied between different groups of people (Cruz et al, 2020). This depended on their susceptibility to harm, their (in)ability to prepare, respond, and recover, and their access to resources, services, and support. Women’s mental health was affected more severely than that of men, people under 65 years old experienced greater psychological distress than those over 65, and those from higher income groups reported lower levels of poor mental health in the long run than those from lower income groups. The CCRA3 also highlights the particular risk to those with mobility difficulties, and black and Asian people (UK Climate Risk, 2021).

Temperature – International

In their recent review of evidence quality and gaps, Charlson et al (2021), found that temperature was the most studied climate-change related hazard in international literature, identifying 27 original studies of the relationship between temperature and mental health. These studies focused on hazards of extreme heat (heatwaves) and longer-term increases in ambient temperature. Both higher ambient temperatures and extreme temperatures have been found to impact mental health and wellbeing negatively, showing associations to poorer mental health in the general population (Charlson et al. 2021). These effects occur through physiological impacts, such as overheating and dehydration, leading to cognitive changes, heat stress, sleep disruption, and worsening cardiovascular disease and pre-existing conditions (Berry et al, 2010). This international study also found that rising temperatures can be associated with a general increase in aggression. A recent analysis found “increasing evidence that is suggestive of a relationship between temperature and violence at the population level” which sees increases in the frequency of both interpersonal violence and intergroup conflict as temperature exceeds local seasonal norms (Mahendran et al, 2021). Increased temperatures may also reduce people’s capacity to undertake manual tasks and increase the risk of accidents. This can result in injury or loss of income which both have negative mental health impacts (Berry et al, 2010).

International evidence also suggests that increased ambient temperatures are associated with increased death by suicide. Several recent meta-analyses concluded that each 1°C increase in temperature (above local norms) was significantly associated with a between 1-1.7 percent increase in the incidence of suicide with those living in tropical or temperate zones more vulnerable (Gao et al, 2019; Thompson, et al, 2023)_. However, caution in interpreting these findings is urged due to the finding that this link was not always linear, varied between countries, and was influenced by factors such as humidity and sunlight (Ngu et al. 2021). Heatwaves have been found to be associated with increased hospital admissions for mental illness. In Thompson et al.’s (2023) meta-analysis, heatwaves (defined as temperatures of at least 35°C lasting for at least 3 days) were correlated with a 9·7 percent increase in hospital attendance for mental illness when compared with periods of non-heatwave in three studies in Australia and Vietnam.

Scottish context

Historically, overheating and rising temperatures have not been perceived to be major threats in Scotland. Ready.scot, informed by the Met Office, defines a heatwave in Scotland as a period of at least three consecutive days in a location with maximum temperatures above 25°C. However, a recent paper on heat-health management in Scotland, argued that while Scotland has historically had low average temperatures, climate change driven increases in temperature still present challenges for the physical and mental health of the nation. The paper noted that Scotland’s low average temperature present “socio-cultural barriers to intervention” including a “perceived lack of heat-health risks and policy priority, as well as unsuitable building stock” (Wan et al, 2023). Indeed, some studies on effects of temperature have used a relative measure of extreme heat that considers the regional temperature norms. For example, heatwaves can be defined as a minimum daily temperature in that exceeds the 99th percentile for the region (Chambers, 2020) meaning that in colder countries a lower temperature may still be considered extreme.

As the CCRA3 demonstrates, along with flooding, rising temperatures are one of the most severe climate change risks for Scotland now and in the future. The ten warmest years on record have all occurred since 1997, with annual temperatures expected to rise by 1.1°C by the 2050s, leading to an increase in average ambient temperature and greater frequency and severity of extreme heatwave events nationally (UK Climate Risk, 2021)..Despite this trend, there is limited evidence of the effects of increased ambient temperature and heatwaves on population mental health in Scotland or in the wider UK. However, as part of the above international study on suicide and temperature, Kim et al (2019) investigated UK records between 1990-2011. They found a near linear increase in suicide rates associated with increases in ambient temperature with the highest risk of suicide recorded when temperature reach the 99^th percentile of national norms (Kim et al, 2019). In relation to the effects of heatwaves, a 2018 review of the effects of extreme weather on mental health in the UK identified only one paper specifically addressing heatwaves and was therefore unable to draw comprehensive conclusions.

Vulnerability – UK and international

High temperatures are likely to have an effect on health and social outcomes (UK Climate Risk, 2021). The evidence reviewed for this paper found that the groups most affected by heat are those with ‘impaired thermoregulation’ and those unable to access cooler spaces, such as people in care homes, hospitals, and prisons. This group includes the elderly and those with substance abuse problems, and particularly those with pre-existing mental health problems on certain prescription medications (including hypnotics, anxiolytics, and antipsychotics) that can affect the bodies ability to regulate temperature (Hayes et al, 2018; Liu et al, 2021). Higher temperatures have been found to be associated with worsened mental health for people with existing mental health issues. International studies have shown that, during heatwaves, hospital admissions increase for mental health conditions such as schizophrenia, dementia, mania, so-called ‘neurotic disorders’, and substance misuse (Hayes et al, 2018). Internationally, heatwaves have also been shown to significantly increase mortality risk for individuals with mental illnesses which again appears to be partly due to medications impairing the body’s temperature regulation (Lawrance et al. 2022).

Relevant reviews have concluded that there is limited evidence of the impact on increased temperature and heatwaves on more common mental health issues such as depression and anxiety and have encouraged further investigation (Thompson et al, 2018). The other groups most affected include people of colour, members of deprived and marginalised communities, those living in insecure housing, people experiencing homelessness, and prisoners owing to reduced access to air conditioning, tree cover or green spaces (Lawrance et al, 2022; UK Climate Risk, 2021).

Wildfire – International

In its three-year strategy, the Scottish Wildfire Forum stated that it anticipates a growth in the number and intensity of wildfires year by year (Scottish Wildfire Forum, 2021). While there was no research evidence of the wildfires’ effects in Scotland we found international evidence that wildfires can negatively affect mental health through several pathways. They negatively impact physical health, particularly through prolonged smoke inhalation, which can lead to respiratory problems. This can affect mental health and wellbeing as poorer physical health is known to be strongly associated with poorer mental health (Ohrnberger et al, 2017). Wildfires also disrupt social and community functioning through displacement and evacuation. Wildfires can directly affect psychological health by causing traumatic events, feelings of fear, stress, and anxiety, all of which contribute to severe, long-term negative impacts on mental health (Charlson et al. 2021). For example, a six-month follow-up after a particularly severe wildfire in Canada found those affected had an almost eight times higher rate of Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD) than the general population (Agyapong, et al. 2018). These effects are compounded by increased periods of time spent indoors due to smoke, and general disruptions to lives and livelihoods, with a negative impact on earnings associated with greater psychological distress (Agyapong et al, 2018). Caution should be taken in applying these findings directly to Scotland given the magnitude of wildfire events in Canada are much greater than in Scotland.

Indirect effects on mental health

We found that over the past two decades there have been substantial developments in the conceptualisation and evidence of the indirect impacts of climate change on mental health internationally. However, these pathways are still less well understood than the direct effects. This is due to the increasing complexity of the causal pathways in this category. Indirect pathways involve a larger number of steps between cause and effect. Some evidence reviews, when addressing this topic, describe ‘potential’ or ‘likely’ mental health effects of climate change, drawing on illustrative research evidence to build a picture of how these effects operate. For example, Lawrance et al (2022) propose a model whereby climate change is understood to have a destabilising effect on political, governmental, and cultural domains of society. This destabilisation causes ‘cascading effects,’ disrupting living and working conditions, community networks, physical health, and inequalities (Lawrance et al, 2022).

Drought – International

We found no direct evidence of the impacts of drought on mental health in Scotland or the UK. However, drought has been extensively studied in Australia. The key finding from these studies is that drought affects mental health through a range of pathways. By affecting both food and water supplies, it is associated with higher levels of psychological distress in rural communities, with urban areas less affected. Drought is particularly associated with negative mental health effects on farmers due to their reliance on the land for their livelihoods. The economic consequences of land degradation, crop loss, and reduced yield result in high levels of stress and potential increase in risk of suicide among farmers (Hayes et al. 2018). Factors exacerbating psychological distress associated with drought include unemployment and prior exposure to adverse life events. Conversely, negative mental health effects are reduced by factors such as financial security, access to social support (Charlson et al. 2021).

Scottish context

While we cannot directly transfer the findings from an Australian context to a Scottish one given the different geographies, the likely economic and social disruption of increased droughts in Scotland can be predicted to impact the mental health and wellbeing of communities dependant on the land for work. A recent NatureScot analysis projects extreme droughts will become more frequent and prolonged across Scotland in the coming years, increasing from an average of one event every 20 years (in the period 1981-2001) to one every three years by 2021-2040, with typical events each lasting 2-3 months longer (Baird et al, 2021). The authors anticipate the greatest increases in the eastern regions, including the Borders, Grampian, Caithness, Orkney, and Shetland. These areas are home to substantial economic activity vulnerable to drought, including the whisky industry in Speyside, extensive areas of agriculture and forestry and a rural population dependant on wells as water sources (Kirkpatrick et al, 2021).

Biodiversity – International

Climate change is an ongoing driver of biodiversity loss, which is expected to negatively affect mental health (Lawrance et al. 2022). This impacts population groups that depend on biodiversity for their livelihood, such as agricultural workers that rely on the pollination of insects (Vasiliev and Greenwood, 2021) and those who work in fisheries. For example, the North Sea has experienced significant decreases in the maximum sustainable yield of fish populations over the past 25 years, linked to warmer seas and reduced food availability (Pinnegar et al, 2020). Reductions in and uncertainty around yields from agriculture and fisheries can affect those working in these industries both by reducing income, increasing the likelihood of unemployment, and raising stress and anxiety.

More broadly, nature connectedness and time spent in biodiverse environments are both strongly correlated with positive mental health (Lawrance et al. 2022). A key evidence review on the relationship between human health and wellbeing and nature and biodiversity found a number of psychological benefits of access to biodiverse settings, including reduced depression and anxiety, increased vitality, pro-social behaviour and life satisfaction (Sandifer et al, 2015). Therefore, through its negative effect on biodiversity, climate change is likely to have detrimental effect on those for whom contact with nature plays a protective role in their mental health (Sandifer et al, 2015). Conversely, where climate action increases or restores biodiversity there will be a likely positive effect on mental health and wellbeing (discussed in Chapter 6). Again, access to ‘high quality’ green space is not equally distributed, with especially deprived urban communities having less access.

Awareness of biodiversity loss both locally but also further afield, along with other visible climate change impacts such as floods, may also contribute to an experience of eco-distress by making climate change more salient to people. This pathway between the impacts of climate change and mental health and wellbeing is further explored in Section 4.5 of this chapter.

Air quality – International

Some international reviews on the impacts of climate change on mental health identify air quality as a pathway for climate change to affect mental health. Poor air quality has been found to be associated with increased instances of a range of mental health conditions such as anxiety, psychosis, and dementia as well as increased use of mental health services and rates of suicide. (Sandifier et al, 2015; Lawrance et al., 2022). This is thought to result both from the association between exposure to air pollution and wider socio-economic vulnerabilities and the effect pollutants have on brain function: as Lawrence et al. (2022) states “Air pollution, specifically particulate matter (PM), and nitrogen oxides (NOx), increase the risk of mental health problems, potentially via mechanisms of inflammation and neuronal injury”. While the main cause of poor air-quality is the burning of fossil fuels, which is a cause of climate change rather than a consequence of it, increasing global temperatures and wildfires (both climate-change related hazards) can degrade air quality and increase the presence of pollutants and particulate matter in the air (Sandifer et al, 2015, Cianconi et al, 2020).

Scottish context

The CCRA3 ranks poor air quality as a medium risk for health and wellbeing in Scotland. While it states that Scotland faces challenges with poor air quality, despite reductions in emissions and improved pollution control, it acknowledges that the contribution of climate change to these issues is hard to establish and therefore needs further investigation.

Displacement and migration – International

Extended periods of extreme heat, long-term droughts, excessive rain, and loss of coastal land are expected to lead to displacement of populations from their homes and land. Climate change can cause both temporary displacement through evacuations and permanent displacement through physical changes to the environment, such as soil no longer being viable for crops, or loss of coastal land. Estimates of the scale of displacement because of climate change vary widely, with the figure of 200 million people globally being displaced by 2050 most frequently cited (Hayes et al. 2018).

Both temporary and permanent displacement because of extreme weather has been shown to be associated with mental illnesses and poor mental health, including instances of PTSD, depression, anxiety, and stress. (Tunstall et al, 2006; Hayes et al. 2018; Berry et al., 2010).

Scottish context

In Scotland, the most likely cause of temporary displacement is flooding, however the most likely cause of permanent displacement is changes to and loss of coastal land. The CCRA3 states that one of the most severe risks is sea levels rising and the associated coastal change. Erosion, landslips, and permanent inundation threaten the long-term viability of coastal communities. It predicts that within the next 30 years, 19 percent of Scotland’s coastline is at risk of erosion, which has projected knock-on effects for transport, energy, water, and housing infrastructure, and a knock-on effect on livelihoods and community wellbeing (UK Climate Risk, 2021). Scotland is also renowned worldwide for its coast and coastal wildlife which contribute to national identity as well as tourism. Coastal change is likely to have a considerable impact on this, threatening the preservation of Scotland’s cultural heritage. Naturally, coastal communities are most at risk with Falkirk, West Dunbartonshire, Highland and Dumfries and Galloway expected to be most vulnerable to coastal flooding. Moreover, the study on public awareness showed that the increase in concern surrounding climate change was higher than average among respondents in the Highlands and Islands (62 percent). This could be attributed to vulnerability of island communities from extreme weather and coastal erosion (ClimateXChange, 2021).

Vulnerable groups

Climate change related hazards amplify existing risks for individuals and groups, and further compound existing social injustices and inequalities (McMichael, 2017). Watts et al. state that “by undermining the social and environmental determinants that underpin good health, climate change exacerbates social, economic, and demographic inequalities” (Watts et al, 2018). This means that some population groups are more vulnerable to the mental health effects of climate change than others. Some are more vulnerable in general to poor mental health and therefore to all climate related risks. Such groups include older people, children, women, ethnic minorities, people from deprived and marginalised communities, and people with pre-existing health conditions (Hayes et al, 2018). There are also groups that are vulnerable owing to the specific hazards they are exposed to, such as people living in areas subject to flooding; people who work in agriculture and fisheries; and outdoor labourers. In a Scottish context this also includes coastal and island communities who are more likely to face disruption to services and infrastructure due to extreme weather events and face a higher risk of displacement in the long run.

These risks are mediated by the ability of individuals and groups to protect against and recover from the harmful effects of climate change. This is largely determined by access to services, resources, and social support. Different groups have varying access to these resources, further compounding risks for the already vulnerable (Berry et al, 2010; Lawrance et al, 2022; Charlson et al, 2021).

The CCRA3 identifies flooding, high temperatures, air quality and coastal change as the four key climate hazards facing Scotland now and, in the future, (UK Climate Risk, 2021). A study on population groups vulnerable to climate change likewise identifies low-income groups; people with poor health; and people living areas with high levels of social and private rented housing, and people from Black ethnic groups as those most at risk (Sayers et al, 2023). While these reports focused on overall risks, rather than just risk to mental health and wellbeing, their findings align closely with the wider literature on mental health vulnerabilities.

Psycho-social responses to climate change

In addition to the causal pathways described in the previous sections, we found increasing evidence of a pathway which affects the general population’s mental health through awareness of the changing climate. This may occur through learning about the risks of climate change via the media or the response to these risks by state actors. The heightened awareness of climate change and its impacts can result in psychological strain. This section examines definitions of eco-distress, its prevalence in Scotland and how it affects different population groups.

Definitions of eco-distress

We found that the emotional and psychological responses to climate change awareness have generated increasing attention and interest in the media and academia. New terms have recently emerged to describe these responses including ‘climate anxiety,’ ‘eco-anxiety,’ and ‘eco-distress’ (Thoma et al, 2021). These terms are often used inconsistently and usually interchangeably in the literature. For the sake of consistency, this report uses the term ‘eco-distress’ when referring to the broad range of these emotional responses unless otherwise stated.

Eco-distress is a relatively novel term in academic literature. Environmental philosopher Glenn Albrecht (2011) first coined the term “psychoterratic syndromes” in 2011 to describe emergent emotional responses to climate change, including eco-anxiety, eco-grief, and solastalgia. In the past ten years, interest in the topic has grown rapidly. One review found that 80 percent of all published research on eco-anxiety has been published since 2020 (Jarrett et al, 2024). This is prompted by increasing numbers of mental health practitioners, teachers, social workers, and others caring for vulnerable individuals reporting cases of deep concerns about climate change having debilitating effects on people’s daily lives (Charlson et al. 2021).

Despite increasing attention, eco-distress and the range of emotional responses to climate change it refers to are challenging concepts to pin down. There is no clear consensus or set of standard definitions, and the concepts are currently undergoing development (Coffey et al, 2021; Clayton, 2020; Brophy et al, 2022). The scope that different authors cover when using these terms range widely, from a broad concept to more narrow definitions developed for clinical or epidemiological purposes.

In many cases ’eco-distress’ and ‘eco-anxiety’ are used interchangeably to refer to a wide range of difficult emotional and physiological responses that people experience due to their awareness of climate change (Brophy et al, 2022). These include but are not limited to anxiety, grief, anger, despair, depression, hopelessness, and worry (Hickman et al, 2020). This broader use of the term is succinctly captured by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, who synonymously define eco-distress and eco-anxiety as:

“The wide range of emotions and thoughts people may experience when they hear bad news about our planet and the environment” (Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2021).

Narrower definitions have been introduced when operationalised for specific research objectives. For example, some authors distinguish between ‘climate’ and ‘eco(logical)’ distress. They reason that ecological change or crises can occur independently of the climate crisis and that therefore the two must not be conflated (Clayton et al, 2017). Some papers make clear delineations between eco-distress, eco-anxiety, and eco-grief in order to study them as distinct objects of research, objecting to the use of ‘eco-anxiety’ as an umbrella term to refer to a broad range of emotional responses (Coffey et al. 2021). Others use terms such as ‘psychoterratic syndromes’ and ‘eco-emotions’ as umbrella concepts, under which eco-anxiety and other such terms fall (Lawrance et al, 2021; Albrecht 2011).

Greater precision in the definitions of eco-distress and eco-anxiety is often seen in papers approaching the topic from a clinical research perspective, such as examining its potential for being a diagnosable pathology or exploring practical implications for healthcare practitioners (Lawrance et al, 2022). Several authors stress that eco-anxiety in these contexts must be defined as being excessive or debilitating distress, underscoring a common theme in the literature that medicalising or pathologizing eco-anxiety should be avoided on the basis that distress is a rational and healthy response to climate change (Searle and Gow, 2010; Gifford and Gifford, 2016). Despite variation in definitions, some authors have attempted to draw out common definitional features from the literature (Helm et al, 2018). For example, Brophy et al. (2022) identified the following broad common features of eco-distress:

• It is future-oriented and anticipatory, distinguishing it from other forms of environmental distress like solastalgia.
• It is associated with feelings of uncertainty, unpredictability, uncontrollability, and being overwhelmed, accompanied by a range of emotions such as anger, frustration, despair, guilt, shame, grief.
• It should not be regarded as pathological because it is a rational and justified response that can also lead to pro-environmental behaviours and thoughts. Difficult feelings can motivate active engagement and mitigation, with some suggesting that eco-anxiety can be seen as “practical anxiety”, highlighting its potentially adaptive nature (Pihkhala, 2020).

Measures of eco-distress

Most of the research papers we reviewed in our study use unvalidated measures to measure the prevalence of eco-distress. Most define and operationalise the concept to meet the needs of their study, particularly when aligning their work with existing measures used in psychology, such as those for anxiety (Lawrance et al. 2022; Clayton, 2020; Laronow, Soltys, and Izdebski et al, 2022). Consequently, researchers must carefully interpret how each study defines eco-distress and the scope of what is being studied.

More recently there have been some notable efforts to develop validated measures for the construct. Early studies include Searle and Gow’s 12 item questionnaire to measure what they describe as climate change distress (Searle and Gow, 2010); while Reser et al (2012) developed a survey to measure climate change distress and psychological coping and adaption responses. These measures only examine the nature and extent of emotional reactions to climate change in individuals, but do not measure the relationship between these reactions and a person’s emotional wellbeing (Reser et al, 2012). This distinction is important because experiencing emotional distress when learning of climate change is not necessarily unhealthy or harmful, given the possible long-term consequences of climate change in people’s lives. Jarret et al. (2024)’s review of empirical research supporting eco-anxiety found a total of nine structurally validated measures that have been developed, of which four have been implemented in an empirical study outside the original work: the Climate Anxiety Scale (CAS), the Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale (HEAS), the Climate Distress Scale (CDS), and the Climate Change Worry Scale (CCWS) – though, the latter two scales have not to date been implemented widely.

The CAS is the most frequently cited validated measure of eco-anxiety, with 24 papers implementing the scale (e.g., Larionow et al, 2022; Jarrett et al, 2024). It is a 13-item questionnaire used for assessing eco-anxiety as a psychological response to climate change, which draws on a number of existing measures for rumination, environmental identity, and anxiety (Wullenkord et al, 2021; Laronow et al, 2022).

The next most common scale is the HEAS with five studies to date employing this measure. It is similar in its construction to the CAS. However, it has a broader application in that it measures distress about indirect and direct climate change impacts, as well as more localised environmental changes such as habitat change (Hogg et al, 2021). Two additional validated measures have been published in the form of the CCWS, and the CDS, though neither explicitly link the measure of emotional response to a person’s wellbeing, instead mapping responses as ranging in ‘severity’ from low to high (Vercammen and Lawrance, 2023; Leger-Goodes et al, 2023).

While such measures are gaining traction, their application is not widespread. Just as the clarity of definition around the concept of eco-distress can be expected to crystalise as the body of literature expands, so too can the emergent range of measures of eco-distress be expected to gain greater validation and be more rigorously and consistently implemented across a wider range of populations in the future.

Prevalence and vulnerable groups – Scotland and UK

Concern about climate change is widespread in Scotland and the UK, but the prevalence of eco-distress remains unclear owing to the definitional inconsistencies previously discussed. A Scottish survey found 68% of respondents worried about climate change, with 25% reporting negative impacts on mental health (Andrews et al. 2022). A YouGov tracker in March 2024 showed 60% of Scots were concerned about climate change (YouGov, 2024). Data on public attitudes to the environment and the impact of climate change, Great Britain – Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk) reported 75% of UK adults, including 74% in Scotland, were worried. The study found a statistically significant generational difference, with 39 percent of people aged 16-44 feeling this way compared to 12 percent of people aged 45+. Those with existing long term health conditions were also more likely to be affected. Where validated scales are employed the prevalence of eco-distress is relatively lower. For example, a UK study employing the CAS (Whitmarsh et al, 2022) found that only 5% of participants met the threshold for experiencing moderate to high climate anxiety, despite 46.2% being very or extremely worried. Likewise, a UK study using the Climate Distress Scale (Vercammen et al. 2023) found that while 60 percent of respondents experienced eco-distress, only 10 percent experienced it such that it was associated with worse wellbeing outcomes.

Young people – Global

Surveys show that distress about climate change and environmental degradation is highly prevalent among children, adolescents, and young adults globally. Measuring the prevalence of eco-anxiety among young people, as opposed to the general population, was the most common demographic focus of the studies we reviewed (Brophy et al, 2022; Hickman et al. 2021). Key findings of a global survey of young people aged 16-25 carried out by Hickman et al (2021) include that 84 percent of respondents globally reported feelings of sadness, anxiety, anger, powerlessness, helplessness, and guilt, with 59 percent reporting being very or extremely worried.

A key finding from our review is that eco-distress is closely linked to a real or perceived lack of agency to respond to the threat posed by climate change. Notably, Hickman et al. (2021) found that eco-anxiety is closely linked to perceived government inaction on climate change. In other words, the perceived failure of governments to adequately respond to the climate crisis is associated with increased distress among individuals. Lawrance et al’s (2021) study similarly highlights that young people feel powerless to affect change and feel despondent that those with the power to do so are not. Further, young people have higher exposure to information (e.g. via social media and education about climate change in schools) and so are more aware and knowledgeable about climate change and its consequences. Young people inherently have less agency to affect change (e.g. no financial independence, inability to vote in elections), contributing to a sense of hopelessness.

Young people – UK

The UK component of Hickman et al.’s (2021) global survey of people aged 16-25 showed that the climate crisis was a major cause of distress amongst young people, despite it having a relatively small impact on day-to-day functioning and quality of life of respondents. The study found that the global average for eco-distress affecting day-to-day life was 18 percent lower in the UK than the global average (46 percent). However, 28 percent reported that their feelings about climate change negatively affected their daily life and functioning in areas such as eating, concentrating, work, school, sleeping, spending time in nature, playing, having fun, and relationships. Additionally, 73 percent stated that they find the future frightening, and 80 percent believed that people have failed to take care of the planet.

This latter point is further supported by a Savanta-Comres survey commissioned by BBC Newsround that found that 58 percent of the 2000 responding children aged 8-16 were “worried about the impact that climate change will have on their lives”, and that a majority felt that climate change was broadly important to them (Savanta-Comres, 2020). The survey also reported that 64 percent of children felt that people in power were not doing enough to address climate change, and that 41 percent did not trust adults to take action (Savanta-Comres, 2020).

There is limited evidence comparing the prevalence of eco-distress to other major national threats to wellbeing experienced by young people in Scotland. Lawrance et al (2021) conducted a UK study of young people aged 16-24 (N=530) looking at psychological responses to COVID-19 and climate change. Despite COVID-19 having a more pronounced reported effect on the day-to-day functioning of young people’s lives, climate change was found to have a slightly more pronounced impact on their overall distress. The key distinctions were that climate change elicits feelings of guilt, personal responsibility, and a lack of agency to respond to it, whereas COVID-19 warranted a sense of loss and grief over quality of life.

Other groups – international

The body of literature suggests that people in the Global South have a higher prevalence of eco-distress (Hickman et al, 2021). Other groups that have been identified as being vulnerable to eco-distress include racialised communities, immigrants, and people with pre-existing mental health conditions (Cianconi et al, 2023). The evidence base is substantially less robust for these groups, though is concerned with how climate change compounds on existing marginalisation. Vulnerability here does not imply a greater prevalence, rather a higher level of threat posed to such groups as inequalities such as access to healthcare or agency to affect political change diminish these groups’ capacity to respond and adapt to climate change (Ciarconi et al, 2023).

Research and evidence gaps

Research on the relationship between climate change and mental health, while historically understudied, is a rapidly growing field.

Hayes et al. (2017) note a range of methodological challenges in researching this topic. These include the risk of either over or underestimating the mental health impact of climate change. This is due to the wide range of possible climate change related mental health outcomes, the challenges in understanding the effects of climate events over time, and difficulties in understanding the mechanism by which climate events produce mental health outcomes in the complex context of the wider social determinants of health (Hayes et al. 2017).

Two recent scoping reviews designed to evaluate the quality and range of evidence and identify research gaps (Hwong et al, 2022; Charlson et al. 2021) found that most studies available on this topic are survey-based, cross-sectional designs, using self-reported mental health measures to understand the effects of climate events. A smaller number of studies use health records combined with temperature data to understand the effects of temperature mental health.

They identified gaps in relation to research focused on protective factors, coping mechanisms, or resiliency in response to the mental health effects of climate change. Additionally, there is a lack of research that links population mental health outcome databases to weather databases, which they recommend filling through greater collaborations between mental health professional and data scientists to build clinically meaningful research tools that address the challenges of climate change. The reviews also point to the potentially fruitful opportunity to draw on literature from other disciplines that do not explicitly address climate change such as the extensive literature on mental health and natural disasters. While some of the reviews we have analysed attempt to do this, there is greater opportunity for inter-disciplinary collaboration on this topic, particularly in understanding the more indirect causal pathways.

The body of literature specifically discussing eco-distress is nascent, meaning that there are many gaps in the literature. A gap exists in understanding the prevalence of eco-distress in the UK specifically, not least its impacts on mental wellbeing. One study found that, as of 2020, only 11 percent of studies on the mental health impact of climate change focused on psychological responses to climate change awareness (Charlson et al, 2021).

Ambiguity and inconsistency in how eco-distress is defined is partly explained by the absence of qualitative research into eco-anxiety. Approximately 75 percent of studies on eco-anxiety are quantitative, the rest being mixed method or qualitative (Jarrett et al, 2024). Although 2021 saw an increase in the number of qualitative studies published, quantitative research still represented the majority of papers that year (Brophy et al, 2022). This means there is relatively little discussion about the nature of eco-anxiety and a lack of exploration into its qualitative causes. This is particularly important given the lack of clarity in the terms employed and the wide range of terms used.

Evidence on interventions addressing the mental health risks of climate change

Summary of findings from Chapter 5

This chapter addresses Research Question 3:

1. What is the evidence on effective prevention and early intervention, and on responding to mental health and wellbeing risks and impacts in a climate change context in Scotland?

Key findings:

• The evidence base for interventions is thin. Only 23 evaluated intervention types were found which address prevention, early intervention, or responses to the mental health risks of climate change. Eight of these were delivered in developing countries, and only two were based in Scotland.
• Almost half of the evaluated interventions focused on building resilience amongst the participants. The other evaluated interventions focused on capacity building, social connections, nature connection, and encouraging climate action. Capacity building interventions had a high-level of evaluation.
• Evaluations of interventions measured a wide range of outcomes. These included improved wellbeing (6), improved ability to cope (6), and relief from psychological disorders (4).
• Four other types of intervention were found. These were a) promoting public participation in decision making, b) supporting mental health practitioner development, c) climate justice and d) public communication. To date, there has been no evaluations of the interventions within these categories.

Introduction

For policymakers, the mental health risks outlined in Chapter 4 imply that actions and programmes should be designed to address the causes of poor mental health and its symptoms. This chapter focuses on public health interventions that directly address poor mental health resulting from the impacts of climate change or wider concerns. In this section we explore the broad topic of evidence on effective prevention and early intervention, and on responding to mental health and wellbeing risks and impacts in a climate change context in Scotland. We have included any intervention or programme which has been designed to help alleviate adverse mental health and wellbeing effects of climate change and have focused on those which may be applicable to Scotland.

Methodology

This chapter analyses mental health interventions. We took interventions to be programmes, policies, and practices aimed at supporting mental health in the context of climate change. We found 60 interventions during the shortlisting process, derived from the longlist of material which answered Research Question 3. The shortlist of 60 was analysed on several grounds including whether the intervention had been evaluated, what the evaluation found, and replicability of the intervention. ‘Evaluation’ here means any systematic process to judge the merit, worth or significance of an intervention by combining evidence and judgement. ‘Replicability’ we take to mean a project has been sufficiently described, evaluated and shown to be effective in meeting its objectives, there is an understanding of why it worked and how it may need to be adapted to be repeated elsewhere. Appendix A describes the analytical procedures in more detail.

This chapter begins with an overview of the different types of programmes that have been delivered to support mental health in a climate context and their levels of evidence. The remainder of the chapter explores the nine different types of intervention, describing how they may lead to mental health benefits, and what these interventions look like in terms of their target groups, outcomes, and how they were delivered.

Overview of types of interventions and evidence

We found a growing number of international studies of wellbeing interventions in the context of climate change. These studies broadly agree on how to categorise mental health interventions. From reviewing their frameworks, we identified nine exclusive intervention categories which were potentially relevant to a Scottish context. These were: psychological resilience and coping; capacity building; social connection; nature connection; encouraging action; democratic participation; practitioner development; public communication, and; climate justice.

In practice, these categories were not exclusive. Ninety three percent of interventions crossed multiple categories. For example, a group therapy intervention might focus on primarily on building psychological resilience but also have a secondary focus on building social connections between participants. Encouraging action was notable in this regard. No mental health intervention had a primary purpose of encouraging action. Yet many interventions encouraged participants to take climate action through other means such as mental health toolkits, discussion club, or community gardening.

Our review identified 60 interventions. Most have been recently designed and delivered. Only 36 percent of interventions found had been evaluated. However, interventions building psychological resilience and coping skills have been delivered more than other and have and relatively frequently evaluated (9). Capacity building interventions have been delivered less frequently but the evaluations that have taken place are of higher quality than for some of the other interventions. For four intervention categories, there were no evaluations of interventions identified. Table 2 shows which intervention categories have been most frequently evaluated, and which outcomes were measured in those evaluated interventions.

Table 2 Summary of the types of interventions that have taken place, the number which have been evaluated, and the main measured outcomes for the evaluated interventions

Intervention types with evaluated interventions

In this section we focus on intervention types that have evaluated interventions. For each type of intervention, we outline the reasoning for how this may help and the evaluated outcomes from different interventions in this group. We’ve also noted interventions that may be replicable or scaled up further in Scotland.

Psychological resilience and coping interventions

The most common form of mental health and wellbeing intervention^[4] in a climate change context were those aimed at building psychological resilience and coping mechanisms. Psychological resilience is the ability to regain or remain in a healthy mental state during crises without long-term negative consequences, whilst coping mechanisms are the patterns and behaviours people use to deal with unusually stressful situations. Both resilience and coping techniques are useful both for ‘bouncing back’ from climate events and for dealing with climate distress day-to-day without being overwhelmed. We identified 24 separate resilience interventions of which nine were evaluated. Of the 24, 17 focused on climate distress, and six on responding to climate events.

Resilience interventions use a number of different tools and approaches to help people cope (Dooley et al, 2021), including reframing climate distress as connection, care and empathy, and cultivating positive emotions, such as optimism and realistic hope (Hickman, 2020). Similarly, resilience interventions for climate distress had a wide variety of target groups: the general population (6 interventions), teachers (4), youth (3), and activists (3). Resilience interventions around climate hazards (such as floods) were targeted at rural populations (2), those with poor mental health (2) or any resident (2).

The diversity and scale of interventions for building resilience is noteworthy. Forty percent of identified interventions primarily focused on building resilience, as well as the range of target groups and diversity of approaches. This indicates that strengthening emotional resilience, rather than moving straight into action, is the most accepted approach for mental health professionals for people facing climate change (Dooley et al, 2021). 

The evaluated interventions for psychological resilience-based programmes were focused on two outcomes: developing coping mechanisms and giving relief from disorders such as anxiety and depression.

For coping mechanisms, one group therapy-based intervention, delivered following Super Typhoon Haiyan, found that participants improved in coping self-efficacy in all module domains managing unproductive thoughts and emotions and identifying personal strengths (Hechenova et al, 2018). A Skills for Life Adjustment and Resilience (SOLAR) intervention delivered after Cyclone Pam resulted in significantly decreased distress/post-traumatic stress symptoms and functional impairment after the intervention, with some effects retained at 6-month follow-up (Gibson et al, 2021).

For relief from disorders, group therapy methods appear to be effective. Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy (REBT), a type of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT), was administered in groups to 49 participants with depression in Kogi state, Nigeria, following a series of floods. Researchers found that REBT was significantly effective in decreasing post traumatic depression among flood victims. Fatigue, feelings of hopelessness, and suicidal thoughts had been significantly reduced after being exposed to REBT (Ede et al, 2021). Flooding in the UK has been shown to be associated with higher instances of PTSD and anxiety (Jermacane, 2018). A survey in Aberdeenshire found that 71 percent of respondents reported experiencing anxiety (Andrews, 2020). The large effect size which continued at follow-up is promising for potential replication in Scotland. While REBT is currently not a standard therapeutic approach in Scotland, REBT and other talking therapies may be appropriate and fruitful avenues to explore for climate change related mental health issues.

Capacity building interventions

Capacity building is a programme which tries to improve a community’s potential to act and respond to climate events. Whilst only four capacity building interventions were identified, each of these had been evaluated, mostly to a high standard.

The four identified capacity-building interventions in the literature covered two delivery models: training and financial aid.

We found two training programmes. First, a 3-day mental health integrated disaster preparedness intervention was delivered in a group setting in Haiti. This disaster preparation training in Haiti^[5] showed reduced symptoms associated with depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and functional impairment, and increased peer-based help-giving and help-seeking (James et al, 2020). The second training programme was the Rural Adversity Mental Health Program (RAMHP) in Australia which offered training and support in the context of drought. The RAMHP training programme increased mental health understanding and willingness to assist others for over 90 percent of participants (Maddox, 2022).

Our search also found two financial assistance programmes. First, livestock trading grants and collective-action groups were delivered to 2300 people in Ethiopia. The livestock trading grant in Ethiopia resulted in confidence in the future and ability to recover from a crisis being much more likely to rise (Gibson et al, 2021). Second, we found a Red Cross intervention in Bangladesh which distributed an unconditional cash transfer in advance of a monsoon flood. These direct cash transfers in advance of flooding in Bangladesh appear to have been effective in improving household access to food and reducing psychosocial stress during and after the flood period (Maddox et al, 2022).

Financial assistance was offered in Bangladesh and Ethiopia, yet the impact may be in part due to both countries having GDP per capita below $3,000. These interventions were mostly funded or run by international humanitarian organisations rather than being integrated into the local system. These factors mean that, despite their high evidence level, there is some uncertainty about the replicability of capacity building interventions in Scotland, which has a high GDP per capita, and fewer outside-party delivery of interventions.

Social connection interventions

We found eleven initiatives which used social connection to help participants deal with mental health issues in a climate change context. Five of these have been evaluated. Social connection interventions are particularly common in the UK, where five of these interventions have been delivered or developed. All social connection interventions were and appear to prioritise two mental health related outcomes: improved social capital and validation of emotions.

First, social connection interventions can help reduce isolation and increase social capital in participants, through forming new acquaintances and resources. Examples include a cooperative enquiry into climate change in a Welsh school. This helped the participants feel less alone and more connected with group members, teachers and the school (Togneri, 2022). Social connection has been shown to protect mental health following disasters. Using a more extreme example to illustrate this, people with higher levels of social support prior to and following Hurricane Katrina had lower levels of psychological distress, even years after the event (Lowe et al, 2010).

The number of wellbeing interventions focused on building connections to others reflects the understanding that social networks are both a basic human need and a primary source of resilience (Holt-Lunstad, 2020). Social support has been found to protect against stress and is strongly associated with both physical and mental health (Leigh-Hunt et al. 2017). This is in line with the social determinants of health model that shows loneliness and social isolation increase the risk of poor mental health (Kirkbride et al, 2024).

The second major outcome from social connection interventions is validation of emotions. In group settings, people can share their feelings about the climate crisis and be heard by others who feel similarly. Climate Cafes (Box 1) are one of the most popular intervention designs to achieve both reduced isolation and validating negative feeling.

Acknowledging and validating feelings in relation to climate distress has been particularly important for young people. As highlighted in Section 4.5.3, young people often feel their concerns about the environment are ignored or belittled and have no one to talk about their worries (Atherton, 2020). Providing safe spaces to express emotions is important for avoiding isolation and emotional repression; often this will involve parents, caregivers and educators initiating conversations or actively listening (Atherton, 2020).

Climate Cafés

Climate Cafes are widespread across Scotland and, increasingly, worldwide. Somewhat confusingly, there are two main types of Climate Café with differing emphases.

First, Climate Psychology Alliance (CPA) Climate Cafes are primarily a space for talking about emotions. A typical CPA Climate Café has two facilitators. An initial round of sharing is often scaffolded by images or natural objects that participants are invited to interact with. After an initial round of reflections from each participant, the conversation is opened up and participants are invited to respond to, and reflect on, the contributions of others. Throughout the Café, the focus of discussion is on participants’ thoughts and feelings about the climate and ecological crises.

A forthcoming study of CPA Climate Cafés found that prior to attending attendees had felt “helpless at times… depressed… angry” . Regarding this type of distress as unique to the climate crisis, it was regarded as impervious to existing therapies: “CBT won’t fix my climate anxiety.” Reflecting upon their Climate Café experience, participants noted how they had not been fully conscious of the depth and breadth of their emotional responses to the climate crisis prior to attendance.

The study showed participants had a sense of surprise at how quickly and strongly a connection developed in a new group. Attendees could “express yourself more authentically”, drop the mask of a “brave face”: “meeting someone who is seeing the same thing that I’m seeing and then saying, oh, that’s really hard, isn’t it…like ‘oh thank God’”. CPA Climate Cafés were seen to offer a contrast to the other climate related groups participants had attended, which often had a tonne of “we need action… there’s this line of anger to it.”

The second type of climate Café offered by the Climate Café® Network is more action orientated, though focused first on sharing and building connections between participants. These Climate Cafés® are defined as “informal spaces for chat [which] often inspire and inform action” and are delivered throughout Scotland and worldwide.

As informal community meetings for people to share climate-related feelings and inspire collective action, Climate Cafés® help participants to validate feelings around climate distress, increase awareness of threats to planetary health, action taken in the face of climate change, and improved social connection. One Scottish participant said, “Here are like-minded people with an equal passion and inspiring, practical answers to climate issues – both wider issues and very close to home.” Another participant stated “I feel completely comfortable when stating my opinion on matters or contributing ideas as I am never alienated, I am always encouraged to just go for it.”

Both CPA Climate Cafés and the Climate Café® Network are well established in Scotland. The Climate Café® Network originated in Scotland where there are 26 ongoing Cafés®. Both types of Climate Café are freely offered to all attendees. A number of tools and training offers exist to set up new cafés. Further evaluation should be commissioned to increase confidence in the outcomes from Climate Cafes and to determine which factors are critical to their success, and how this varies among population groups. Climate Cafes are already used in COP events and Community Climate Action Networks in Scotland and could be further scaled and integrated into mainstream public health, for instance, as an option in social prescription.

Nature connection interventions

Our review found seven interventions focused on nature connection, four of which have been evaluated. Two main types of outcomes were found: improvements to wellbeing and increased self-efficacy and coping.

Two evaluated interventions have focused on improving wellbeing among participants. Wetlands for Wellbeing in the UK has been delivered to people with poor mental health with strong results, helping participants connect to nature as a space of reflection, resourcing, and inspiration, supporting them to manage distress. Statistically significant improvements were found in mental wellbeing, anxiety, stress and emotional wellbeing, as well as social isolation, confidence to be in nature, and management of physical health (Maund et al, 2019). Another evaluated nature-based intervention addressing climate change which included a community garden hub demonstrated improvements in mental health and social connectedness for participants (Patrick et al, 2011).

Wellbeing outcomes have been strongly associated with nature connection for some time. As described in 4.3.2, climate-related loss of biodiversity represents a risk to mental health as both nature exposure and nature connection have positive impacts on mental health and wellbeing and allow humans to flourish (Passmore and Howell, 2014). Nature-based interventions have been found to reduce anxiety, reduce stress-related cortisol levels, reduce neurodevelopmental disorders, reduce severity of depression, increase cognitive function and promote social cohesion (Nabhan et al, 2020). Nature connection is also associated with improved wellbeing in general, positive moods and lower distress (Nisbet, Shaw, and Lachance, 2020).

The second outcome, self-efficacy and coping, was found in two evaluated interventions. One example of a nature-based programme delivered in Scotland, the Green Team, showed strong post-activity survey results, particularly around self-efficacy and social connection: 94 percent of young people involved in the one project increased their confidence; for another project 95 percent of young people developed positive relationships (Grant, 2021; The Green Team, 2023). Borderlands Earth Care Youth Institute, a nature-restoration project for young people project on the US-Mexico border, improved emotional strength, as well as leadership, sense of community, and social responsibility (Nabhan et al, 2020).

We found research in a small student population showing exposure to nature improving coping ability for climate distress, often through developing a sense of peace, hope, calm, ease of worries and grounding (Grant, 2021). Most nature-based interventions are delivered to marginalised people or those more susceptible to climate anxiety (such as young people from lower income households) who may have less access to nature.

However, it is notable that only one of the four evaluated interventions was explicitly addressing eco-distress. There’s some evidence to suggest nature-connection interventions have perverse effects for those experiencing climate distress. Whilst studies generally agree that spending time in nature (nature exposure) is an effective strategy for coping with climate distress (Dooley et al, 2021), several studies have found that feeling connected to nature is associated with climate change anxiety (Curll et al, 2022). For this reason, some programmes seek to encourage both nature-connection and optimism simultaneously (Smithsonian, 2021). Nature connection interventions also have different designs depending on the groups that are engaged. In the UK, many minorities feel excluded from rural settings and groups have been established to provide safe spaces for ethnic minorities, such as Black Girls Hike and Flock Together, a bird watching group for people of colour.

Interventions encouraging meaningful action 

We found 16 interventions which encouraged participants to take meaningful action, five of which were evaluated. Fifteen of the 16 interventions related to climate distress. As described in the discussion of eco-anxiety in 4.5, emotions around climate change including distress are increasingly understood as rational and proportionate responses to an existential threat. Our review has found that action taken by government, groups, or individuals to combat climate change can alleviate some of these negative effects. Climate distress often involves feelings of helplessness due to the scale of the issue of climate change. Action and activism can help address these threats by helping individuals focus on what they can control, thereby promoting a sense of agency, efficacy, and competence (Schwartz et al, 2022).

It is particularly notable that all climate action interventions for mental health have action as a follow-on aim rather than encouraging participants to leap straight to solutions. Climate anxiety researcher Pikhala and psychoanalyst Randall caution against pushing clients too quickly into action, emphasising the importance of addressing emotional and identity challenges first (Dooley et al, 2021). For mental health interventions, in order to engage in action, it is vital to first provide a space for the expression of emotion.

The most common outcome of encouraging action is improved levels of empowerment, which was an expected outcome in seven out of the 16 action-based interventions. A social connection intervention in Wales used Cooperative Inquiry to improve knowledge of a group of pupils. Qualitative research found that ‘knowing about solutions’ made a difference. This knowledge was directly connected by the young people to their wellbeing and a sense of hope, highlighting the importance of envisioning alternative futures (Togneri, 2022). In Cameroon, the Ibanikom Climate Mental Health Literacy Project facilitated meetings for flood-affected communities, allowing participants to learn about the effects of climate change on mental health and co-develop local, small-scale culturally relevant integrated health and agriculture projects (Xue et al, 2024).

Another intervention, the Work That Reconnects, has been developed to help participants talk about how they feel, moving from hope and despair, build empathy and begin acting upon these feelings. The intervention is not only focused on climate change but a sense of connection to the wider ecology. Research found that participants find concrete ways of living out hope in their daily lives: one participant noted “these questions made me rethink about the legacy I will leave behind” (Hathaway, 2017). All eleven research participants in a study commented on how it is helpful as a framework for life, sharing that they use it in their relationships with family and friends, activism, and making major life decisions.

Intervention types with lower levels of evidence

We found that government and third-sector responses to climate change’s effect on mental health are not limited to direct services to those effected. The disempowerment felt by many in climate distress has led to innovative new programmes to help restore a sense of agency to those effected, including through participation in decision-making, and communication. This section gives an overview of four types of intervention which are emerging as the scale of the climate crisis becomes apparent, but which to date have no evaluated programmes. We will briefly examine how interventions are theorised to support wellbeing and describe any recognised barriers to impact in Scotland.

Interventions promoting participation in decision-making 

Citizen participation in decision-making is increasingly perceived as not only a matter of justice and democracy but also a practical necessity for transitioning into sustainability (Huttunen et al, 2022). While these interventions mainly concern wider issues than mental health, participation in decision making has been theorised to have benefits to wellbeing, particularly empowerment. We found seven wellbeing interventions which focused broadly on participation. A large number of these were in Scotland, particularly within the umbrella of the Climate Change Public Engagement Strategy.

To date, publicly available evidence remains thin and shows mixed outcomes. The Scottish Climate Assembly (2020-2022) reporting included evidence on the emotional experience of assembly members, focusing on optimism, distress and worry of members throughout the process. Findings indicated that members were less worried and more hopeful than the general population about what Scotland can do to tackle climate change and became increasingly optimistic that ‘things will work out fine’ over the course of the main Assembly period (Andrews et al, 2022). However, 21 percent reported their feelings about climate change were having a negative impact on their mental health. The Assembly member survey showed that feelings of worry increased, and optimism decreased. In addition, many participants reported feeling disappointed at the final meeting which reviewed the government response to their report (Andrews, 2022).

Practitioner development interventions

We identified five interventions aimed at increasing mental health practitioners’ knowledge and skills to respond to climate related mental health issues. These typically involved workshops that facilitated discussion and training in relevant approaches to their practice. These initiatives provide training to practitioners to treat eco-anxiety not as a personal neurosis but rather as evidence of the client being connected to a greater whole (Dooley et al, 2021). Many interventions focus on grief awareness, including anticipatory loss, disenfranchised grief, and use Worden’s model of the tasks of grief^[6] to successfully address eco-anxiety (Worden, 2009). 

Climate justice awareness interventions

Climate justice is a movement that connects the climate crisis to social injustice including racial discrimination, poverty, and human rights. Many strategies in Scotland and worldwide are developing programmes to ensure that the transition to net zero is fair to all groups. However, no evaluated interventions were found which had an explicit mental health focus. Evidence suggests that educating people about climate justice can help them cope with climate anxiety and support their involvement in creating fair solutions (Davenport, 2021). Current evaluation work on Just Transition in Scotland (Tavistock Institute, 2024) has found that there will be overlap with outcomes from participative decision-making interventions, since community empowerment is a key objective to both types of intervention.

Public communication interventions

The final area we found for intervening in the mental health risks of climate change was public communication. Messaging on climate change needs to be viewed through the lens of building resilience and agency or it may increase levels of climate dread and denialism (Hathaway, 2017). From a mental health standpoint, communication should seek to give agency to those in distress through engaging empathy, cultivating hope and focusing on local level actions rather than provoking guilt. Scotland has delivered public engagement activities in these areas, including the Let’s Do Net Zero website and toolkit, Our World, Our Impact, Climate Beacons, and Climate Ready Classrooms. Little evidence exists on the success of these or other projects in addressing climate anxiety or climate events. However, the Climate Beacons evaluation report shows results in community engagement that may relate to outcomes of interest, such as new connections made, confidence and empowerment (Hall and Coenon-Rowe, 2022).

Implications for Scotland

From the evidence review on interventions, scaling up appears most promising for interventions which promote resilience and capacity building due to the large volume of impactful and evaluated interventions in these two areas. Resilience building and coping are essential components for both climate distress and ‘bouncing back’ from climate change related events. Scottish policy makers can draw on a wide range of interventions with established mental health outcomes in these two categories. The strength of evidence for capacity building implies that for interventions responding to climate events, building community skills such as disaster preparedness and mental health first aid may be helpful in avoiding and mitigating direct and indirect mental health effects.

We also found three other types of evaluated interventions: social connection, nature connection and meaningful action. Each type is already delivered in Scotland and could possibly be scaled up and integrated with existing services and strategies. Interventions such as Climate Cafes, the Work That Reconnects, and various nature connection initiatives are already delivered in Scotland often as part of strategies including the Climate Change Public Engagement Strategy.

Climate action co-benefits and risks

Summary of findings from Chapter 6

This chapter addresses Research Question 4:

1. What is the evidence of co-benefits and risks, or unintended consequences, for mental health and wellbeing from climate action (both mitigation and adaptation) relevant in a Scottish context?

Key findings:

• Climate action can lead to improved mental health and wellbeing through supporting improved physical health and by addressing some of the social determinants of mental health such as financial security, and quality housing. Policymakers taking a cross-disciplinary approach to climate action and understanding the interconnected pathways of impact can achieve a win-win outcome for the climate and mental-health.
• Energy efficiency measures in homes can lead to warmer homes which may increase thermal satisfaction; improve air quality; and reduce fuel poverty, in turn leading to financial security and improved general physical health. However, with increasing temperatures and overheating risks, it is important that building regulations support proper ventilation and cooling adaptation measures.
• Active transport measures can improve mental health through increased physical activity and greater social participation. Equitable approaches to transport policy are key to ensure vulnerable groups are able to take advantage of the benefits.
• Nature-based climate solutions have the potential to improve mental health and wellbeing through increased physical activity and a greater sense of community. However, they currently risk offering most benefits for those who live in more affluent areas given that they have better access to green spaces than those in deprived areas.

Introduction

This section examines the intended or unintended co-benefits and risks of ‘climate action’ for mental health and wellbeing. In the context of this chapter, ‘climate action’ refers to policy interventions that aim to address climate change (mitigation and adaptation). Co-benefits are the range of positive side effects from climate action on mental health and wellbeing that can equal or even outweigh the importance of environmental impacts. Conversely, risks are the range of negative unintended consequences from climate action.

In this review we frame climate action as adopting one of two approaches: climate change adaptation and mitigation. Adaptation is about managing the impacts of climate change as it occurs, for example, installing flood defences (Hiscock et al, 2017). Climate change mitigation is primarily concerned with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, such as using renewable sources of energy (Ürge-Vorsatz, 2014). While climate action primarily serves an environmental purpose, it sits within a broader interconnected system which targets other major challenges. In Scotland, adaptation and mitigation strategy also focuses on addressing public health issues, reducing poverty and inequality, and building a stronger economy (Liski et al, 2019).

As discussed in Chapter 4, a cause of eco-distress is the (perceived) lack of action by decision makers and governmental institutions to combat climate change. The most direct method to address this cause of eco-distress is therefore to take effective climate action. Climate action on an individual, community and systems level (governments, corporations etc.) can work to help people cope with the difficult emotions surrounding climate change and help generate hopeful perspectives, improving mental health and wellbeing (Lawrance et al, 2022). Individual climate action such as reducing car use or choosing a plant-based diet can lead to a positive emotional response through acting in line with one’s values. Collective climate action can strengthen solidarity and social networks which may be particularly supportive for those living in climate vulnerable areas, such as island communities in Scotland. Systems climate action and its effective communication can improve the population’s trust in societal actors to help solve the climate emergency which can help reduce distress, particularly for young people (Lawrance et al, 2022).

We chose to focus on systems level climate action in our analysis. This is primarily due to there being a sufficient evidence base of relevant research to undertake our analysis for systems level climate action, but not for community or individual levels. Furthermore, putting trust in societal actors with visible climate leadership appears to be one of the most effective strategies to reduce and help prevent eco-anxiety impacting on wellbeing (Lawrance et al, 2022). Therefore, examining system level climate action may be the most useful analysis for policy makers.

Methodology

We reviewed 22 shortlisted sources related to the co-benefits and risks of climate action for mental health and wellbeing. While the health co-benefits or risks of climate action related to physical health are well documented, those related to mental health and wellbeing are less explored, as in most cases mental health and wellbeing are not the primary focus of the climate action so data on these outcomes is rarely collected. We found some evidence indicating risks to wellbeing, particularly when strategies do not adequately address concerns of equity, equality, and justice. However, the extent of these risks were difficult to determine due to limited evidence broken down by population demographic type (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity). We also found very limited evidence for these effects in Scotland.

From the 22 studies, we identified three main areas of climate action were most relevant for mental health and wellbeing co-benefits and risks in Scotland, which we have used as the thematic basis for presenting our analysis: (1) housing (energy efficiency measures), (2) transport (active travel) and (3) nature-based solutions including blue-green infrastructure. Other areas such as land management (biological sequestration, peatland restoration, afforestation) and food have not been included due to less evidence of direct causal pathways between the action and mental health or wellbeing (Lawrance et al, 2022).

Most evidence we found regarding mental health and wellbeing co-benefits of climate action were related to mitigation measures. In a Scottish context, evidence related to adaptation measures was more limited. However, there was some evidence related to how managed realignment, as an adaptation measure to address coastal erosion, can pose both co-benefits and unintended negative consequences for coastal communities. See section 6.4 for discussion.

Climate action related to housing

In Scotland, the housing sector is an important area for developing climate mitigation and adaptation, with mitigation methods addressing the energy efficiency of housing providing the most relevant evidence. Energy efficiency improvement measures, such as wall and roof insulation, boiler upgrading and draught-proofing, can support a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the fuel needed to heat homes. Much of the literature analysing energy efficiency measures used environmental, public health, and anti-poverty lenses, which are relevant given the rise of fuel poverty and the cost-of-living crisis in Scotland. Moreover, there are strong links between energy efficiency measures and physical health improvements, particularly respiratory health. This is particularly relevant for Scotland where ill-health related to cold homes is a significant public health issue (UK Climate Risk, 2021).

The co-benefits and risks from climate action on housing are presented below through their causal mechanisms.

Improved thermal satisfaction

The evidence reviewed in our study presented it as an established fact that living in cold housing can contribute to poor mental health and wellbeing (Grey et al, 2017). Common mental health disorders such as anxiety and depression, as well as respiratory conditions such as asthma, have all been linked to living in cold homes. Vulnerable groups are more likely to live in poor quality housing. Vulnerable groups are also more likely to be unable to afford to turn heating on, and to spend more time in their homes (Gray et al, 2017). Energy efficiency measures can lead to warmer homes, and there is substantial evidence to suggest that improved thermal satisfaction can be linked to improved mental health (Hiscock et al, 2017). This is particularly true for those with existing chronic respiratory conditions (Thomson et al, 2013). However, there is also some evidence to suggest that energy efficiency measures could reduce thermal satisfaction through overheating, negatively impacting resident wellbeing (Hiscock et al, 2017). This risk is particularly relevant considering heatwaves and rising temperatures are an outcome of climate change in Scotland.

Improved air quality

Damp housing, the presence of mould, and poor indoor air quality have considerable negative impacts on overall health, including mental health (Hiscock et al, 2017). Access to warm and dry housing, especially for vulnerable groups such as children, older people and those with existing health conditions, is therefore associated with improved wellbeing (Vardoulakis et al, 2015; Bikomeye et al, 2021). Improved air quality can enhance the comfort of a home, making it easier to relax. However, if retrofitting is mismanaged and ventilation is not adequately considered, indoor air quality can worsen, potentially having unexpected negative consequences for wellbeing (Hiscock et al, 2017; Hiscock et al, 2014). By taking a more integrated approach to new-builds and retrofitting, risks associated with high indoor vapour and mould can be avoided (UK Climate Risk, 2021).

Potential reduction of fuel poverty

Energy efficiency measures may contribute to improved wellbeing by making heating more affordable. In Scotland, the majority of residential energy use is spent on heating homes (UK Climate Risk, 2021). Energy efficiency measures can reduce energy costs, alleviating some of the financial burden associated with fuel poverty. There is evidence to suggest that lower energy costs can reduce financial stress, benefitting mental health. Additionally, residents would have more money to spend on other necessities such as food, rent and transport (Grey et al, 2017). It can be inferred from this that energy efficiency measures could have the most impact on vulnerable groups and those in precarious financial situations.

Increased social interaction

Our review found evidence demonstrating the importance people place on their homes as places of comfort and relaxation (Hiscock et al, 2017). Warmer homes and improved air quality can lead to higher home satisfaction, which in turn can have a positive influence on social interaction as residents are more comfortable inviting guests to visit (Grey et al, 2017).

Climate action related to transport

Our review found evidence of the co-benefits for mental health and wellbeing of climate action regarding transport (Hiscock et al, 2017; Davis and White, 2022; ClimateXChange, 2021; Milner, Davies, and Wilkinson, 2012), including climate mitigation strategies such as individuals reducing their use of cars; policies promoting active travel (walking, wheeling, and cycling); and the prioritisation of public transport. These strategies aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while emphasising the health and wellbeing benefits of increased physical exercise and reduced noise and air pollution. These measures are known to provide a range of health and wellbeing benefits such as reduction in depression (Hiscock et al, 2014), reductions in obesity, diabetes, respiratory conditions, and cardiovascular disease and are shown to benefit mental health and wellbeing (Douglas et al, 2023).

In Scotland, the 20-minute neighbourhood concept supports a behavioural shift towards active travel. The idea behind it is that residents can meet their daily needs within a 20-minute walk, cycle or wheel of their home. Daily needs may include food shopping, accessing primary healthcare services, getting to school, and using public transport for onward travel to work and leisure activities (ClimateXChange, 2021). Another mechanism for climate change mitigation found in the literature is road space reallocation. This policy involves repurposing existing motor infrastructure (roads, roadside car parking) to promote sustainable transport (e.g., cycle lanes) or for community use (e.g., greenspace) (Douglas et al., 2023).

The co-benefits and risks from climate action on transport are presented below through their causal mechanisms.

Increased physical activity

The literature reviewed reports strong links between increased physical activity and improved mental health and wellbeing (Penedo and Dahn, 2005; Muirie, 2017). There is evidence that 20-minute neighbourhood infrastructure can increase walking and cycling behaviour in residents by reducing the need to travel by car. This behaviour change has physical health co-benefits, such as reducing the risk of obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases.

However, there may be unintended negative consequences of promoting active travel on residents’ wellbeing if policies that restrict car use are perceived as reducing independence or personal choice (Douglas et al, 2023). Moreover, in some areas, residents may unsafe walking alone or in poorly lit areas, preferring to use a car for personal safety. Feeling afraid may counteract a positive wellbeing effect and reduce people’s willingness to take up active transport options (Hiscock et al, 2014).

Reduced social isolation and improved community relationships

Safer walking and cycling routes can build more connected communities and increase the likelihood of social interaction compared to car use. This is due to people spending more time in their local area and being more likely to interact with others living nearby when using public transport or actively traveling. There is evidence that demonstrates the positive impact this has on wellbeing, including general mood improvement (Hiscock et al, 2017). However, unless a lens of equity is used when implementing 20-minute neighbourhood and active travel infrastructure, accessibility for disabled people may be overlooked. This is particularly true for road space reallocation which can make car travel difficult (Douglas et al, 2023). Such changes may negatively impact the wellbeing of those rely on cars by reducing independence and ability to travel.

Climate action using nature-based solutions

Our review found that nature-based solutions are important climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies with co-benefits for mental health and wellbeing. This was supported by systematic literature reviews such as Hiscock et al. (2017). Nature-based solutions are ‘actions to protect, sustainably manage, or restore natural ecosystems, that address societal challenges’ (World Bank, 2020). While there are many types of nature-based solutions, this report focuses on blue-green infrastructure, which provided the most relevant, high-quality evidence. Blue-green infrastructure can be defined as ‘a strategically planned multifunctional network of natural and semi-natural areas and features designed and managed to deliver multiple benefits to people’ (Kirby and Scott, 2023). Examples include linear greenways and paths; ground, wall and roof vegetation; urban trees and streetscapes; parks and green spaces; peri-urban and rural forests and woodlands; inland blue infrastructure regeneration (ponds, lakes, wetlands, canals, rivers); and coastal blue infrastructure regeneration. Blue-green infrastructure contributes to climate change mitigation by cooling down towns and cities (reducing the urban heat island effect) and capturing carbon. It can also help improve urban resilience to flooding by reducing stormwater runoff (Kirby and Scott, 2023).

Our review identified direct causal mechanisms tied to improved wellbeing through blue-green infrastructure, including increased physical activity, spending time in nature, and a sense of stewardship. Indirect pathways mentioned in the literature include the potential wellbeing benefits and risks of increased tourism and local business use resulting from blue-green infrastructure implementation. Different types of green infrastructure may produce different mental health and wellbeing co-benefits or risks, however the high-level analysis adopted in our approach produced insufficient evidence to offer a more granular typography of this effect. Architectural and urban design-focused green infrastructure, such as sustainable drainage solutions, cannot be covered in our analysis since there is insufficient evidence related to wellbeing co-benefits in a Scottish context. This may warrant future exploration if new evidence becomes available.

The co-benefits and risks from climate action through nature-based solutions are presented below through their causal mechanisms.

Increased physical activity

Regeneration of green and blue assets can lead to more local opportunities for physical activity. There is a strong link between exercise and positive mental health and wellbeing, both immediate and long-term. Being more active and increasing fitness can lead to improved physical health through reduced obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease risk (Bikomeye et al, 2021). Improved self-perceived general physical health can enhance overall quality of life and general wellbeing. However, unless implementation and regeneration of blue-green infrastructure is applied equitably, it risks benefitting primarily those in higher socio-economic communities. Environmental justice studies have demonstrated that those living in more deprived areas of towns and cities have less access to high-quality greenspaces and that the residents have poorer overall physical and mental health compared to those who live closer to green environments (Baka and Mabon, 2022).

Spending time in nature

The implementation and regeneration of blue-green infrastructure positively impact biodiversity, encouraging local people to spend more time in nature. As described in the previous sections in 4.3.2 and 5.2.4, our review found strong evidence of links between time spent in nature and improved wellbeing including reduced stress, recovery from mental fatigue and increased happiness (Bikomeye et al, 2021). Specific examples include studies showing the positive impact of socially prescribed visits to wetlands on patients’ anxiety and depression (Kirby and Scott, 2023). Existing research demonstrates that blue-green infrastructure must have essential components in order to produce these benefits, such as tranquillity, perceived ‘greenness’ and a sense of safety (Baka and Mabon, 2022). There is also evidence to suggest that connecting with nature can enhance ecological awareness, which, along with wellbeing improvements, can also elicit feelings of distress (Smith et al, 2024).

Sense of stewardship and community

Visible efforts to improve communities through linear greenways and paths, parks and green spaces, regenerated canals and wetlands can increase residents’ sense of pride and stewardship in their community. Our review found evidence supporting the idea that an improved sense of place and increased social cohesion benefits social wellbeing (Bikomeye, Rublee, and Beyer, 2021). Furthermore, good quality blue-green infrastructure can support the maintenance of collective identity and social memory (Baka and Mabon, 2022). As mentioned in section 5.4.1, the emphasis on quality infrastructure in realising these benefits is important to note. Blue-green infrastructure differentiates itself from general greenspace in its essence as a nature-based solution which is strategically planned to produce benefits for humans and the planet.

Managed realignment

In addition to ‘blue-green’ infrastructure we found some evidence that climate adaptation could also bring wellbeing benefits. Managed realignment is the restoration of wetlands through the deliberate moving inland of coastal defences (Liski et al, 2018). One study found that managed realignment could contribute to improved local population wellbeing due to the restoration of natural wetland habitat and the possibility for more activities in nature. It was also recognised that managed realignment could affect agricultural yield potential and therefore it may negatively impact farmers’ mental health due to risks to their livelihood and financial security (Liski et al, 2019).

Conclusions and implications for policy

Conclusion

This review has aimed to address four related research topics: the evidence of climate change risks to mental health and wellbeing, the nature of eco-distress in Scotland, evidence on interventions for mental health and wellbeing in a climate change context, and the evidence of co-benefits for mental health from climate action.

Direct and indirect risks to mental health

The findings of the review strongly support the view that climate change is increasing risks to mental health in Scotland and will continue to do so. Based on the third UK Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA3) and other country specific analysis, we found that the main relevant climate change-related hazards for Scotland are increased frequency and severity of flooding, higher temperatures, more frequent and longer droughts, and coastal changes due to sea-level rises. These hazards contribute to a range of negative mental health outcomes through the disruption of the conditions for good mental health in each domain of life. These disruptions operate through direct pathways, such as injury, trauma, and property loss because of extreme weather, and indirect pathways, such as impacts on livelihoods, social networks, and the increased risk displacement. The severity of mental health outcomes varies depending on the nature of exposure to the hazard and the circumstances of those facing them, but includes heightened risks of PTSD, suicide, depression, anxiety and general poor mental wellbeing.

There is strong evidence that the impacts of climate change on mental health are not distributed evenly but will affect some groups more than others. The three main factors that determine a group’s vulnerability to poor mental health outcomes are (1) their exposure to climate change-related hazards, (2) their wider vulnerabilities to poor mental health and (3) their access to resources and support to help them recover. Climate change amplifies existing, social, economic and demographic inequalities by disrupting the positive conditions for good mental health making groups vulnerable. In Scotland, groups at heightened risk include older people, children, women, ethnic minorities, low-income individuals, those with pre-existing health and mental health conditions, coastal and island communities, and workers in agriculture and fisheries.

Eco-distress

We also found that climate change may have an impact on mental health through eco-distress or eco-anxiety, a psycho-social response to the awareness of the threat to the environment. Our review of evidence from this emerging field of research shows that while there is currently no consensus on the definition, some common themes are clear. These include that eco-distress is future-orientated, is associated with feelings of uncertainty, unpredictability, uncontrollability and being overwhelmed, and it particularly affects young people and vulnerable groups. The emotions from eco-distress include anger, frustration, despair, guilt, shame and grief. Crucially, the literature is generally in agreement that eco-distress is not a pathological condition. Eco-distress is considered a rational and justified response that can also lead to pro-environmental behaviours and thoughts.

In Scotland, researchers have found that up to 70% of people express distress and worry about climate change and environmental issues. However, whether this translates to a high proportion of people meeting narrower definitions of eco-distress is very much dependent on the definition employed. Where validated scales of eco-anxiety are used, this figure appears to be lower.

While there remains disagreement on measurement of these emerging constructs the data clearly demonstrates that people, particularly young people and vulnerable groups, are worried about climate change. Whether some forms of worry should be considered damaging to a person’s wellbeing and what should be done about this, is less clear. We expect to see greater clarity in how researchers understand and measure the phenomenon of eco-distress as the field matures.

Mental health interventions

We reviewed the evidence on mental health interventions (programmes, policies and practices) aimed at supporting mental health in the context of climate change. The evidence we found in this area was mostly thin, with only 22 out of 60 identified interventions having been evaluated. Whilst our review indicated that there are many good practices available, it remains uncertain how relevant and helpful any intervention may be to addressing mental health risks related to climate change in Scotland.

Two types of intervention had relatively strong evidence of their effectiveness. First, we found nine evaluated interventions that focused on strengthening psychological resilience and building coping mechanisms. Activities such as group therapy were found to be useful both for bouncing back after experiencing traumatic climate events and for dealing with climate distress day-to-day without being overwhelmed. Second, we found four capacity building interventions with high-quality evaluations. Despite mostly being delivered in developing countries, capacity building programmes may be a useful response to climate events in Scotland, particularly through training on disaster preparation and mental health in the community.

We found some evidence that social connection, nature connection and taking climate action could also help prevent and respond to climate change risks to mental health, particularly for climate distress. Social connection interventions such as climate cafes reduced isolation and increased social capital, and also provided a space to validate climate emotions. Nature-based interventions have been found to reduce anxiety, stress and the severity of depression. Group activities for children and young people in nature were also found to improve emotional strength and develop social skills. Programmes that encouraged climate action improved levels of empowerment, which is particularly relevant for people experiencing climate distress.

Co-benefits of climate action

Climate action can lead to improved mental health and wellbeing through addressing some of the social determinants of mental health such as financial security and quality housing. Policymakers taking a cross-disciplinary approach to climate action and understanding the interconnected pathways of impact can achieve a win-win outcome for the climate and mental health.

Climate action can have co-benefits and unintended consequences. In fact, our analysis found that climate action related to housing provided an important opportunity to address several cross-cutting issues in Scotland, including mental health and wellbeing. Energy efficiency measures such as improved insulation can lead to warmer homes, which may increase thermal satisfaction, improve air quality and reduce fuel poverty. Social determinants of mental health including better financial security and improved general physical health play an important role in wellbeing co-benefits of housing climate action. However, with increasing temperatures and overheating risks posing a serious hazard in Scotland, it is important that building regulations support the installation and proper maintenance of appropriate ventilation and cooling adaptation measures when considering energy efficiency.

Social determinants of mental health were also present in our analysis of transport-related climate action. Prioritising active travel has potential wellbeing benefits through increased physical activity, reduced noise and air pollution, and improved community relationships. It is also important to take an equitable approach to transport policy to ensure vulnerable groups are able to take advantage of its benefits.

Climate action using nature-based solutions demonstrated similar opportunities for improving mental health and wellbeing through increased physical activity and a greater sense of community. However, nature-based solutions offer the most benefits for those who live in more affluent areas given that they have better access to green spaces and resources than deprived areas. Active measures to improve access for all groups within society to green spaces and natural environments can address this inequality.

Lessons for policy in Scotland

It is clear from our research that climate change represents a risk to the mental health and wellbeing of the Scottish population. In this section we discuss the main implication of our findings for policy.

Focus on risk areas

Mental health risks related to climate change derive from three main factors: people’s exposure to or awareness of climate related hazards; their existing vulnerabilities to poor mental health; and their access to resources and support. In general, each of these factors is potentially the site of policy intervention.

• Exposure to hazards: A primary way to address climate change-related impact on mental health is by addressing climate change itself at a macro-level through climate action (adaptation and mitigation). By lessening the frequency and severity of hazards and managing the severity of their impacts on communities, infrastructure, and services, one can reduce its impacts on mental health outcomes. Put simply, actions will prevent disruptions to the conditions for positive mental health.
• Existing vulnerabilities: As our research shows, climate change acts as an amplifier of existing vulnerabilities, which are the result of social, economic and demographic factors such as poverty, inequality and social exclusion. By working at a societal level to address the main causes of vulnerability to poor mental health outcomes, you reduce individual and groups vulnerabilities to the additional stressors caused by climate change. The effects of climate change are only one factor among many that impact population mental health. Taking steps to build a healthier and more resilient population will help protect against these impacts.
• Access to resources and support: Finally, a key determinant of mental health outcomes is people’s access to timely and appropriate support to recover from emergencies, or navigate the disruption caused to lives and livelihoods by climate hazards. Improving the comprehensiveness and accessibility of support in relation to the main hazards (e.g., emergency services, welfare and social services, health and mental health support) is likely to reduce the negative impact of climate change on population mental health. While there is also a need for targeted and climate change-specific interventions, mainstream services have a strong role to play in protecting the population from negative outcomes.

Prioritise areas of urgency and vulnerability

There is a growing body of risk analysis that predicts the most common and impactful climate-related hazards in Scotland. These are flooding, increased temperatures and loss of coastal land. Risk analyses also note the growing risk offered by droughts, poor air quality, and biodiversity loss. There is also an increasing understanding of populations most at risk from these hazards, determined by their exposure to the hazards (i.e., geographical in the case of flood risk or sea-level rises) and social vulnerabilities in terms of social, economic, demographic factors, and living circumstances. With this knowledge, responses may include for example:

• Integrating mental health awareness/response into emergency response, as more evidence shows the negative mental health consequences of involvement in emergencies, and which groups are most vulnerable to these impacts. Incorporating a mental health lens to emergency response may help reduce the negative mental health impacts. Targeted support for vulnerable people caught up in climate-related emergencies may reduce the prevalence, duration and severity of poor mental health outcomes. This should involve developing cross-sector plans for emergency response prior to emergencies that integrates mental health awareness and support, combined with early identification of mental health concerns and intervention in the event of a climate-related emergency.
• Specific action about temperature for the most vulnerable: In addition to public health information provision aimed at increasing heat awareness and reducing the impact of temperature on population mental health, there may be value in identifying people at most risk of poor outcomes via their contact with services. This may require the provision of training and awareness raising for professionals. It is also important to ensure that settings with high proportions of vulnerable people such as healthcare and care settings are equipped to manage high temperatures.
• Support for groups whose livelihoods are impacted by climate change and climate action: Our research identifies groups whose livelihoods may be affected by climate change in the long run, such as agricultural and fisheries workers, those who work in the tourism industry and groups who work in high-emissions industries such as oil and gas whose livelihoods may be affected by the planned transition to net zero. Policymakers should consider measures to mitigate negative mental health and wellbeing outcomes from these changes through, for example, the provision of alternative employment and training opportunities, welfare transfers and other forms of support.
• Managed displacement: As the effects of climate change advance, it is increasingly likely that communities will be displaced. Our research found that the way this process is managed – whether it is planned and orderly, or unplanned and in response to an emergency – can have a major bearing on mental health and wellbeing. This suggests the importance of long-term planning to identify the most vulnerable communities to work with to manage future displacement.

Reverse disempowerment though building connection and prompting action

A key challenge for policy is to understand climate emotions not only as problems but also as levers and solutions. Emotions are often what lead people to act: “ecological anxiety and grief, although uncomfortable, are in fact the crucible through which humanity must pass to harness the energy and conviction needed for the lifesaving changes now required.” (Cunsolo et al, 2020). In short, policy can use care and emotion as assets.

While eco-anxiety affects people from all demographics, young people are particularly exposed to it and it is important that they are supported to help mitigate this. Early evidence suggests that eco-anxiety is lessened where people are empowered to act in their lives, communities and political systems.

One of the most effective areas for action is to identify affected groups and invest in interventions that empower participants and give agency. In practice, direct climate action and preventing/addressing mental health risks are often two sides of the same coin. Addressing helplessness supports a sense of agency and can often trigger people and groups into action. The way people think and feel about climate change influences climate action, and climate action in turn changes emotions related to the environment (Lawrance et al, 2022). This implies that increasing climate agency and action has the potential to reduce the impact of climate distress on mental health and wellbeing, while also improving the climate itself (Lawrance et al, 2022).

Take visible actions

As described above, a key pillar of any response to climate change-related mental health issues is robust, ambitious climate action on mitigation and adaptation. In order to address people’s rational and legitimate anxieties about the future, they need to feel that proportionate action is being taken to address the threats and local, national and supra-national levels. Our review shows that eco-anxiety is linked to the perception of inaction on climate change by government and other actors. While this is a key condition to manage the mental consequences of climate change, action should be coupled with clear and transparent communication.

Public communication about climate change and climate action

The final area found for intervening in the mental health risks of climate change was public communication. Messaging on climate change needs to be viewed through the lens of building resilience and agency or it may increase levels of climate dread and denialism (Hathaway, 2017). For many experiencing eco-distress, the severity of the ecological crisis is such that it is no longer certain that future generations will arrive and thrive. This creates disorientation. Attempts to shock people with facts or using fear, guilt, or shame to motivate ecological action produce ‘defensive rigidity’ (Hathaway, 2017).

For many who read shocking news on the climate, full awareness of the crisis may be painful. Psychic distress can be reduced by ‘‘turning down the volume’’ instead of acting (Sewall, 1995). Danger signals, which should demand attention and lead to collective action, instead “make us want to pull down the blinds and busy ourselves with other things” (Macy and Brown, 1998). From a mental health standpoint, communication should seek to give agency to those in distress through engaging empathy, cultivating hope and focusing on local level actions rather than provoking guilt.

Select areas for action with existing resources in mind

The scale of climate worry and the necessity for climate action mean that at national, regional and local levels, collaborative efforts should be developed to address the mental health implications of climate change through concrete actions by all key agencies including health and mental health services, and local authorities (Hayes et al, 2018). At present, global studies indicate mental health resources available to intervene specifically in mental health issues arising from climate change are inadequate, insufficient and inequitably distributed (Hayes et al, 2018; Lawrance et al, 2022); As temperatures and climate events increase, investment in effective interventions and climate actions, such as in transport and housing, will be necessary to improve wellbeing of residents in Scotland to cultivate hope and prompt individual and collective action. However, since public finances in Scotland and elsewhere are tight, it is important to build upon existing resources and systems and avoid building a parallel suite of actions:

• The authors recognise that addressing inequalities of access and care are already a priority in the long-term mental health strategy (Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy) and the latest delivery plan (2023-2025), and recommend that climate change and its impacts be considered in their implementation.
• We found many areas of intervention and adaptation that are either already delivered in Scotland or similar actions are taking place. These include nature-based solutions, social connection interventions and nature connection interventions.

Support monitoring of prevalence and evaluation of interventions and adaptations

Evidence on the prevalence and distribution of mental health impacts of climate change in Scotland is inconsistent with substantial gaps. We suggest more systematic monitoring of key indicators to best target support towards the communities with the greatest need. For example, consider including eco-distress as an item on an existing or new longitudinal survey of the population in Scotland.

It is notable that many interventions and adaptations were delivered with very little attention to measuring the mental health impact on participants. This has led to a limited evidence base on what works to address the mental health and wellbeing impact of climate change, despite many promising and worthy actions in this area. As a result, the scope to have fully evidence-informed confident policy decisions for addressing mental health risks in this area or to see which outcomes are produced (and can be reproduced) for vulnerable groups in Scotland is also limited.

The evidence base could be improved by the adoption of a more holistic vision of climate action, taking a system-wide view to include physical health and mental health not as co-benefits but primary benefits. Further, when commissioning infrastructure, adaptations or interventions, we recommend the inclusion of funding for monitoring and evaluation or access to evaluation resources that have at least some focus on the mental health impact on participants. Given the growing incidence of climate events and climate distress, building a knowledge base now will help policymakers make informed decisions to address the wellbeing impact of climate change in Scotland.

Appendix A: Methodology for systematic evidence review

Process overview

The systematic evidence review was conducted in three sequential stages: (1) scoping and collation and assessment of longlist; (2) collation and assessment of shortlist; and (3) synthesis and reporting. This document provides an overview of these stages and the procedures that were applied.

Figure 2 Workflow for the evidence review

Our approach to this review was designed to produce strongly evidenced answers to four research questions which are collectively targeted at understanding the relationship between climate change and mental health, and how interventions may affect this relationship.

These research questions can be clustered according to whether they relate primarily to population studies or interventions.

Population study based and conceptual questions:

1. What is the evidence of climate related risks and impacts to mental health and wellbeing in Scotland, and how these might differentially affect population groups?
2. How is ‘eco-distress’ (including ‘eco-anxiety’) currently defined, what is the current/potential prevalence in Scotland and how might this differentially affect population groups?

In general, these questions were answered by reviewing general population studies (for instance, research addressing how people feel because of climate change) or conceptual studies (for instance, defining relevant concepts or identifying types of causal relationship).

Intervention based questions:

1. What is the evidence on effective prevention and early intervention, and on responding to mental health and wellbeing risks and impacts in a climate change context in Scotland?
2. What is the evidence of co-benefits and risks, or unintended consequences, for mental health and wellbeing from climate action (both mitigation and adaptation) relevant in a Scottish context?

These questions were mainly addressed through analysis of intervention studies (for instance, studies of how people feel following climate change interventions or after a climate adaptation has been delivered).

Given the potential breadth of these questions and the timeline in which to answer them, the study included four interviews with experts who provided an informed overview of the topic areas, including working definitions of key terms, Scotland-specific insights to the topics, and key studies and interventions. With the help of the project steering group and our own searches we identified individuals with expertise in either/ both academic research in relevant fields to the research questions (i.e., mental health and climate change), and relevant Scottish Government policy and practice.

Stage 1: Collating and assessment of a ‘long list’ of items

The first stage in the evidence review entailed searching and collating relevant material using search engines and identifying other sources to create a longlist of potentially relevant documents. This involved searching, collating, and defining items for review and entering these into an extraction spreadsheet. The items were drawn from two sources:

1. Items results from search engine searches to identify materials.
2. Items identified through ‘snowballing’ (recommendations from the Core Team; external experts; other experts; references from other documents)

The documents selected were then assessed and filtered to produce a shortlist. Many of the documents on the longlist were not directly relevant to answer the research questions, therefore were excluded from the shortlist. However, many covered topics tangentially related to mental health and climate change, such as climate migration and job losses, and so were retained in the longlist, shared, and referred to in reporting where relevant to the broader topic or when indicating areas for further research .

Data sources

The searches were performed on a variety of platforms to ensure that two types of sources were identified: i) ‘official’ published literature, e.g., books; peer reviewed journal articles; formal reports and ii) ‘grey’ literature, e.g. website material; intervention descriptions; statistics; company data; government policies and actions. Searching was confined to the period 2015-present unless key ‘landmark’ texts (that have very high levels of citations within the field or are considered to provide key theoretical developments to the field such as coining key terms) and surveys were identified by stakeholders or in other publications that had been published earlier. This search concentrated on the peer reviewed ‘academic’ and practice literature, mapping concepts, theories, policies, and practices with regard to climate change and mental health.

The sources for materials are set out below.

• Academic search engines (semanticscholar.org and Google Scholar)
• Generic search engines for grey literature (Google)
• Government and other public body websites e.g. https://www.gov.scot/publications/ ; http://www.healthscotland.scot/publications
• References of relevant documents, documents referred to by experts

Search terms

The search terms were structured to answer the four key research questions we needed to cover. This initial list was subject to iteration depending on the search results.

Table 3 Search Terms

Entering items in extraction spreadsheet

Each item identified was logged in an excel spreadsheet, one per row, using the following descriptors (column headings):

• Item number – for researcher reference
• Title – of book; article etc.
• Type – book, article, report etc.
• Source – where obtained from
• Authors
• Date – date published
• URL – if exists (data consulted)
• Focus – Short description of which research question(s) it addresses or the focus of the study
• Summary – A brief one- or two-line summary description of the item, e.g. using an ‘abstract’ of a report or article
• Who – the researcher who inputted the item.

Table 4 Snapshot of longlist extraction template: basic information

Stage 2: collation and assessment of a ‘short list’ of items

Inclusion/exclusion criteria

The searching process generated 238 items that were potentially of value. Due to time constraints, only items that were likely to score ‘1’ on domain relevance were included on the longlist. These items had to be separated into the four research areas and assessed for their rigour, relevance and value to the study. This second stage therefore entailed reviewing the material collected though stage 1 in order to select a shortlist of the most relevant items. The checklist below provided a simple way for the research team to rank relevance and consists of applying seven assessment criteria to each item. Table 4 presents the checklist the research team used which was completed by scoring each of the boxes for which the item meets the criteria to arrive at a total ‘score’. In order for the shortlist to be relevant to Scotland and include systematic reviews, the two relevant criteria were given double weighting.

Table 5 Inclusion-Exclusion criteria for Data Audit

The shortlist selection used the checklist as follows:

• If Criterion 1 not ticked (Domain relevance) then the item was discarded. This includes items relating to potentially indirect effects of climate change, such as the wellbeing impact of losing a job, the impact of migration, that did not explicitly refer to climate change as a cause.
• Make judgement on selection of the remaining items. Firstly, look at the total score. The higher the score, the stronger the case for selecting a particular item for subsequent analysis. Secondly, look at the ‘relevance’ scores for the items, particularly on whether the study concerned Scotland. The higher the relevance scores the stronger the case for selecting a particular item for subsequent analysis. Finally, check the summaries for the items from the extraction sheet and assess the extent to which they are useful for the study.

Table 6 Snapshot of shortlist extraction template: Inclusion rating

Many items fulfilled several criteria. All items were relevant to at least one research question and only 13 percent were not published since 2015. Close to half (45 percent) of items were scoping or systematic reviews. Fourteen percent directly concerned Scotland since search terms specifying ‘Scotland’ were included in all searches.

Table 7 Item counts for the shortlisting criteria

Table 7 shows that nearly 75 percent of items scored five or above and under 5 percent scored 8 or above. As over 100 items scored between 6 and 10, these high scoring items were the focus of analysis in the analysis and synthesis stage. This scoring system was not infallible, however, and some items were selected from the longlist with lower scores where appropriate. In addition, other items not in the longlist were also added to the analysis where gaps in the literature were found during the analysis stage.

Table 8 Scores of items in the longlist

Stage 3: Analysing selected items

Using the results of the shortlisting process, we analysed each item selected in the shortlist and summarised the results of the analysis. The approach taken to answering the research questions differed depending on the nature of the research question.

Analysis for research questions 1 and 2

Content analysis of the material related to research questions 1^[8] and 2^[9] followed the ‘inspection’ method. This entails scanning each item of material manually, creating a classification framework and coding constructs to map the occurrence of particular items, and the relationships between them for each research question. This classification frame and set of constructs were then modified and added to as the analysis develops.

The framework is divided into three sections.

Section 1 provides details on the item (name; type of material; source; summary of the content). This was imported from the extraction template.

Section 2 provides a framework for analysing the item. The initial classification framework is a ‘first baseline’ for the content analysis. Each item was analysed across three dimensions which underwent iteration depending on the results of the exercise:

• A Thematic dimension (column 1), reflecting the key themes and research objectives of the study, using the language of the research questions. For example, determinants of health; unintended effects; prevention.
• Each theme is broken down into a number of sub-themes – ‘constructs’ – that should be searched for within each item being analysed. These were initially developed following the shortlisting process and undergo further iteration throughout the analysis. For example, exacerbation of health conditions, prevalence of conditions, community-based interventions etc.
• Codes and examples or descriptors of how each construct is treated (described) in the material being analysed should be entered into Column 3. This could include direct quotations from the text/material to help illustrate the study research questions. For example, a paragraph of text on the wellbeing effects of being flooded.

In Section 3 additional themes, constructs, and descriptors were added as the analysis developed.

We highlighted evidence particularly relevant to Scotland, particularly research examining Scottish or UK populations; relating to common climate change hazards in Scotland (e.g., flooding); or from similar climatic, geographical, or social/governmental contexts.

A 2021 scoping review identified 120 original research studies that examined mental health and climate change. The earliest study identified was published in 2007 with the review finding an increasing trend in the number of studies on this topic each year up to the present (Charlson et al, 2021). As the number of original research studies has increased, there has been a growing number of literature and evidence reviews that summarise the overall state of the field now (Lawrance et al, 2022; Charlson et al, 2021; Cianconi, Betro, and Janiri, 2020; Hayes et al, 2018; Manning and Clayton, 2018). For this reason, we took the decision to focus our analysis on the most recent and highly cited literature and evidence reviews and those with the most robust review methodologies, for this we following adapted Rapid Evidence Assessment protocols from DfID (2015), research quality assessment for each shortlisted study was related to four criteria: conceptual framing, methodological transparency, validity, and relevance. We then supplemented review findings with reference to original studies or additional evidence where useful.

Analysis for research question 3

For answering research question 3^[10] the analytical process initially paid close attention to the core dimensions of Realist Synthesis:

• Context (where the studies/interventions were conducted, what part context played in the results for example via geography specific effects)
• Mechanisms that underpinned the effects of interventions (for instance, experiencing a greater sense of agency through direct environmental work)
• Outcomes (which aspects of mental health, other determinants of health are covered)

Individual interventions were identified from the shortlist for research question 3. Systematic reviews and other scoping reviews were then mapped in terms of how they categorised relevant interventions. Areas of overlap were identified and some intervention types were insufficient data were not included in the analysis. This resulted in eight types of intervention being included in the review: Capacity building, Climate justice, Communication, Nature connection, Participation, Practitioner development, Resilience and coping, and Social Connection.

Interventions were then input into a spreadsheet with the following criteria using descriptive text:

• Name
• Level of action
• Location
• Study design
• Climate stressor
• Target population
• Intervention details
• Inclusion of co-design
• Expected mental health outcome (measure)
• Evaluation results

From this, further analysis was conducted on the qualitative data to make a simpler set of codes from the descriptive data. These topics are listed below along with the input options [in square brackets]:

• Location code [Developed country, Global South, UK or Scotland]
• Evidence effectiveness cluster [A, B or C – see below for more details]
• Climate distress [Yes or no]
• Primary subgroup [Any, Indigenous, Low income, Minorities, Poor mental health, Potential activists, Practitioners, Rural, Teachers, Vulnerable, or Youth]
• Primary outcome [Relief from disorders, Reduce distress, Improved wellbeing, Empowerment, Coping self-efficacy, Social capital, Validate emotions, or Optimism]
• Secondary outcome [same list as primary outcomes]
• Primary mechanism [Capacity building, Climate justice, Communication, Nature connection, Participation, Practitioner development, Resilience and coping, and Social connection]
• Secondary mechanism [same list as primary mechanism]

The framework used for assessment of quality of evidence for the interventions is outlined below.

Evidence of Effectiveness Assessment for Interventions

To ensure the appraisal process measures strength of evidence, the research team assessed each identified initiative using a bespoke Standards of Evidence framework we developed for the Medici project called the Evidence Effectiveness Framework. The framework has tight criteria and clusters initiatives into three categories: Cluster A: Innovative Interventions, Cluster B: Effective Interventions, and Cluster C: Replicable Interventions. These clusters and the inclusion criteria are outlined below.

Cluster A: Innovative Interventions

Cluster A has a low threshold for inclusion as it is for new, innovative interventions which are prepared for further roll out. This is where many interventions were assigned, since interventions related to eco-distress are likely to be relatively new.

We do not expect new interventions to have been subject to rigorous evaluations. However, a promising intervention should be as prepared as possible through research, specification of the intervention logic, piloting and plans for evaluation.

This cluster includes interventions which have:

• Recently begun delivery
• Have defined and designed their intervention with care
• Are likely to have a positive impact if delivered at scale

Assessment questions

• Has any research been conducted on this intervention type by the originating organisation?
• Yes / no
• Has their intervention been piloted by the originating organisation?
• Yes / no
• Is there evidence that the intervention has a defined theory or a Theory of Change?
• Yes / no
• Is there an evidence plan to determine whether the intervention makes a difference?
• Yes / no
• When was the intervention first delivered?
• Year/month
• To what extent can this intervention be considered to be innovative?
• Likert scale 1-5 from not innovative at all to highly innovative

Threshold for inclusion in Cluster A

Projects must achieve the following to be included in Cluster A:

• Questions 1, 2, 3 & 4 must be ‘yes’ (or don’t know) AND
• Question 5 must be under 5 years ago
• Question 6 must be a ‘3’ or higher.

Cluster B: Effective interventions

Cluster B relates to whether the intervention has been shown a positive effect on its target group. This implies a specific evaluation of the project has been implemented, that the evaluation showed a positive effect on relevant outcomes, and that the data which shows this positive effect has been generated using an appropriate methodology.

The questions on methodological fit assume that the intervention logic or theory has been articulated and the methodology is transparent. The question can be answered with respect to which outcomes were measured, how they were measured, and whether (quasi-) experimental methods would be logistically/ethically inappropriate.

This cluster included interventions which have:

• Received one or more evaluation with positive outcomes
• Been evaluated using appropriate methods that support confident conclusions
• Include a well-defined set of outcomes which fits their change model.

Assessment questions

• Through the data collected and analysed we have seen there is change.
• Yes / no
• Is / are the outcome evaluation(s) based on an appropriate / well-articulated and justified evaluation approach that is commensurate with the intervention? This could be either “qual” and/or “quant”.
• Yes / no
• How well has the study has been implemented / methodological issues (like sample sizes) been considered to allow rigorous conclusions to be drawn?
• Likert scale of 1 – 5

Threshold for inclusion in Cluster B

An intervention was included in Cluster B if it:

• Answers ‘yes’ to question 1 and 2 AND
• Scores 3 out of 5 or above for question 3.

Cluster C: Replicable interventions

This is the final cluster in the evidence of effectiveness rating system. It is for interventions that already have a strong evidence base behind them that has been generated by a number of evaluations which may also have been implemented in different locations or by applying the intervention with different target groups.

This cluster is differentiated from Cluster B as the evaluations should provide a higher degree of confidence that the intervention has caused or contributed towards the change observed. The evidence provided may be qualitative or quantitative and ideally, combine the two. The chosen methods need to be embedded in, and appropriate to, a well justified evaluation approach and implemented to provide the best data possible.

This cluster included interventions which have:

• Received more than one evaluation with positive outcomes (without replication but with increasing rigour)
• Been replicated and evaluated in the replication destination
• Both of the above.

We have included flexibility as to whether the cluster requires interventions to have been replicated as we feel that there is otherwise too great a distance between the requirements for cluster B and C.

Assessment questions

• Does the project have a Theory of Change and if so, does this theory of change include evidence based / realistic outcomes that have been shown to materialise (for the target group / beneficiaries)?
• Yes / no
• Are the outcome evaluations based on an appropriate / well-articulated and justified evaluation approach that is commensurate with the intervention? This could be either “qual” and/or “quant”.
• Yes / no
• How well have the studies been implemented / methodological issues (like sample sizes) been considered to allow rigorous conclusions to be drawn?
• Likert scale of 1 – 5
• Has more than one evaluation of this intervention been conducted by an independent evaluator? These evaluations could be in one location or multiple locations.
• Yes / no

Threshold for inclusion

Projects must achieve the following to be included in Cluster C:

• Questions 1, 2 & 4 must be ‘yes’ AND
• Question 3 must be a ‘3’ or higher.

The analysis resulted in 60 interventions being categorised

Table 9 Count of evidence effectiveness categorisation

The full list of interventions can be found in Appendix D.

Analysis for research question 4

As stated in Chapter 6, analysis of research question 4^[11] on the co-benefits of climate adaptation and mitigation largely followed the same process as the three sections outlined for research questions 1 and 2: identifying themes, sub-themes and key extracts from studies, then using this as a basis for further analysis. This resulted in 22 high quality sources being reviewed which related to the co-benefits and risks of climate action for mental health and wellbeing.

Appendix B: Causal pathways between climate change and mental health

Figure Illustrates Lawrance et al (2022)’s idea of a continuum of casual pathways between climate change and mental health (from direct to indirect), starting with the main hazards at the top of the diagram leading through to the main mental health outcomes at the bottom via many possible casual pathways.

Appendix C: Shortlisted items from the Realist Synthesis Review

Appendix D: Interventions included in Chapter 5

References

Agoston, C., Csaba, B., Nagy, B., Kovary, Z., Dull, A., Racz, J., and Demetrovics, Z., 2022. ‘Identifying Types of Eco-Anxiety, Eco-Guilt, Eco-Grief, and Eco-Coping in a Climate-Sensitive Population: A Qualitative Study’, in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 19(4): 2461.

Agyapong, V.I., Hrabok, M., Juhas, M., Omeje, J., Denga, E., Nwaka, B., Akinjise, I., Corbett, S.E., Moosavi, S., Brown, M. and Chue, P., 2018. ‘Prevalence rates and predictors of generalized anxiety disorder symptoms in residents of Fort McMurray six months after a wildfire’, in Frontiers in psychiatry. 9: 345.

Albrecht, G., 2011. ‘Chronic Environmental Change: Emerging ‘Psychoterratic’ Syndromes’, in Weissbecker, I. (Eds.) Climate Change and Human Well-Being: International and Cultural Psychology. New York (NY), Springer.

Allen, J., Balfour, R., Bell, R., and Marmot, M., 2014. ‘Social determinants of mental health’, in International Review of Psychiatry. 26(4): 392-407.

Andrews, N., 2022. ‘The Emotional Experience of Members of Scotland’s Citizens’ Assembly on Climate Change’, in Frontiers in Climate. 4: 817166.

Andrews, N., 2020, ‘Analysis of Scottish Flood Forum (Flood Advice Centre) Health questionnaires 2016’, [Unpublished paper].

Andrews, N., Elstub, E., McVean, S., and Sandie, G., 2022. Scotland’s Climate Assembly Research Report – process, impact and Assembly member experience. Edinburgh: Scottish Government Research.

Audit Scotland, 2023. Access to Mental Health Services Slow and Complicated. [Online] [Accessed 13.08.24]. Available at: https://audit.scot/news/access-to-mental-health-services-slow-and-complicated

Baird, F., Partridge, J. and Spray, D., 2021. Anticipating and mitigating projected climate-driven increases in extreme drought in Scotland, 2021-2040. [Online] [Accessed 13.08.24] Available at: https://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/applied-ecology-resources/document/20220408550/

Baka, A. and Mabon, L., 2022. ‘Assessing equality in neighbourhood availability of quality greenspace in Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom’, in Landscape Research. 47(5): 584-597.

Berry, H., Bowen, K. and Kjellstrom, T., 2010. ‘Climate change and mental health: a causal pathways framework’, in International Journal of Public health. 55: 123-132.

Bikomeye, J., Rublee, C., and Beyer, K., 2021. ‘Positive externalities of climate change mitigation and adaptation for human health: a review and conceptual framework for public health research.’ International journal of environmental research and public health. 18(5): 2481.

Bikomeye, J.C., Rublee, C.S. and Beyer, K.M., 2021. ‘Positive externalities of climate change mitigation and adaptation for human health: a review and conceptual framework for public health research’, in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 18(5): 2481.

Brophy, H., Olson, J., and Paul, P., 2022. ‘Eco-Anxiety in Youth: An Integrative Literature Review’, in International Journal of Mental Health Nursing. 32(3): 633-661

Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), 2015. The Human Cost of Weather-Related Disasters, 1995-2015. [Online] [Accessed 13.08.24] Available at: https://www.unisdr.org/2015/docs/climatechange/COP21_WeatherDisastersReport_2015_FINAL.pdf

Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), 2019. Human Cost of Disasters: An overview of the last 20 years, 2000-2019. [Online] [Accessed 13.08.24] Available at: https://www.preventionweb.net/files/74124_humancostofdisasters20002019reportu.pdf

Chambers, J., 2020. ‘Global and cross-country analysis of exposure of vulnerable populations to heatwaves from 1980 to 2018’, in Climatic Change. 163(1): 539-558.

Charlson, F., Ali, S., Benmarhnia, T., Pearl, M., Massazza, A., Augustinavicius, J. and Scott, J.G., 2021. ‘Climate change and mental health: a scoping review’, in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 18(9): 4486.

Charlson, F., M. van Ommeren, A. Flaxman, J. Cornett, H. Whitefordm, and S. Saxena, 2019. ‘New WHO prevalence estimates of mental disorders in conflict settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis’, in The Lancet. 394(10194): 240-248.

Cianconi, P., Betrò, S. and Janiri, L., 2020. ‘The impact of climate change on mental health: a systematic descriptive review’, in Frontiers in psychiatry. 11: 74.

Cianconi, P., Hanife, B., Grillo, F., Betro, S., Lesemana, C., and Janiri, L., 2023. ‘Eco-Emotions and Psychoterratic Syndromes: Reshaping Mental Health Assessment Under Climate Change’, in Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine. 96(2): 211-226.

Circularity, no date. Navigating Eco-Anxiety for Historically Underserved Students. [Online] [Accessed 13.08.24]. Available at: https://circularitycommunity.com/

Clayton, S., 2020. ‘Development and Validation of a Measure of Climate Change Anxiety’, in Journal of Environmental Psychology, 69.

Clayton, S., Manning, C., Krygsman, K., and Speiser, M., 2017. Mental Health and our Changing Climate: Impacts, Implications, and Guidance. Washington, DC., American Psychological Association and ecoAmerica.

Clayton, S., Manning, C.M., Hill, A.N. and Speiser, M., 2023. ‘Mental health and our changing climate: Children and youth report 2023. Washington DC, American Psychological Association and ecoAmerica.

ClimateXChange, 2021. 20 minute neighbourhoods in a Scottish context, [Online] [Accessed 21.05.24] https://era.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1842/37524/CXC%20-%2020%20minute%20neighbourhoods%20in%20a%20Scottish%20context%20March%202021.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y

ClimateXChange, 2022. Public awareness of climate risks and opportunities in Scotland, [Online] [Accessed 21.06.24] https://www.climatexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/cxc-public-awareness-of-climate-risks-and-opportunities-in-scotland-january-2022.pdf

Coffey, Y, Bhullar, N., Durkin, J., Islam, M., and Usher, K., 2021. ‘Understanding Eco-Anxiety: A Systematic Scoping Review of Current Literature and Identified Knowledge Gaps’, in The Journal of Climate Change and Health, 3.

Costello, A., Abbas, M., Allen, A., Ball, S., Bell, S., Bellamy, R., Friel, S., Groce, N., Johnson, A., Kett, M. and Lee, M., 2009. ‘Managing the health effects of climate change: The Lancet and University College London Institute for Global Health Commission’, in The Lancet Commissions. 373(9676): 1693-1733.

Cruz, J., White, P.C., Bell, A. and Coventry, P.A., 2020. ‘Effect of extreme weather events on mental health: a narrative synthesis and meta-analysis for the UK’, in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 17(22): 8581.

Cunsolo, A., Harper, S. L., Minor, K., Hayes, K., Williams, K.G., and Howard, C., 2020. ‘Ecological grief and anxiety: the start of a healthy response to climate change?’, in Lancet Planet Health. 4 (7): e261–3

Curll, S., Stanley, S., Brown, P., and O’Brien, L., 2022. ‘Nature connectedness in the climate change context: implications for climate action and mental health’, in Transnational Issues in Psychological Science. 8: 448–460.

Currie, M., Philip, L. and Dowds, G., 2020. Long-term impacts of flooding following the winter 2015/16 flooding in North East Scotland: Summary Report. CREW Report 2016_02, 24pp.

Davenport, L., 2021. All the feelings under the sun: How to deal with climate change. Washington DC., Magination Press.

Davis, A. and Whyte, B., 2022. ‘Making the shift to sustainable transport in Scotland’, in Cities & Health. 6 (2): 267-274.

Department for International development, 2015, Rapid Evidence Assessments https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/rapid-evidence-assessments [Accessed 13.06.24]

Dooley, L., Sheats, J., Hamilton, O., Chapman, D., and Karlin, B., 2021. Climate Change & Youth Mental Health: Psychological Impacts, Resilience Resources & Future Directions. [Online] [Accessed 13.08.24] Available at: https://seechangeinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Climate-Change-and-Youth-Mental-Health-Report.pdf

Douglas, M.J., Teuton, J., Macdonald, A., Whyte, B. and Davis, A.L., 2023. ‘Road space reallocation in Scotland: A health impact assessment’, in Journal of Transport & Health. 30: 101625.

Fritze, J.G., Blashki, G.A., Burke, S. and Wiseman, J., 2008. ‘Hope, despair and transformation: Climate change and the promotion of mental health and wellbeing’, in International journal of mental health systems, 2, pp.1-10.

Flores, E.C., Brown, L.J., Kakuma, R., Eaton, J. and Dangour, A.D., 2023. ‘Mental health and wellbeing outcomes of climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies: a systematic review’, in Environmental Research Letters. 19 (1). Available at: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ad153f/meta

Gao, J., Cheng, Q., Duan, J., Xu, Z., Bai, L., Zhang, Y., Zhang, H., Wang, S., Zhang, Z. and Su, H., 2019. ‘Ambient temperature, sunlight duration, and suicide: A systematic review and meta-analysis’, in Science of the total environment. 646: 1021-1029.

Gifford, E., and Gifford, R., 2016. ‘The Largely Unacknowledged Impact of Climate Change on Mental Health’, in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 72.

Grant, B., 2021. Coping with the climate crisis: Investigating the mental health impacts of climate change on youth. Undergraduate dissertation, University of Waterloo. Available at: https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/items/9cf67856-7e59-4e1d-bdeb-7bc07cdb667d

Grey, C.N., Jiang, S., Nascimento, C., Rodgers, S.E., Johnson, R., Lyons, R.A. and Poortinga, W., 2017. ‘The short-term health and psychosocial impacts of domestic energy efficiency investments in low-income areas: a controlled before and after study’, in BMC Public Health. 17: 1-10.

Grey, C.N., Jiang, S., Nascimento, C., Rodgers, S.E., Johnson, R., Lyons, R.A. and Poortinga, W., 2017. ‘The short-term health and psychosocial impacts of domestic energy efficiency investments in low-income areas: a controlled before and after study’, in BMC Public Health. 17: 1-10.

Hall, E., and Coenen-Rowe, L., 2022. Climate Beacons Evaluation Report: Learning from a Scotland-wide collaborative project stimulating deep-rooted public engagement with climate change. Edinburgh, Creative Carbon Scotland.

Hathaway, M. D., 2017. ‘Activating hope in the midst of crisis: Emotions, transformative learning, and “The Work That Reconnects”’, in Journal of Transformative Education. 15(4): 296-314.

Hayes, K., Blashki, G., Wiseman, J., Burke, S., and Reifels, L., 2018. ‘Climate change and mental health: risks, impacts and priority actions.’, in International Journal of Mental Health Systems. 12(1): 28.

Hechanova, M., Docena, P., Alampay, L., Acosta, A., Porio, E., Melgar, I., Berger, R., 2018. ‘Evaluation of a resilience intervention for Filipino displaced survivors of Super Typhoon Haiyan’, in Disaster Prevention and Management. 27: 346–359

Helm., S., Pollitt, A., Barnett, M., Curran, M., and Craig, Z., 2018. ‘Differentiating Environmental Concern in the Context of Psychological Adaption to Climate Change’, in Global Environmental Change 48: 158

Hickman, C., 2020. ‘We need to (find a way to) talk about… Eco-anxiety’, in Journal of Social Work Practice. 4: 411-424

Hickman, C., Marks, E., Pihkala, P., Clayton, S., Lewandowski, R., Mayall, E., Wray, B., Mellor, C., and Sustren, L., 2021. ‘Climate Anxiety in Children and Young People and their Beliefs about Government Responses to Climate Change: A Global Survey’, in The Lancet: Planetary Health. 5(12).

Hiscock, R., Asikainen, A., Tuomisto, J., Jantunen, M., Pärjälä, E. and Sabel, C.E., 2017. ‘City scale climate change policies: Do they matter for wellbeing?’, in Preventive medicine Reports. 6: 265-270.

Hiscock, R., Mudu, P., Braubach, M., Martuzzi, M., Perez, L. and Sabel, C., 2014. ‘Wellbeing impacts of city policies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions’, in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 11(12): 12312-12345

Hogg, T., Stanley, S., O’Brien, L., Wilson, M., and Watsford, C., 2021. ‘The Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Scale’, in Global Environmental Change. 71.

Holt-Lunstad, J., 2020. ‘Social Isolation and Health’, in Health Affairs (Health Policy Brief).

Huttunen, S., Ojanen, M., Ott, A., and Saarikoski, H., 2022. ‘What about citizens? A literature review of citizen engagement in sustainability transitions research’, in Energy Research & Social Science. 91: 102714.

Hwong, A.R., Wang, M., Khan, H., Chagwedera, D.N., Grzenda, A., Doty, B., Benton, T., Alpert, J., Clarke, D. and Compton, W.M., 2022. ‘Climate change and mental health research methods, gaps, and priorities: a scoping review’, in The Lancet Planetary Health. 6(3): 281-291.

James, L. E., Welton-Mitchell, C., Noel, J. R., & James, A. S., 2020. ‘Integrating mental health and disaster preparedness in intervention: a randomized controlled trial with earthquake and flood-affected communities in Haiti’, in Psychological Medicine. 50(2): 342-352

Jarrett, J., Gauthier, S., Baden, D., Ainsworth, B. 2024. ‘Eco-anxiety and Climate-anxiety Linked to Indirect Exposure: A Scoping Review of Empirical Research’, in Journal of Environmental Psychology, 96.

Jermacane, D., Waite, T.D., Beck, C.R. et al. 2018. ‘The English National Cohort Study of Flooding and Health: the change in the prevalence of psychological morbidity at year two’ BMC Public Health 18, 330.

Kanner, A. D., (Eds.), Ecopsychology: Restoring the earth, healing the mind: 201–215. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books.

Kim, Y., Kim, H., Gasparrini, A., Armstrong, B., Honda, Y., Chung, Y., et al, 2019. ‘Suicide and Ambient Temperature: A Multi-Country Multi-City Study’, in Environmental Health Perspectives.127(11): 117007.

Kirby, M. and Scott, A., 2023. Green Blue Infrastructure Impacts on Health and Wellbeing; A Rapid Evidence Assessment. London (UK), CAPE.

Kirkbride, J.B., Anglin, D.M., Colman, I., Dykxhoorn, J., Jones, P.B., Patalay, P., Pitman, A., Soneson, E., Steare, T., Wright, T. and Griffiths, S.L., 2024. ‘The social determinants of mental health and disorder: evidence, prevention and recommendations’, in World Psychiatry. 23(1): 58.

Larionow, P., Soltys, M., Izdebski, P., Mudlo-Glagolska, K., Golonka, J., Demski, M., and Rosinska, M., 2022. ‘Climate Change Anxiety Assessment: The Psychometric Properties of the Polish Version of the Climate Anxiety Scale’, in Frontiers Psychology. 13.

Lawrance, E., Thompson, R., Fontana, G., and Jennings, N., 2021. The Impact of Climate Change on Mental Health and Emotional Wellbeing: Current Evidence and Implications for Policy and Practice. Grantham Institute Briefing Paper No. 36. London (UK), Grantham Institute.

Lawrance, E., Thompson, R., Newberry Le Vay, J., Page, L. and Jennings, N., 2022. ‘The impact of climate change on mental health and emotional wellbeing: a narrative review of current evidence, and its implications’, in International Review of Psychiatry.34(5): 443-498.

Leger-Goodes, T., Malboeuf-Hurtubise, C., Hurtubise, K., Simons, K., Boucher, A., Paradis, P., Herba, C., Camden, C.,. and Genereux, M., 2023. ‘How children make sense of climate change: A descriptive qualitative study of eco-anxiety in parent-child dyads’, in PLoS One. 18(4).

Leigh-Hunt, N., Bagguley, D., Bash, K., Turner, V., Turnbull, S., Valtorta, N., & Caan, W., 2017. ‘An overview of systematic reviews on the public health consequences of social isolation and loneliness’, in Public Health. 152: 157-171.

Liski, A.H., Ambros, P., Metzger, M.J., Nicholas, K.A., Wilson, A.M.W. and Krause, T., 2019. Governance and stakeholder perspectives of managed re-alignment: adapting to sea level rise in the Inner Forth estuary, Scotland. Regional Environmental Change, 19, pp.2231-2243.

Liu, J., Varghese, B.M., Hansen, A., Xiang, J., Zhang, Y., Dear, K., Gourley, M., Driscoll, T., Morgan, G., Capon, A. and Bi, P., 2021. ‘Is there an association between hot weather and poor mental health outcomes? A systematic review and meta-analysis’, in Environment International. 153: 106533.

lorido Ngu, F., Kelman, I., Chambers, J., and Ayeb-Karlsson, S., 2021. ‘Correlating heatwaves and relative humidity with suicide (fatal intentional self-harm)’, in Scientific Reports. 11 (1):22175.

Lowe, S. R., Chan, C. S., & Rhodes, J. E., 2010. ‘Pre-hurricane perceived social support protects against psychological distress: A longitudinal analysis of low-income mothers’, in Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 78(4): 551-560.

Macy, J., and Brown, M. Y., 1998. Coming back to life: Practices to Reconnect our Lives, our World. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society.

Maddox, S., Powell, NN., Booth, A., Handley, T., Dalton, H., and Perkins, D., 2022. ‘Effects of mental health training on capacity, willingness and engagement in peer-to-peer support in rural New South Wales’, in Health Promotion Journal Australia. 33(2): 451-459.

Mahendran, R., Xu, R., Li, S., and Guo, Y., 2021. ‘Interpersonal violence associated with hot weather’, in Lancet Planet Health. 5(9): 571–2.

Manning, C. and S. Clayton, S., 2018. ‘Threats to mental health and wellbeing associated with climate change.’, in Clayton, S., and Manning, C. (Eds.), Psychology and Climate Change: Human Perceptions, impacts and responses: 217-244. Elsevier Academic Press.

Margaret, C., Philip, L. and Dowds, G., 2020. Long-term impacts of flooding following the winter 2015/16 flooding in North East Scotland: Summary Report.

McMichael, A., 2017. Climate change and the health of nations: famines, fevers, and the fate of populations. Oxford (UK), Oxford University Press.

Millar, C., Mulholland, C. and Corner, A., 2022. Public awareness of climate risks and opportunities in Scotland. [Online] [Accessed: 13.08.24] Available at: https://www.climatexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/cxc-public-awareness-of-climate-risks-and-opportunities-in-scotland-january-2022.pdf

Milner, J., Davies, M. and Wilkinson, P., 2012. ‘Urban energy, carbon management (low carbon cities) and co-benefits for human health’, in Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 4(4).

Muirie, J., 2017. Active Travel in Glasgow: What we’ve learned so far. [Online] [Accessed 13.08.24] Available at: https://www.gcph.co.uk/assets/000/000/401/Active_travel_synthesis_WEB_original.pdf?1700036411

Nabhan, G., Orlando, L., Smith Monti, L., and Aronson, J., 2020. ‘Hands-on ecological restoration as a nature-based health intervention: Reciprocal restoration for people and ecosystems’, in Ecopsychology. 12(3): 195-202.

Nisbet, E., Shaw, D., and Lachance, D., 2020. ‘Connectedness with nearby nature and well-being’, in Sec. Urban Resource Management. (2).

Ohrnberger, J., Fichera, E. and Sutton, M., 2017. ‘The relationship between physical and mental health: A mediation analysis’, in Social Science & Medicine. 195: 42-49.

ONS, 2021. Three-Quarters of Adults in Great Britain Worry about Climate Change. [Online] [Accessed 29.05.24] Available at: Three-quarters of adults in Great Britain worry about climate change – Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk)

Passmore, H., and Howell, A., 2014. ‘Eco-existential positive psychology: Experiences in nature, existential anxieties, and well-being’, in The Humanistic Psychologist. 42: 370-388.

Patrick, R., & Capetola, T., 2011. ‘It’s here! Are we ready? Five case studies of health promotion practices that address climate change from within Victorian health care settings’, in Health promotion journal of Australia. 22(4): 61-67.

Penedo, F.J. and Dahn, J.R., 2005. Exercise and well-being: a review of mental and physical health benefits associated with physical activity. Current opinion in psychiatry, 18(2), pp.189-193.

Pihkala, P, 2020. ‘Eco-Anxiety and Environmental Education’, in Sustainability. 12(23).

Pinnegar, J.K., Wright, P.J., Maltby, K., and Garrett, A., 2020. ;The impacts of climate change on fisheries, relevant to the coastal and marine environment around the UK’, in MCCIP Science Review. 456-481.

Reser, J., Bradley, G., Glendon, I., Ellul, M., and Callaghan, R., 2012. Public risk perceptions, understandings and responses to climate change in Australia and Great Britain. Brisbane (Australia), Griffth University.

Reser, J., Graham, B., and Ellul, M., 2012. ‘Coping with climate change: bringing psychological adaptation in from the cold.’, in Molienellu, B., and Grimaldo, V. (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of coping: new research: 1-34. New York (NY), Nova Science Publishers.

Rocque, R.J., Beaudoin, C., Ndjaboue, R., Cameron, L., Poirier-Bergeron, L., Poulin-Rheault, R.A., Fallon, C., Tricco, A.C. and Witteman, H.O., 2021. Health effects of climate change: an overview of systematic reviews. BMJ open, 11(6), p.e046333.

Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2021. Dr. Kathryn Speedy on Eco-Distress. [Online] [Accessed 29.05.25] Available at: https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/news-and-features/blogs/detail/rcpsych-wales-blog/2021/10/25/dr-kathryn-speedy-on-eco-distress?searchTerms=eco%20anxiety

Sandifer, P.., Sutton-Grier, A., and Ward, B., 2015. ‘Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: Opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation’, in Ecosystem Services. 12: 1-15.

Savanta-Comres, 2020. BBC Newsround – Climate Change Poll – 30^th October 2019 [Online] [Accessed 17.06.24]. Available at: https://savanta.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Final-Newsround-Climate-Change-Poll-301019-0203.pdf.

Sayers, P., Lindley, S., Carr, S. and Figueroa-Alfaro, R., 2023. The impacts of climate change on population groups in Scotland. [Online] [Accessed 13.08.24] Available at: https://www.climatexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/CXC-Impacts-of-climate-change-on-population-groups-in-Scotland-June-2022.pdf

Schwartz, S., Benoit, L., Clayton, S., Parnes, M., Swenson, L., and Lowe, S., 2022. ‘Climate change anxiety and mental health: Environmental activism as buffer’, in Current Psychology. 42: 1-14.

Scottish Government, 2023. Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy. [Online] [Accessed 13.08.24]. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/mental-health-wellbeing-strategy/documents/

Scottish Government, 2024. Draft Scottish National Adaptation Plan (2024-2029). [Online] [Accessed 24.0.25]. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/strategy-plan/2024/09/scottish-national-adaptation-plan-2024-2029-2/documents/scottish-national-adaptation-plan-2024-2029/scottish-national-adaptation-plan-2024-2029/govscot%3Adocument/scottish-national-adaptation-plan-2024-2029.pdf

Scottish Wildfire Forum, 2021. 2019-2021 Strategy. [Online] [Accessed 13.08.24]. Available at: https://www.scottishwildfireforum.co.uk/_files/ugd/0916a1_6357566cb1d04fb4aed36f8d4cf46e00.pdf

Searle, K., and Gow, K., 2010. ‘Do Concerns about Climate Change Lead to Distress’, in International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management. 2(4).

Sewall, L., 1995. ‘The skill of ecological perception’, in Roszak, T., Gomes, M. E., and

Smith, C., Allen, A., Schaffer, V. and Kannis-Dymand, L., 2024. ‘Nature relatedness may play a protective role and contribute to eco-distress’, in Ecopsychology. 16(1): 71-82.

Smithsonian, 2021. Teen Earth Optimism. [Online] [Accessed 13.08.24]. Available at: https://naturalhistory.si.edu/education/youth-programs/teen-earth-optimism

The Green Team, 2023. 2023 Impact Report. [Online] [Accessed 13.08.24] Available at: https://issuu.com/thegreenteam/docs/2023_impact_report_digital

The Tavistock Institute, 2024, ‘Just Transition Scotland: Monitoring and Evaluation’, Web article, URL: https://www.tavinstitute.org/projects/just-transition-scotland-monitoring-and-evaluation [Last accessed 10/09/24]

Thoma, M., Rholeder, N., and Rohner, S. 2021. ‘Clinical Ecopsychology: The Mental Health Impacts and Underlying Pathways of the Climate and Environmental Crisis’, in Frontiers Psychology, 12.

Thompson, R., Hornigold, R., Page, L., and Waite, T, 2018. ‘Associations between high ambient temperatures and heat waves with mental health outcomes: a systematic review’, in Public Health.161: 171–91.

Thompson, R., Lawrance, E., Roberts, L., Grailey, K., Ashrafian, H., Maheswaran, H., Toledano, M.B., and Darzi, A., 2023. ‘Ambient temperature and mental health: A systematic review and meta-analysis’, in The Lancet Planetary Health. 7(7): 580-589.

Thomson, H., Thomas, S., Sellstrom, E., Petticrew, M., 2013. ‘Housing improvements for health and associated socio-economic outcomes’, in Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews. 28(2).

Togneri, H., 2022. From “powerless and alone” to finding “all the great people who care”: a co-operative inquiry with young people exploring eco-anxiety and constructive ways of coping. Doctoral dissertation, Cardiff University. Available at: https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/152217/1/Thesis%20-%20Hannah%20Togneri%20-%201720282.pdf

Tunstall, S., Tapsell, S., Green, C., Floyd, P. and George, C., 2006. The health effects of flooding: social research results from England and Wales, in Journal of Water and Health. 4(3): 365-380.

UK Climate Risk, 2021. Third UK Climate Change Risk Assessment Technical Report: Summary for Scotland. [Online] [Accessed 21.06.24] Available at: https://www.ukclimaterisk.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CCRA-Evidence-Report-Scotland-Summary-Final-1.pdf

Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Herrero, S.T., Dubash, N.K. and Lecocq, F., 2014. ‘Measuring the co-benefits of climate change mitigation’, in Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 39: 549-582.

Vardoulakis, S., Dimitroulopoulou, C., Thornes, J. Lai, K., Taylor, J. Myers, I., Heaviside, C., Mavrogianni, A., Shrubsole, C., Chalabi, Z., Davies, M. and Wilkinson, P., 2015. ‘Impact of climate change on the domestic indoor environment and associated health risks in the UK’, in Environment International. 85: 299-313.

Vasiliev, D., and Greenwood, S., 2021. ‘The role of climate change in pollinator decline across the Northern Hemisphere is underestimated’ in Science of the Total Environment. 775: 145788

Vercammen, A., Oswald, T., Lawrance, E., 2023. ‘Psycho-social factors associated with climate distress, hope, and behavioural intentions in young UK residents’, in PLOS Global Public Health. 3(8).

Vigo, D., Thornicroft, G. and Atun, R., 2016. ‘Estimating the true global burden of mental illness.’, in The Lancet Psychiatry. 3(2): 171-178.

Wan, K., Lane, M. and Feng, Z., 2023. ‘Heat-health governance in a cool nation: A case study of Scotland.’, in Environmental Science & Policy 147: 57-66.

Watts, N., Amann, M., Ayeb-Karlsson, S., Belesova, K., Bouley, T., Boykoff, M., Byass, P., Cai, W., Campbell-Lendrum, D., Chambers, J. and Cox, P.M., 2018. ‘The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: from 25 years of inaction to a global transformation for public health’, in The Lancet. 391(10120): 581-630.

Whitmarsh, L., Player, L., Jiongco, A., James, M., Williams, M., Marks, E., and Kennedy-Williams, P., 2022. ‘Climate anxiety: What predicts it and how is it related to climate action?’, in Journal of Environmental Psychology. 83.

Worden, J. W., 2009. Grief Counselling and Grief Therapy: A Handbook for the Mental Health Practitioner (4^th Edn.). New York (NY), Springer.

World Bank, 2022. What You Need to Know About Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change. [Online] [Accessed 06.05.21] Available at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2022/05/19/what-you-need-to-know-about-nature-based-solutions-to-climate-change#:~:text=Nature%2Dbased%20solutions%20are%20actions,well%2Dbeing%20and%20biodiversity%20benefits.

World Health Organisation (WHO), 2022. Mental Disorders. [Online] [Accessed 13.08.24]. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mental-disorders

World Health Organisation (WHO), 2022. Mental Health. [Online] [Accessed 13.08.24]. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mental-health-strengthening-our-response

World Health Organization (WHO) and Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, 2014. Social determinants of mental health. Geneva, WHO.

Wullenkord, M, Troger, J., Hamann, K., Loy, L., Reese, G., 2021. ‘Anxiety and Climate Change: A validation of the climate anxiety scale in a German-speaking quota sample and an investigation of psychological correlates’, in Climatic Change. 168(3): 23

Xue, S., Massazza, A., Akhter-Khan, S. C., Wray, B., Husain, M. I., and Lawrance, E, 2024. ‘Mental health and psychosocial interventions in the context of climate change: a scoping review’, in NPJ Mental Health Research. 12;3(1): 10.

YouGov, 2024. YouGov/WWF Survey Results [Online] [Accessed 18.06.2024] Available at: https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/WWF_Environment_240305_W.pdf

How to cite this publication:

Gieve, M., Drabble, D., Copeland, R., Clay, F., Iacopini, G. (2025) Climate change and mental health & wellbeing – a review of emerging evidence, ClimateXChange. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7488/era/6005

© The University of Edinburgh, 2025
Prepared by The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations on behalf of ClimateXChange, The University of Edinburgh. All rights reserved.

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

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

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

1. 
   

   This source suggests that common mental illness and mental disorders include Anxiety Disorders, Depression, Bipolar Disorder and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) ↑

   
   
2. 
   

   E.g., substantial numbers of high-quality research papers linking climate change impacts (such as flooding, wildfires, increased temperatures) to poorer mental health outcomes (such as increased risk of mental disorders, suicide, or poorer mental wellbeing). ↑

   
   
3. 
   

   No intervention was primarily focused on moving participants directly into climate action as a way of supporting wellbeing. However, 16 interventions encouraged action through other means, such as group therapy, toolkits, and discussion groups. ↑

   
   
4. 
   

   Please note, use of the term ‘resilience’ in this section refers to individual psychological/ emotional resilience as opposed to climate/community resilience to extreme weather events, for example. ↑

   
   
5. 
   

   The research was conducted using a randomised control trial (RCT), with two post-intervention surveys, both undertaken following a typical hurricane season with moderate associated flooding and other storm-related damage in the research communities. ↑

   
   
6. 
   

   These tasks being: to accept the reality of the loss, to process the pain of grief, to adjust to a world without the deceased, and to find an enduring connection with the deceased in the midst of embarking on a new life. ↑

   
   
7. 
   

   Evidence quality was assessed using the wording in question 3 for Cluster C, in 8.4.3 below, that is, whether the research was based on an appropriate / well-articulated and justified research approach that is commensurate with the intervention, which could be qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods. ↑

   
   
8. 
   

   1. What is the evidence of climate related risks and impacts to mental health and wellbeing in Scotland, and how these might differentially affect population groups? ↑

   
   
9. 
   

   2. How is ‘eco-distress’ (including ‘eco-anxiety’) currently defined, what is the current/potential prevalence in Scotland and how might this differentially affect population groups? ↑

   
   
10. 
    

    What is the evidence on effective prevention and early intervention, and on responding to mental health and wellbeing risks and impacts in a climate change context in Scotland? ↑

    
    
11. 
    

    What is the evidence of co-benefits and risks, or unintended consequences, for mental health and wellbeing from climate action (both mitigation and adaptation) relevant in a Scottish context? ↑

    
    

Research completed: March 2025

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7488/era/6006

Executive summary

Our soils underpin all nature-based systems and are therefore vital for Scotland’s communities and economy. From food security to transport disruption through events such as landslides, the climate resilience value of investing in healthy soils is recognised by the Climate Change Committee as a priority adaptation area for Scotland.

There are many risks threatening Scottish soils across different soil types and land covers. However, unlike air and water, there is no single overarching soil policy providing security and governance for Scottish soils. Soils are spread across multiple policy divisions, which results in a lack of cohesive leadership in tackling threats to soils.

The aim of this route map is to consolidate the challenges of managing soil systems to develop an overarching strategy for delivering improved soil security across Scottish landscapes.

Key points

There is increasing awareness of the important role soils play for our communities, economy and environment in terms of their ability to contribute to climate regulation, flood resilience, food security, support forestry and assist biodiversity. This is reflected in recent policy updates which have outlined objectives that directly relate to improvements in soil health and/or security, such as:

• The 3rd Scottish National Adaptation Plan 2024-2029
• Scotland’s National Peatlands Plan
• National Planning Framework 4
• UK Forestry Standard 5^th Edition
• The Vision for Agriculture and Agricultural Reform Programme (Agriculture and Rural Communities Act)
• Scottish Biodiversity Strategy to 2045

This route map acknowledges the challenges of addressing soil security in a policy context due to the absence of an overarching soil-specific policy. Currently actions to support soils sit across different policies, which focus on different environmental challenges at different scales. Nevertheless, this route map outlines opportunities to gain value and effectiveness through better coordination of existing activities and policy delivery.

Next steps

Objectives

This route map recommends six objectives for Scotland to achieve our vision of ‘thriving soils for Scotland’s communities, economy and environment’:

1. Lead – Inspire and collaborate to deliver the vision for Scottish soils
2. Protect – Prevent further damage to soils
3. Restore – Repair damaged soils
4. Enhance – Strengthen soils for the future
5. Evidence – Data, knowledge and wisdom relating to Scottish soils
6. Mobilise – Communicate, engage and participate towards thriving soils in Scotland

Next steps

We recommend that the delivery of the route map is supported by ensuring the following:

1. Scottish Government support the vision and common goals through the allocation of a soil policy group to lead and coordinate the delivery of this route map
2. Baseline Scottish soil status to ascertain a starting point towards ‘thriving’ soils
3. Collaboratively identify specific cross-sectoral actions to protect, restore and enhance Scottish soils
4. Mobilise actions into practice through bespoke implementation plans
5. Monitor progress and review future developments

Glossary

Why we need a “Soil Route Map for Scotland”

We rely on soils for a wide range of primary functions (outlined on Scotland’s Soil Website) as soils underpin all nature-based systems and are therefore core to Scotland’s communities, environment and economy (Figure 1). However, evidence shows that there are several risks associated with poor soil management which threatens the future security of Scottish soils.

The costs associated with inaction are not only related to environmental impacts as these risks cascade to include socio-economic repercussions. Baggaley et al (2024) estimated that compacted soils in Scotland costs land managers up to £49 million annually in yield losses, up to £26 million per year in additional fertiliser use required to operate with compacted soils and up to £76,000 per household from increased flood risk and insurance claims attributed to soil compaction and soil sealing (Appendix A). From food security to transport disruption (e.g. through landslides) the climate resilience value of investing in healthy soils is recognised by the Climate Change Committee as a priority adaptation area for Scotland.

Risks to soil health

There are many risks to the health and security of our soil systems. Table 1 shows risks outlined in the Scottish Soil Framework (2009) and more recently in the Environmental Standards Scotland (ESS) report (2024). This highlights that many of the risks identified in the Scottish Soil Framework (2009) are still prevalent and jeopardising the future security of Scotland’s soils and the many functions they provide (Figure 1).

Table 1. Risks to Scottish soils outlined in the Scottish Soil Framework (2009)

Threats to soils ranked across all soil functions at the national scale (1 being the highest risk) and the Environmental Standards Scotland Report (2024), ranking threats as high, medium or low based on a set of criteria.

In terms of prioritising these risks, the two publications suggest different rankings, with the Scottish Soil Framework (2009) listing the impacts of climate change, the loss of organic matter (and carbon), soil sealing and soil degradation from acidification and eutrophication as the top four threats to Scottish soils. The ESS report (2024) ranked soil erosion and landslides, soil compaction, the loss of biodiversity and risks associated with inconsistent approaches to data collection and monitoring as being of highest priority. Opinions from a recent stakeholder workshop (Appendix B) identified soil disturbance, erosion and organic matter loss to be the highest priorities within agricultural and forestry sectors, with soil sealing ranking highest in the urban/built environment sector. At the landscape scale, the lack of a soil-specific policy was noted as the highest risk to soils in Scotland.

Soil degradation

Soil degradation (i.e. soils with diminished functionality) has wide reaching impacts, not just on soil properties, but also in terms of soil functionality and the broad ecological services which soils provide, which can also result in wider economic impacts. For example, impacts of soil degradation can include loss of yields, greater fuel use, loss of land, increased greenhouse gas emissions, increased diffuse pollution and degraded water quality, increased flooding events and flooding intensity and loss or damage to cultural and archaeological sites.

Soil degradation is not limited to one soil or land use type; it cuts across landscapes making the protection of soils challenging as there is no single solution. Therefore, due to the broad range of soil and land use types across Scotland (Appendix B), addressing the risks to soils will require a multi-layered, cross-sectoral approach. Despite this, unlike air and water, there is no single overarching soils policy focus with governance of soils being spread across multiple policy divisions This has resulted in a fragmented approach to tackling the threats to soil resources.

In addition to the wide range of policy objectives which impact on soils, the Scottish Government has a long history of investing in research for future policy development and delivery through the Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture Strategic Research Programme (SRP) and Centres for Expertise (ClimateXChange, CREW and SEFARI). Through the current SRP (2022-2027), approximately £50 million a year is invested to ensure that ‘Scotland maintains its position at the very cutting edge of advances in agriculture, natural resources and the environment’, with the research of soils being vital across SRP themes (see Appendix D). The protection and enhancement of soils is essential for achieving many of Scottish Government’s policy objectives (e.g. net zero, food security, flood resilience, biodiversity and climate adaptation). However, without an overarching vision for Scottish soils and soil-specific policy, it can be challenging to harness such evidence into impactful implementation to better protect Scottish soils.

The Route Map

The aim of the route map is to consolidate the challenges of managing soil systems (see Appendix E) across multiple land uses and policy themes and to develop an overarching strategy for delivering improved soil security across Scottish landscapes. The route map is also intended to indicate – and drive forward – positive actions towards the protection, restoration and enhancement of Scottish soils while delivering objectives across the nature-based policies highlighted. Specific aims of the route map for Scotland include:

• Review existing soil protection within Scottish policy – to support the development of a route map, current knowledge and public policy-related research is reviewed to ascertain how Scotland’s policy objectives are underpinned by healthy soils and how available knowledge is used in decision making and policy development.
• Develop a framework for the ‘Soil route map for Scotland’ – set a vision to act as a common goal across policy themes and identify objectives which offer an effective pathway for improving soil security in the future.
• Implementation considerations of the ‘Soil route map for Scotland’ – explore potential actions that offer opportunities for delivering the route map objectives across existing policy deliverables.

Soil protection in existing Scottish policy and legislation

Currently, in Scotland the legislative landscape for soils is fragmented across multiple policy divisions within Scottish Government and largely aims to protect other environmental areas (such as water and biodiversity) from poor management of soils, rather than soil itself. However, soil security and soils are referenced across environmental acts, policies and strategies, as outlined below.

The Scottish Soil Framework (2009)

The Scottish Soil Framework (2009) is the most comprehensive, soil-specific document, to date, bringing together the wide range of risks to soils as well as activities that contribute to overcoming these risks through 13 positive soil outcomes, which are;

• Soil organic matter stocks protected and enhanced where appropriate.
• Soil erosion reduced and where possible remediated.
• Soil structure maintained.
• Greenhouse gas emission from soils reduced to optimum balance.
• Soil biodiversity, as well as above ground biodiversity, protected.
• Soils making a positive contribution to sustainable flood management.
• Water quality enhanced through improved soil management.
• Soil’s productive capacity to produce food, timber and other biomass maintained and enhanced.
• Soil contamination reduced.
• Reduced pressure on soils by using brownfield sites in preference to greenfield.
• Soils with significant historical and cultural features protected.
• Knowledge and understanding of soils enhanced, evidence base for policy review and development strengthened.
• Effective coordination of all stakeholders’ roles, responsibilities and actions

A Scottish Soil Framework Progress Report (2013) highlighted developments since the framework’s publication, which highlights a range of activities such as the launch of the Centres of Expertise (2011), the publication of The State of Scotland’s Soil report (2011) and the development of the ‘Scotland’s Soil Website’.

Other key policy documents

A review of where soils are included in a Scottish policy context is outlined in Appendix F. Recent developments in Scottish policies include some focused consideration of soils, such as:

• Scotland’s National Peatland Plan and Peatland ACTION has the vision to see peatlands in a healthy state and widely regarded as resilient by 2030 and the rewards of restoration effort undertaken in previous decades should be evident by 2050 and beyond.
• The National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) – the policy intent of NPF4-Policy 5 is “to protect carbon-rich soils, restore peatlands and minimise disturbance to soils from development with policy outcomes of a) valued soils are protected and restored, b) soils, including carbon-rich soils, are sequestering and storing carbon, c) soils are healthy and provide essential ecosystem services for nature, people and our economy.”
• Scottish Forestry and UK Forestry Standard (UKFS) 5^th edition – chapter 8 provides the ‘UKFS Requirements for Forests and Soil’ and ‘UKFS Guidelines on Forests and Soil’ for soil protection, acidification, contamination, compaction, disturbance, erosion fertility and organic matter (carbon) loss.
• The Vision for Agriculture and Agricultural Reform Programme (Agriculture and Rural Communities Act) – this includes compliance via Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAECS) in terms of maintaining a minimum soil cover (GAEC 4) to protect soil against erosion after harvest, to protect soil against erosion in certain situations (GAEC 5) and maintaining soil organic matter levels (GAEC 6). In addition to compliance, support has been available since 2022 for soil testing and nutrient management (The National Test Programme, Preparing for Sustainable Farming), which will become a requirement under the Whole Farm Plan introduced to Tier 1 payment requirements, with additional support associated with the introduction of measures contributing to regenerative agricultural practices (including continuous soil cover as outlined in the Agricultural Reform list of measures).
• The 3rd Scottish National Adaptation Plan 2024-2029 – Outlines the importance of soils and the need for further protection as outlined in ‘Nature Connects objective’ for landscape scale approaches “Landscape scale solutions are implemented for sustainable and collaborative land use, including protecting and enhancing Scotland’s soils.”
• The Scottish Biodiversity Strategy to 2045 provides a range soil specific objectives, (particularly objective 3 for agricultural soils) notably the action to “ensure increased uptake of high diversity, nature-rich, high soil-carbon, low intensity farming methods while sustaining high quality food production”. This includes the action to revise and update Scotland’s Soil Framework and action/implementation plan by 2030; to develop evidence-based Soil Health Indicators (SHIs) that can be considered for inclusion in Whole Farm Plans and forest management plans (and monitoring frameworks to assess change in soil health) as well as improving information and guidance for land managers.

There is a wide range of Scottish policy themes that are linked to soil systems across our landscapes (Appendix F), however the list above demonstrates that the protection of soils is concentrated to only a few policies. It is worth noting that despite soil protection being a key objective in some of these strategies and policies, the degree to which implementation into action occurs is often more difficult to assess. The varied challenges associated with soil management are outlined in Appendix D. The Scottish Biodiversity Strategy to 2045 offers the most recent policy area to set out specific objectives relating to soil protection is which, despite some gaps, has made great strides in collaborative discussion and objective setting in terms of soil health, particularly in the agricultural section. .

Soils are also considered within a range of Scottish regulations as outlined on Scotland’s Soil website, with their relevance to soils highlighted in Appendix F:

• The Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations (2012)
• Waste Management Licensing (Scotland) Regulations (2011)
• The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations (2011)
• Action Programme for Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (Scotland) Regulations (2008)
• Radioactive Contaminated Land (Scotland) (Amendments) Regulations (2007)
• The Contaminated Land (Scotland) Regulations (2005) & Statutory Guidance SE/2006/44
• Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations (1994)
• Sludge (Use in Agriculture) Regulations (1989 and later amendments)

Developing a framework for the “Soil Route Map for Scotland”

The vision for the soil route map is “Thriving soils for Scotland’s communities, economy and environment”. This was developed to encompass the 13 outcomes (listed in Section 4) of the Scottish Soils Framework, which is a comprehensive and representative list of essential soil functions and reflects the contribution soils have to Scottish communities and economic stability.

Six objectives to achieve this vision and address the range of soil risks identified (Table 1) are outlined below (see Figure 2). These objectives are considered essential to support a series of proactive actions which offer practical opportunities for positive change towards soil security in Scotland and are further described in Table 2 below. Appendix G provides further description of approaches taken in the route map development.

Table 2. Description of the six objectives within the Route Map for Scotland

Potential implementation of the route map

The six key objectives in the route map (Figure 2 and Table 2) provide a framework to address the range of challenges faced by soils and allow flexibility for specific actions within each objective to be applied across temporal and spatial scales. The aim of the route map is to build upon existing progress, to explore opportunities and develop a cohesive (and inclusive) plan which is effectively communicated to drive the delivery of objectives outlined.

The Scottish policy landscape can appear complex as it represents the diverse environmental landscapes of Scotland which are intertwined with our communities and national economy. Therefore, a vital component of successful implementation will be the active engagement and participation across multiple organisations, agencies and industries spanning a range of sectors that represent the cross-sectoral importance of our soils.

The route map proposes a blended approach of strategic policy-led coordination driven by the identified policies which impact on soils (Appendix F) and a risk-led delivery of actions requiring coordination across multiple stakeholders, outlined across the six objectives.

The risks to soils span different land use types providing cross-cutting themes affecting multiple policy areas. A risk-led approach to identifying actions provides an opportunity for policy teams and wider delivery sectors to come together to collaboratively address soil risks which can then be delivered/implemented within existing policy frameworks. As there are specific, place-based risks and pressures associated with soils, it will be important to engage across the range of stakeholders and sectors with soil-related interests, to share experiences and to exchange knowledge towards a better understanding of good soil management specific to that place.

Objective 1 – Leadership (L)

Action L1: Assemble a ‘Soil Policy Team’ within Scottish Government

This route map highlights that the legislative landscape for soils is particularly fragmented across different policy areas. To better coordinate the delivery of a cross-sectoral route map for Scottish soils, this action proposes the establishment of a soil-focused policy team to lead in the progression of collaboration to effectively implement objectives and achieve the objectives outlined.

Action L2: Update the Scottish Soil Framework.

This route map provides an initial cross-sectoral framework for integrating soil-focused activities across the current suite of environmental protection policies to safeguard Scottish soils (and wider environment) from future challenges. It is recommended that the Scottish Soil Framework (2009) be updated to contribute to policy priorities including those set out in the 3rd Scottish National Adaptation Plan 2024-2029, Scotland’s National Peatland Plan, National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4), UK Forestry Standard (UKFS) 5th edition, the Vision for Agriculture and Scottish Biodiversity Strategy to 2045 as well as supporting the objectives set out in the recent Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill (2025) and National Flood Resilience Strategy (2024) through soils underpinning nature-based systems (Figure 1) and being central to many nature-based solutions. An updated Scottish Soil Framework will also support progress of the route map objectives and the continuation of the current Soil Policy Working Group (comprising representatives from core Scottish Government policy and analytical services divisions, ClimateXChange, NatureScot, SEPA and Historic Environment Scotland) to allow for regular updates on any developments that influence or impact Scottish soils and to maintain momentum in the delivery of activities relating to soil protection, restoration and enhancement.

Action L3: Review the potential of statutory targets to be introduced and potential alignment with EU Soil Monitoring Law and Nature Restoration Law.

In the ESS report (2024) it was noted that ‘Scotland, formerly a world leader with the Soils Framework, is now falling behind international best practice in this area and should consider mirroring developments in Europe and initiate statutory duties to protect and monitor soils’. It is suggested that statutory duties include mandatory targets for the restoration of drained peatland soil, assessment of contaminated land and soil sealing policy as well as legislative proposals that reflect the proposed EU Soil Monitoring Law and Nature Restoration Law.

Currently, there is no EU-wide soil-specific legislation, however as part of the European Green Deal and EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030 the European Union has developed their EU Soil Strategy for 2030. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and International Initiative for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Soil Biodiversity were adopted at the Convention on Biological Diversity COP 15 meeting in December 2022 to support the restoration, maintenance and enhancement of soil health. Following this, the EU proposed a new Soil Monitoring Law in July 2023 to protect and restore soils and ensure that they are used sustainably.

Targets can provide common goals to work towards and benchmarks for assessing progress. However, these need to be in tune with the overarching vision and objectives and in relation to specific soil characteristics and varied land cover types we have in Scotland. Consideration needs to be given to the implications which target-setting can have to avoid unintended consequences. For example, targets for increased soil carbon contents can be set, however managing soil carbon is complex and involves dynamic biogeochemical processes as part of the global carbon cycle (see Appendix H). The simple message of ‘increasing soil carbon’ may lead to management practices which are conducted in goodwill, but whilst leading to improvements in soil health, may also inadvertently lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions from soils.

A workshop was held to review stakeholder views on soil monitoring in Scotland and the potential of EU alignment (Appendix I). The workshop outputs (Appendix I) outline opportunities for Scotland to produce a more appropriate monitoring platform in relation to Scotland’s unique landscape which would better reflect Scotland’s communities, economy and environment (reflected in Objective 5, Action Ev3). Therefore, Action L3 proposes a two-stage review.

• A thorough examination of the principles and objectives of the EU Soil Strategy for 2030 and the proposed EU Soil Monitoring Law.
• An assessment of how these principles and objectives can be best implemented in Scotland. The assessment should consider both the potential for a tailored, bespoke soil protection plan that reflects Scotland’s unique landscape and priorities (as informed by stakeholder engagement) and an evaluation of whether direct alignment with the EU framework would be beneficial and feasible for Scotland. This includes reviewing the range of metrics which may be appropriate to apply as targets within future statutory requirements. Finally, to identify opportunities for Scotland-specific targets offering multiple benefits to soil health with transparency in relation to any trade-offs.

Objective 2 – Protect, Restore and Enhance (PREn)

The route map suggests a collaborative, cross-sectoral approach to mobilise Scottish soil security through evidence-led leadership, soil protection, soil restoration and soil enhancement for the future. To achieve this collaborative approach, Objective 2 suggests the operation of task groups to come together to share knowledge and best practice to protect, restore and enhance soils in relation to risks identified (Section 3).

Action PREn1: Coordinate task groups for shared best practice

Within each ‘task group’ the aim would be to review what activities currently work well and what else can be done to protect, restore and enhance soils in relation to risks identified (Table 1, Section 3). The groups should be forward-thinking and involve appropriate representatives from across different sectors who work with, or are affected by soils (i.e. landowners, practitioners, local authorities, community groups, policy makers, regulators and researchers etc). It is suggested that the task groups have clear terms of reference to outline core purpose, terms for delivery and effective coordination of all stakeholders’ roles, responsibilities and actions. This offers opportunities for co-delivery across various policy objectives to be explored. For example;

Theme 1: Soil sealing and management of soils in construction and urban development

This task group will aim to protect high value soils from sealing and opportunities to reduce, reuse and recycle soil resources. In addition, the task group will share knowledge on soil ‘value’ across land use, land capability and the provision of ecosystem services (and nature-based solutions). Examples of areas the task group could review;

• Review of tools used to assess soil ‘value’ to provide further support for informed decision-making in relation to new developments, such as how soils and other assessments (for example, The Land Capability for Agriculture) are used in Environmental Impact Assessments during the land use planning process. There are opportunities to support soil protection (particularly high carbon soils) and offer further guidance on interpreting soil data/information for improved understanding of soil systems and their value across soil types/land use types and associated wider functions, contributing to more informed decision making.
• Engage with local authorities (e.g. Heads of Planning Scotland) and agencies (e.g. SEPA) to provide support on soil protection, restoration and enhancement (where appropriate) in local development plans and Strategic Environmental Assessments (as outlined by SEPA)
• Promote and support the reuse of valuable soil during developments as outlined by SEPA and review good practice codes (E.g. SEPA Guidance (2017) ; SR/SEPA guidance (2012) and Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites, Defra, UK to reduce soil ‘waste’ and limit the quantity of soil going to landfill.

Theme 2: Erosion, compaction and slope stability (physical integrity of the soil)

Review where current guidance exists for supporting the physical integrity of soils as well as the prevention and restoration of soils affected by, or at risk to soil erosion, compaction or diminished stability. Explore where this guidance can be translated across to other land uses/sectors to enable wider application and support co-delivery across sectors. For example, there is guidance relating to soil structure for agriculture in the ‘Valuing your Soils’ brochure, which may offer transferrable knowledge. In addition, the Centres of Expertise have guidance which offers an initial evidence base to develop this action further, such as;

• Assessing the socio-economic impacts of soil degradation on Scotland’s water environment
• Effect of Soil Structure and Field Drainage on Water Quality and Flood Risk
• Soil Erosion and Diffuse Water Pollution Mitigation

Theme 3: Application of chemicals (nutrient management and soil contamination)

Explore best practice to protect soils from contamination resulting from the application of chemicals (e.g. pesticides), poor nutrient management (e.g. synthetic fertilisers), wastes applied (e.g. sewage sludge) and emerging contaminants (e.g. PFAS, microplastics, pharmaceuticals within or additional to those in wastes applied). Review strategies for alleviating soils already affected by contamination as well as identifying soils at future risk and in need of further protection. For example, the task group could review guidance and legislation which exists to protect soils from poor nutrient management and contamination to identify pathways to improve awareness and implementation through existing policies such as;

• Scottish Nitrogen Balance Sheet to reduce excess nitrogen in soil systems which can lead to leached nitrates (affecting waters) and emitted as nitrous oxides (indirect and indirect greenhouse gas emissions). This will be considered in the nutrient management plans to come within the Whole Farm Plan of the Agriculture Reform Program, and nitrogen balance sheet of the Climate Change Plan. How can the implementation of improved nitrogen management be applied more widely across sectors?
• Diffuse pollution prevention (CREW) offers soil management guidance to minimise negative effects on local watercourses
• The James Hutton Institute and Fidra have outlined the impacts of unregulated microplastic, organic chemical and pharmaceutical contaminants on soil health (Re-assessment of environmental risks of sewage sludge, 2024), some of which are currently not regulated or included in soil routine soil testing.
• Environmental Standards Scotland has begun investigatory work on the application and effectiveness of Environmental Protection Act Part 2A. Support local authorities to identify and remediate contaminated soils as part of the Environmental Protection Act, Part 2a

Theme 4: Soils in private sector sustainability plans and corporate responsibility

In recent years there has been growing interest in soil health, soil carbon sequestration potential and the role of soils to support biodiversity and other ecosystem services with respect to sustainability reporting within the private sector. This is a rapidly evolving field as businesses look to evaluate how their business may impact climate and nature as well as identifying risks associated with their business being impacted by adverse climate and nature-related events as outlined in TCFD (Taskforce for climate-related financial disclosures) and TNFD (Taskforce for nature-related financial disclosures). There are a range of emerging tools and guidance available for companies to use which offers opportunities for further guidance in relation to soil management in relation to ecosystem services and how this may link to supply chain resilience, nature-related risks and private investment opportunities for nature restoration and carbon sequestration.

Theme 5: Soil monitoring and metrics

To understand the extent to which soils need protecting and restoring requires, to some extent, the need to monitor soil condition. The ESS report (2024) highlighted the lack of a comprehensive monitoring network in Scotland, resulting in, for example, not knowing whether the number of soil erosion incidences (and magnitude of erosion) is increasing or decreasing. There are a range of approaches to monitoring soils and stakeholders agreed (Appendix I) that to formalise a soil monitoring programme for Scotland, an agreed purpose or set of objectives for the programme going forward is required. This will provide clarity in the specific metrics needed to monitor soil health, risk and resilience in Scotland and inform the development of the soil monitoring framework in terms of establishing baselines, whether targets and benchmarks should be incorporated, the degree to which stratification may be required and how the data could contribute to further research and support evidence-led decision making. This also includes scoping opportunities for the soil monitoring programme to contribute to environmental modelling and amalgamated landscape-scale datasets for wider environmental assessment. Therefore, there is scope to review how best to monitor developments in soil protection, restoration and enhancement across the actions proposed (and appropriate metrics required to do so). This may entail exploring the possibility of a Directive on Soil Monitoring and Resilience to be established as outlined in the ESS report (2024). Initial recommendations in relation to evidencing and monitoring Scottish soils are outlined in Objective 4.

Action PREn2: Place-based evidence reviews to identify actions needed

A core objective of the task groups would be to support the delivery of existing ‘good’ practice and explore potential alignment of these practices across other sectors through place-based, cross-sectoral evidence reviews on appropriate practical measures to protect, restore and enhance soils; as well as exploring mechanisms and pathways to mobilise activities identified. This may include identifying where the underpinning research and practical experiences can be translated to inform task groups on future applications, as well as identifying gaps to explore. For example, there may be gaps or areas for improvement in relation to soil literacy and soil-based skills, which could be addressed so that soils can be better protected, restored and enhanced in the future. Evidence reviews will support mechanisms for decision making and identifying ‘minimum viable product’ that can be deployed to initiate change following the evaluation of impacts (positive and negative) in terms of overall trade-offs.

Objective 3 – Mobilise (M)

Task groups might be put in place to identify pathways for implementation, which use existing avenues in the first instance. The groups could also give insight into new opportunities for the implementation of actions that protect, restore, and enhance soils.

Action M1: Identify existing legal/regulatory avenues for implementing actions for soil protection, restoration and enhancement via implementation plans

Current codes of practice and guidance exist across most sectors. These can be updated with latest evidence providing a streamlined approach to safeguarding soils across sectors. Common language, metrics and messaging will support landscape-scale problem-solving. Therefore, it would be useful to develop and expand good practice guidance across Scottish land uses, to share knowledge and best practice, develop commonalities and ensure alignment across the different sectors, for example:

• Agricultural codes of practice include GAECS, Whole Farm Plan, Prevention of environmental pollution from agricultural activity guidance (PEPFAA), ‘Valuing Your Soils’ brochure
• Explore opportunities to include additional measures to GAECS or the Whole Farm Plan such as tests for ‘soil compaction’ and/or ‘soil degradation’ to be performed utilising evidence and guidance that is already available, in order to identify and alleviate soil compaction and wider degradation. This would also enable the development and promotion of clear guidance for practitioners and support the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy to 2045 recommendation that by 2030 farm and forestry machinery contractors are engaged in ensuring appropriate use of equipment, uptake of decision-making tools and training, to minimise and ultimately avoid compaction damage to soils.
• Review opportunities to harness and better utilise information collated through the Agricultural Reform Programme’s Whole Farm Plan, which includes soil testing alongside carbon and biodiversity audits (and will introduce nutrient plans in 2028). This may include the provision of further advice on how to interpret the information collected into sustainable soil management that supports soil heath and resilience in terms of aligning to the objectives of soil protection, restoration and enhancement. In addition, there may be opportunities for the knowledge gathered from soil testing to be collated in some way, for the purpose of supporting evidence and monitoring (e.g. national soil health status and a Scottish soil monitoring framework) and research (e.g. for national soil mapping, modelling changes and forecasting, better understanding of the interaction between soils and land management practices).
• The Agricultural Reform Programme Tier 4 offers opportunities for mobilising soil protection, restoration and enhancement measures as it refers to additional, ‘complementary’ activities that support good practices, such as developing new skills, knowledge, training and continued professional development, as well as advisory services and business support (advice, knowledge exchange and linkages to wider land management support from Scottish Government officials and/or public partners) and development of measurement tools.
• ‘Valuing Your Soils’ brochure was published in 2015 and provided case studies of effective management related to challenges such as managing soil pH, nutrient management, compaction and drainage. The booklet provided peer-to-peer learning in the form of short, clear messages and on-farm examples (case-studies). An update to the ‘Valuing your Soils’ brochure offers a mechanism for communicating and mobilising recommendations related to the route map’s objectives on soil protection, restoration and enhancement in relation to the risks identified and incorporating recent developments across the agricultural reform programme.
• UK Forestry Standards
• Review whether there is scope to update and widen woodland management guidance and plans (between 2023 and 2030) to reflect greater emphasis on actions that will improve biodiversity including use of elements from ‘Site Condition Monitoring’ and ‘Woodland Ecological Condition’ monitoring as recommended in the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy to 2045.
• There is also scope to include ‘soil compaction’ or ‘soil degradation tests’ as outlined above, which will support the development and promotion of clear guidance for practitioners on soil compaction and ensure that by 2030 farm and forestry machinery contractors are engaged in ensuring appropriate use of equipment, uptake of decision-making tools and training, to minimise and ultimately avoid compaction damage to soils – as recommended in the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy to 2045.
• Peatland Action
• Review whether there is scope to include some protection or further guidance for ‘peaty soils’ in relation to different land uses (notably planning, agriculture and forestry) to enhance the protection of high carbon soils.
• Originally proposed in The Scottish Strategic Framework for Biodiversity, the development of the targeting of peatland restoration for cost-effective delivery (i.e. identifying priority restoration projects) including for greater private investment in peatland restoration. It is also noted that there’s a need to “scale delivery of the Peatland Action programme, restoring the condition of peatlands as a key ecosystem in line with net zero targets and supporting the expansion and upskilling of the peatland restoration workforce”.
• Ensure all peatland restoration projects are completed to the same standards regardless of funding source, including transparency in data collected for defining peatland condition used to calculate baseline emissions.

Action M2: Identify existing and new avenues to implement actions for soil protection, restoration and enhancement via landscape-scale implementation plans

The delivery of actions will need to be coordinated at the landscape-scale and will involve engagement with a range of cross-sectoral stakeholders. To begin this process there are opportunities to engage with existing initiatives, for example Regional Land Use Partnerships, Climate Adaptation Partnerships, Landscape Enterprise Networks and Local Authorities. Developing from M1, action M2 seeks to provide evidence-based opportunities and solutions following the identification of gaps, limitations and barriers to implementation. This will entail reviewing the appropriateness and applicability of solutions across sectors, land cover and soil type (for example where soils are naturally compacted) as well as exploring pathways for effective implementation.

Objective 4 – Monitor (Ev)

To effectively manage our landscapes for improved soil protection and future resilience to risks, there is a need to establish a baseline i.e. what is the current status of our soils.

Several attempts have been made to define a set of metrics to monitor soil physical, biological and chemical properties and wider soil functionality (and ecosystem services). A recent UK workshop on soil monitoring reviewed approaches to soil monitoring across the four nations to evaluate the readiness of soil-assessment-focussed research used within UK policy delivery. The workshop highlighted that despite the challenges of identifying the most appropriate strategy for monitoring such complex systems, “there is great potential value in working to ensure the data collected has a degree of consistency, to support wider targets and understanding of soil heath.” Further research into harmonisation of soil monitoring across the four nations is currently being undertaken to develop this knowledge further.

Action Ev1: Baseline soil ‘status’ across land cover types of Scotland.

The assessment of Scottish soils is currently conducted via a range of mechanisms governed by different policy groups across different land uses (e.g. agriculture, peatland, forestry, planning, construction/development, sport & recreation, protected areas etc). Despite this, there is a general consensus amongst policy makers and academics (Appendix I) that there is a need to progress with the current data and knowledge available to create a baseline of soils in terms of soil health plus its vulnerability to risks and the wider potential impacts on soil function. It is acknowledged that there is already a lot of data available in Scotland and so there is a good base from which to develop baselines and a monitoring framework.

Benchmarking soils are not easy as changes occur at different temporal (and spatial) scales and are so diverse that in turn their value in terms of services they provide, vary significantly across sectors and can be quite subjective. In order to set meaningful targets, and to appropriately benchmark across soil-land use types, a specific soil policy lead (team) should be identified. At present there is no single agreed soil monitoring framework for Scotland and little standardisation or harmonisation of data across different sectors. Therefore, this objective proposes further progression of the Scottish Soil Monitoring Action Plan (2012) which followed the State of Scotland’s Soil Report (2011) as well as developments being made through Scotland’s Strategic Research Programme 2022 to 2027 (Appendix D), Centres for Expertise research (E.g. Monitoring soil health in Scotland by land use category – a scoping study) and National Soil Inventory of Scotland (demonstrated on the Scotland’s Soils website) towards a Scottish Soil Monitoring Framework (which aligns with other UK monitoring schemes where appropriate).

Specifically, this objective calls for some agreement on the most appropriate metrics to baseline soil ‘status’ (an indication of soil health, soil functionality and soil’s vulnerability to risk) and resource a baselining exercise from which changes in soils over time can be assessed.

Action Ev2: Identify evidence gaps and future improvement options across different land uses

This action is to identify evidence gaps with respect to monitoring soil protection, restoration and enhancement across different land uses, as identified by the soil monitoring workshop (Appendix I). For example,

• Review the extent of current soil monitoring and how it may vary across land use types;
• Assess the availability and accessibility of data across sectors and identify where improvements can be made;
• Evaluate methods and metrics used and to study soils and how they may vary across sectors due to the contextual differences in soil functioning and ecosystem services provided. Explore where there are opportunities for some harmonisation to better identify the functions offered by soils at a landscape scale (for example how soils are valued across land uses and better connect land management practices to the potential ecosystem services and nature-based solutions which different soils can provide) and understand the drivers of change in soil management and subsequent soil condition across land uses and sectors;
• Identify priority issues for soil protection, restoration and possible enhancement across landscapes. This includes vulnerable soil types which areas are at most risk of degradation and potential locations for the greatest opportunities for protection, restoration and/or enhancement of soils.
• Establish how are ‘degraded’ soils currently defined across land use/soil types and policy themes and to what extent are Scottish soils degraded;
• Review opportunities to better assess soil health and vulnerability to risks through emerging technologies and novel applications in terms of what they provide/contribute to soil protection, their technical readiness and potential to incorporate/implement into baselining soil protection (e.g. Infra-red, soil acoustics, X-Ray Diffraction, eDNA and microbiome characterisation, LIDAR, AI, etc).

Action Ev3: A Scottish Soil Monitoring Framework

A soil monitoring programme will need clear vision, purpose and objectives to ensure the monitoring programme is transparent, robust, fit for purpose and can be interpreted by wide-ranging audiences. Therefore a ‘task group’ comprising key stakeholders is suggested (see Table 3) to agree objectives and technical content of a monitoring framework as well as terms of reference for the governance and management of a soil monitoring framework. This would develop upon the findings from the ‘Scottish Soil Monitoring Framework’ workshop December 2024 (Appendix I). Other considerations include: deciding on the most appropriate metrics to be included in a monitoring framework, align to policy and reporting needs; encourage data sharing (e.g. personal, research, government and third-party data sources), review what tools/mechanisms/technology are available to assess soils in Scotland and to ensure that any framework is future-proofed. There is also scope to review metrics used across different schemes (e.g. agri-environmental schemes and the measuring, reporting, verification used in carbon schemes) and corporate reporting frameworks (see Table 3) to promote some harmonisation across terminology and approaches used in relation to soils, such as how they are valued and how current soil status and/or soils may change over time are measured and interpreted.

A Scottish soil monitoring framework would directly deliver to the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy objective of “set up monitoring frameworks to assess change in soil health, based on evidence from the Strategic Research Programme (2022-2027)”. The framework will provide evidence to monitor and validate impacts as well as contribute to future evidence-led decision making and inform further research developments.

Action Ev4: Evidence-led recommendations for future soil protection, restoration and enhancement.

Action Ev4 is to review progress towards the objectives set out in the route map. The evaluation of progress should allow for flexibility and adaptability to include future/emerging challenges and pressures which may be environmental (e.g. changing climates and emerging contaminants), industry-related (e.g. market vulnerabilities and/or new environmental reporting requirements) and/or community-based (e.g. workforce needs). Action Ev4 will identify knowledge gaps and opportunities for further information to be collected out with the soil monitoring framework, which would provide valuable insight on the progression to soil security in Scotland. For example, identifying what works and does not work to inform where improvements could be made as well as future research needs across fundamental and applied science. This will enable Scotland to be a leading example in mobilising actions towards thriving soils through effective landscape-scale and cross-sectoral soil protection, restoration and enhancement measures, which support future Scottish communities, the economy and environment.

Conclusions

This route map provides an overview of the range of risks threatening Scotland’s soils and highlights challenges in tackling these risks across different soil types, site characteristics, land use types and a range of cross-cutting policy themes at the landscape scale.

Without co-ordination from an overarching soil policy, it will be difficult to overcome the existing, and future, challenges in deploying actions to specifically target landscape-scale challenges relating to soil security in Scotland.

The route map sets out early thinking about the actions which might be put in place to lead, mobilise and gather evidence, in the first instance. The proposed actions that will protect, restore and enhance soils need to be grounded in the latest evidence, requiring development work by interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral task groups to inform evolving overarching policy.

The 3^rd Scottish National Adaptation Plan objective NC2 specifically outlines the need to take actions at the landscape scale, in a collaborative way, in order to protect and enhance Scotland’s soils, increasing their resilience to the impacts of climate change, and land use challenges. Therefore, this route map provides an opportunity to build on the existing progress and momentum that has been developed in specific policy areas, to ensure soil protection, restoration and enhancement of all of Scottish soils.

Appendices

Appendix A Socio-economic impacts of soil degradation

Infographic on the assessment of socio-economic impacts of soil degradation on Scotland’s water environment (Baggaley et al 2024)

Appendix B Soils of Scotland

Soils of Scotland, taken from the Scotland’s Soils Web National soil map of Scotland | Scotland’s soils

Appendix C Summary of Workshop 1 outputs – Identifying risks and opportunities for Scottish soils

The workshop aimed to collate stakeholder views and opinions in relation to current issues and opportunities for soil security in Scotland. In particular, to review changes and developments since the publication of the Scottish Soil Framework (2009).

Participants were grouped (where possible ensuring there was a mixture of research & policy representatives and organisation across groups) and asked to engage with two group activities and two individual activities outlined below;

Group Activity 1:

Each group was asked to discuss and note “What do you think are the key risks/threats for soil security and/or soil health in Scottish” and “What do you think are driving these risks?” relating to the specific land use of the session (Agriculture, Forestry, Urban and Integrated landscapes) and feedback to the wider group.

Individual Activity 1:

Following the group discussion and sharing of key risks, threats to soil and their drivers, participants were given 5 stickers each (black for researchers, red for policy/regulator representatives) to vote on the risk they thought is of most priority. Participants could choose to allocate all of their stickers to one specific risk or to spread them out across a range of risks (providing some indication on the weight of concern across the risks identified). Participants were also encouraged to move around the room and review risk/threats identified by other groups when allocating their stickers.

Group Activity 2:

Each group was asked to discuss and note –

• What policy/regulation is in place (relating to Agricultural soils)? Comments noted on pink post-it notes or directly on the list of policies outlined in the SSF (print out provided)
• What research, evidence, data, guidance is used to support soils in agriculture? Comments noted on blue post-it notes
• What do you think are the key gaps, updates and/or opportunities to better protect soil? Comments noted on yellow post-it notes

Discussions were to be specific to the land use session (Agriculture, Forestry, Urban and Integrated landscapes) with the groups feeding back to the wider group of participants

Individual Activity 2:

Following the group discussion and sharing of key gaps and opportunities to better protect soil within agriculture/forests/urban/landscapes in Scotland – participants were again given 5 stickers each (black for researchers, red for policy/regulators) to vote on the gaps and opportunities they thought is of highest priority. Participants could choose to allocate all stickers to one specific gap/opportunity or spread them out across a range of gaps/opportunities (providing some indication on the weighted priority across gaps/opportunities identified). Participants were also encouraged to move around the room and review gaps/opportunities identified by other groups when allocating their stickers.

Information provided by participants was collected and transcribed.

Summary of workshop outputs:

The top 5 risks and threats to Scottish soils voted for by participants across agriculture, forestry, urban and integrated landscapes.

The top 5 gaps/opportunities voted for by participants relating to ‘securing Scottish soil’ across the four land use sessions.

Appendix D Soil research across Scottish Government’s Strategic Research Programme (2022-2027)

Underpinning evidence for informing policy comes from the Scottish government research programme (SRP). Research relevant to soils occurs in all 6 themes in the SRP and Underpinning National Capacity;

• Theme A: Plant and Animal Health
• Theme B: Sustainable Food System and Supply
• Theme C: Human impacts on the Environment
• Theme D: Natural Resources
• Theme E: Rural Futures
• Theme F: BioSS research

It is also a key part of the work within CxC and CREW for example the project on the socio-economic cost of soil degradation funded through CREW and the Soils Fellowship funded through CxC. Soils research highlighted here includes work on understanding how soils function, how changes can be monitored and translation it so it can be used by a range of stakeholders.

The table below gives an outline of how soils underpin SRP themes as well as where there is ongoing direct soil-focused research

Appendix E Challenges to landscape-scale soil management

To effectively as well as stakeholder feedback (link to Workshop outputs) highlighted a range of challenges associated with managing soils in a changing climate, which are summarised below

Appendix F Where soils sit across different policies and legislation

List of policies and their connection to soil protection.

The policies below include reference to soil health more generally:

Appendix G How the ‘Soil Route Map’ was developed

The route map was developed across three key phases:

Phase 1: What do we already know?

The initial phase involved reviewing current policies, regulations, frameworks and evidence (research) across different land uses to ascertain current knowledge as well as policy and/or legislative support in relation to soil health and security in Scotland. This included a review of The Scottish Soils Framework (2009) in terms of developments in knowledge and actions since its publication.

Phase 2: What are the key challenges for securing Scottish soils in a changing climate? Consolidating evidence, guidance and opinions. The second phase of the project comprises the collation of key messages derived from a stakeholder workshop. These discussions included researchers, policy makers, regulators, and representatives from charities and other governmental agencies.

Phase 3: Opportunities and pathways to implementing soil security in Scotland for ‘The Route map’. The development of the proposed route map comprises an iterative process with phase 3 being the refinement of consolidated evidence from phases 1 and 2, into an easy-to-follow report outlining future opportunities, potential barriers/challenges, research gaps and where additional resources may be required.

Stakeholder Engagement

A key component of the route map development is the input from stakeholders across all areas of land management to contribute to- and provide feedback on- the route map development, which included three sets of workshops:

Workshop 1: Identification of the risks and threats to soils across land covers to review the challenges across different land use sectors (August 2024);

Workshop 2: Discuss the development of a soil monitoring framework for Scotland, potential alignment with the EU Soil Monitoring Law and how a monitoring framework could support the objectives within the soil route map (November 2024);

Workshop 3: Refining the vision and objectives of the Scottish soil route map

Within all phases of the route map development, consideration was given to the specific barriers and opportunities outlined in the Scottish National Adaptation Plan 3, particularly the underpinning research and how this is translated into policies and how these can be implemented to protect soils better in the absence of overarching governance relating specifically to soils in a Scottish policy context.

Appendix H The carbon cycle

The carbon cycle from The British Soil Science Society – Science Note on Soil Carbon. Carbon stocks and flows on land and in the oceans (adapted from Jenkinson, 2010). The numbers in bold are stocks in Gigatonnes (Gt) C: those in italics are flows in Gt C per year. Topsoil and subsoil stocks exclude peatlands. 

Appendix I Workshop outputs – A Scottish Soil Monitoring Framework (SSMF)

The workshop comprised 4 group activities (outlined below) to discuss the development of a Scottish soil monitoring framework (SSMF) with attendees from across Scottish research institutes, Scottish Government, NatureScot, SEPA and Historic Environment Scotland.

Activity 1: What do we want to achieve with a SSMF? Objective setting – What should be monitored? For example;

• Soil health status – a record of physical, biological, chemical characteristics at a given moment in time and space.
• Soil vulnerability to risk – climate and weather resilience, contamination and diffuse pollution risks, soil compaction, rate of sealing, vulnerability to physical loss (erosion) and destabilisation (landslides)
• Soil functionality – for example how soils are contributing to biogeochemical cycling and climate change, water storage, water quality and flood management and supporting ecosystem biodiversity etc.
• Soils across land use – are the objectives of a SSMF the same across different sectors and land uses? (peatlands, agriculture, forestry, horticulture, urban, recreational and mixed land uses)
• Should a SSMF review compliance, regulation and licensing
• How could a SSMF inform the delivery of policy objectives and support future decision making?

Activity 2: Reviewing the proposed EU Soil Law and how it relates to Scottish data – Presentation by Dr Allan Lilly followed by a group discussion

Activity 3: Reviewing options for;

• Baselining Scottish soils – what for and which metrics would be needed
• Benchmarking – e.g. Is it appropriate to set targets or benchmarks for Scottish soils? What are the Pros and cons
• Stratification of landscapes and data – how to stratify monitoring needs across different objectives and across different soil types and land cover/uses?

Activity 4: Group discussion on how we move from theory to action? Is there sufficient knowledge/data to initiate a SSMF?

Summary of workshop outputs:

Visions of a soil monitoring framework

• To be a leader across the 4 nations of the UK and internationally
• To have sustainable soils in perpetuity
• Linking monitoring to decision making and ultimately evidence-based policy
• A system to be able to respond rapidly to policy questions

Key overarching messages from stakeholders

• Strengthening Scottish soil monitoring with a bespoke soil monitoring framework (SSMF) could make Scotland a ‘global exemplar’
• Reviewing the EU Soil Monitoring Law demonstrates opportunities for Scotland to develop a more advanced monitoring framework that is more appropriate and beneficial for Scottish landscapes and land uses.
• Creating a SSMF that can support and co-deliver across different policy objectives (E.g. Biodiversity strategy, vision for agriculture, flood resilience, SNAP3, NPF4 etc)
• A bespoke SSMF would build a useable resource that supports and informs future evidence-based policy making and delivery (e.g. climate adaptation and mitigation, food security, flood resilience, water quality and air quality) and further utilises historic government funded data/platforms to provide broad scale conclusions and modelling requirements, as well as directing future research and policy needs.
• We are not starting from scratch – Scotland already has a lot of data and knowledge to utilise and build upon. A monitoring framework needs to start with the soil properties and strong conceptual understanding of the soil functions.
• “Let’s get started” – Do what we can with what we have and make improvements over time.

Overall Summary

There was wide support for a soil monitoring framework in Scotland that evidences why and how changes in soils may be occurring, as well as being able to better benchmark progress towards ‘thriving’ soils in Scotland. Stakeholders agreed that there is a significant amount of data already available providing a firm foundation from which to develop a SSMF, but in order to develop this further an overarching objective(s) is needed to inform the design and functionality of a SSMF. Across stakeholders present, there was a strong consistent message that the SSMF needs to be able to answer questions across scales, disciplines, sectors and land uses, as well as not letting financial constraints be a barrier for inaction (particularly when the ultimate costs of soil degradation is taken into account as highlighted by Baggaley et al., 2024). There was significant discussion regarding the types of data that may be required to inform soil health, functionality and security as well as how data could/should be translated to inform decision making i.e. how a SSMF can be designed to facilitates the translation of data into knowledge, action and wisdom. This discussion raised many questions relating to data requirements in terms of identifying appropriate soil metrics which will inform on the current state of soil resources as well as allowing the monitoring of changes in soils over time.

There were a variety of views on the use of a baseline, benchmarks and stratification. There was a view that a baseline of Scottish soils was needed even if it is imperfect. It was clarified that a baseline was just that and that it was not a “Preferred state”. Again, there was much discussion with respect to identifying which metrics/properties should be recorded in a baseline assessment and what is needed in terms of harmonisation of existing data sets to achieve the best possible baseline with the data available. Stakeholders were confident that potentially sufficient data exists to derive one, particularly through the national soil surveys (NSIS1 and NSIS2) and monitoring of forest soils (e.g. Forest soil sustainability, BIOSOIL) but that there is a lack data for soils relating to urban/suburban and recreational soils. However, it was highlighted that NSIS 2 was carried out nearly 20 years ago (2007-2009) and so changes in soil condition may have already occurred.

There was a lot of debate about whether there should be soil targets and benchmarks set. The use of benchmarks to incentivise actions and to better monitor progress was emphasised. Conversely there was concern with respect to identifying suitable benchmarks across different soil types and land uses. This includes the dependency on soil type, land use and management practices and the challenges of what defines a benchmark for multi-functional land uses or how to incorporate potential land use change over time. Stakeholders demonstrated caution with respect to the implementation of benchmarks as it is difficult to predict and manage potential unintended consequences, knock-on effects and trade-offs that target setting could bring. Stakeholders highlighted that there is a risk that benchmarks and targets lead to an oversimplification of soils and therefore the overarching message of holistic soil (and ecosystem) health and resilience may become lost as land managers strive to accomplish specific targets set.

Stakeholders agreed that a SSMF needs to represent all soil and land use types, but that there are challenges relating to how best Scotland’s landscapes should be stratified (e.g. based on soil type, land use (or sector) and/or by management) in the SSMF. It was suggested that a tiered or modular approach may be most suitable to reflect the complexity of Scottish landscapes, allowing for simple actions to be identified from collated data/information (and support adaptive learning over time). The challenge of encapsulating changes in land use and land management within a robust statistical SSMF design was identified at the workshop. Therefore, the potential to stratify or interpretation the SSMF based on soil vulnerability was proposed.

An overarching reaction of the workshop relates to the phrase “perfect is the enemy of good” in terms of there being a consensus that a SSMF is needed/wanted by stakeholders but that current data or knowledge gaps shouldn’t be barriers preventing the development of a SSMF. There was a sense of optimism that an agreement on SSMF objectives, purpose and design (metrics included) can be made to generate a transparent work-in-progress SSMF with its implementation informing future developmental needs. A key factor in implementing a monitoring framework is the presentation of data derived from it and ensuring that information is appropriately and proportionately translated to support the needs across Scottish Government, agencies, researchers, investors and land managers.

References

Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB). (2022), Soil Health scorecard approach Sampling protocol and benchmarking tables – Scotland version 1, https://ahdb.org.uk/knowledge-library/the-soil-health-scorecard (Accessed: 9th May 2025)

Baggaley NJ, Fraser F, Hallett P, Lilly, A, Jabloun, M, Loades K, Parker T, Rivington M, Sharififar M, Zhang Z, Roberts M. (2024) Assessing the socio-economic impacts of soil degradation on Scotland’s water environment. CRW2022_04. Centre of Expertise for Waters (CREW). ISBN: 978-1-911706-26-7. https://www.crew.ac.uk/publication/socio-economic-impacts-soil-degradation (Accessed: 9th May 2025)

Environmental Standards Scotland (2024)The risks to Scotland’s soils: a scoping report https://environmentalstandards.scot/our-work/our-analytical-work/the-risks-to-scotlands-soils-a-scoping-report/ (Accessed: 9th May 2025)

Forestry Commission (2023) The UK Forestry Standard – The Government’s approach to sustainable forestry (5th Edition) ISBN: 978-1-83915-021-0 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/651670336a423b0014f4c5c0/Revised_UK_Forestry_Standard_-_effective_October_2024.pdf (Accessed: 9th May 2025)

Hough RL (2024). Using new contaminants information to re-assess environmental risks from sewage sludge. Prepared for Fidra (SCIO and Scottish registered charity no.SC043895). file:///C:/Users/nb40022/AppData/Local/Temp/MicrosoftEdgeDownloads/ea300424-f0a0-4053-a73a-d429479ccbdd/JHI-Fidra-Sludge-Contaminants-Risk-Report_Updated_2025.pdf (Accessed: 9th May 2025)

Jenkinson DS (2010) Climate change – a brief introduction for scientists and engineers or anyone else who has to do something about it. Rothamsted Research. https://repository.rothamsted.ac.uk/item/8v478/climate-change-a-brief-introduction-for-scientists-and-engineers-or-anyone-else-who-has-to-do-something-about-it (Accessed: 9th May 2025)

Land Use for Net Zero (LUNZ) Hub (2024) Approaches to Soil Monitoring across the Four Nations: Workshop on Cross-UK Soil Monitoring and Research https://lunzhub.com/resources/approaches-to-nationwide-soil-monitoring-across-the-uk/ (Accessed: 9th May 2025)

Neilson R, Aitkenhead M, Lilly A, Loades K, (2021) Monitoring soil health in Scotland by land use category – a scoping study ClimateXChange. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7488/era/1293 (Accessed: 9th May 2025)

NatureScot (2015) Scotland’s National Peatland Plan: Working for our future https://www.nature.scot/doc/scotlands-national-peatland-plan-working-our-future (Accessed: 9th May 2025)

Scotland’s Climate Change committee (2023) Adapting to climate change- Progress in Scotland https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/adapting-to-climate-change-progress-in-scotland/ (Accessed: 9th May 2025)

Scotland’s Soils Website (2025) https://soils.environment.gov.scot/ (Accessed: 9th May 2025)

Scottish Government (2024) Adaptation Scotland, Climate-Ready Places https://adaptation.scot/take-action/climate-ready-places/ (Accessed: 9th May 2025)

Scottish Government (2023) Agricultural Reform List of Measures https://www.ruralpayments.org/topics/agricultural-reform-programme/arp-list-of-measures/ (Accessed: 9th May 2025)

Scottish Government (2024) Agricultural Reform Route Map https://www.ruralpayments.org/topics/agricultural-reform-programme/arp-route-map/ (Accessed: 9th May 2025)

Scottish Government (2022) Delivering our Vision for Scottish Agriculture Proposals for a new Agriculture Bill ISBN: 978-1-80435-843-6 (web only) https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/consultation-paper/2022/08/delivering-vision-scottish-agriculture-proposals-new-agriculture-bill/documents/delivering-vision-scottish-agriculture-proposals-new-agriculture-bill/delivering-vision-scottish-agriculture-proposals-new-agriculture-bill/govscot%3Adocument/delivering-vision-scottish-agriculture-proposals-new-agriculture-bill.pdf (Accessed: 9th May 2025)

Scottish Government (2007) Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part IIA Contaminated Land The Radioactive Contaminated Land (Scotland) Regulations 2007 Statutory Guidance ISBN 978 0 7559 7058 2 (Web only) https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/regulation-directive-order/2008/03/radioactive-contaminated-land-scotland-regulations-2007-statutory-guidance/documents/0058314-pdf/0058314-pdf/govscot%3Adocument/0058314.pdf (Accessed: 9th May 2025)

Scottish Government (2006) Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part IIA Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance: Edition 2 May 2006. SE/2006/44. ISBN 0-7559-6097-1 https://www.gov.scot/publications/environmental-protection-act-1990-part-iia-contaminated-land-statutory-guidance/ (Accessed: 9th May 2025)

Scottish Government (2018 ) Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAECs) https://www.ruralpayments.org/topics/inspections/all-inspections/cross-compliance/detailed-guidance/good-agricultural-and-environmental-conditions/ (Accessed: 9th May 2025)

Scottish Government (2024) Preparing for Sustainable Farming full guidance https://www.ruralpayments.org/topics/agricultural-reform-programme/preparing-for-sustainable-farming–psf–full-guidance/ (Accessed: 9th May 2025)

Scottish Government (2023) Scotland’s National Planning Framework 4. ISBN: 978-1-80525-482-9 (web only) https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/strategy-plan/2023/02/national-planning-framework-4/documents/national-planning-framework-4-revised-draft/national-planning-framework-4-revised-draft/govscot%3Adocument/national-planning-framework-4.pdf (Accessed: 9th May 2025)

Scottish Government (2024) Scottish Biodiversity Strategy to 2045 Tackling the Nature Emergency in Scotland ISBN: 978-1-83601-150-7 (web only) https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/strategy-plan/2024/11/scottish-biodiversity-strategy-2045/documents/scottish-biodiversity-strategy-2045-tackling-nature-emergency-scotland/scottish-biodiversity-strategy-2045-tackling-nature-emergency-scotland/govscot%3Adocument/scottish-biodiversity-strategy-2045-tackling-nature-emergency-scotland.pdf (Accessed: 9th May 2025)

Scottish Government (2024) Scottish National Adaptation Plan (Version3: 2024 – 2029) Actions today, for a climate resilient future, ISBN: 978-1-83601-729-5 (web only) https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/strategy-plan/2024/09/scottish-national-adaptation-plan-2024-2029-2/documents/scottish-national-adaptation-plan-2024-2029/scottish-national-adaptation-plan-2024-2029/govscot%3Adocument/scottish-national-adaptation-plan-2024-2029.pdf (Accessed: 9th May 2025)

Scottish Government (2009) The Scottish Soil Framework, ISBN: 978-0-7559-9013-9 https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-soil-framework/ (Accessed: 9th May 2025)

Scottish Government (2013) The Scottish Soil Framework – Progress report https://soils.environment.gov.scot/media/1018/115131209_scottish_soil_framework_-ssf-_progress_report.pdf (Accessed: 9th May 2025)

Scottish Government (2025) Whole Farm Plan full guidance https://www.ruralpayments.org/topics/all-schemes/whole-farm-plan/ (Accessed: 9th May 2025)

UK Government (2008) The Action Programme for Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (Scotland) Regulations 2008 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2008/298/contents/made (Accessed: 9th May 2025)

UK Government (1994) The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1994/2716/contents (Accessed: 9th May 2025)

UK Government (2005) The Contaminated Land (Scotland) Regulations 2005 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2005/658/contents/made (Accessed: 9th May 2025)

UK Government (2012) The Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2012 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2012/360/contents (Accessed: 9th May 2025)

UK Government (1989) The Sludge (Use in Agriculture) Regulations 1989 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1263/contents/made (Accessed: 9th May 2025)

UK Government (2015) The Sludge (Use in Agriculture) Regulations 1989 -Changes to Legislation Results https://www.legislation.gov.uk/changes/affected/uksi/1989/1263 (Accessed: 9th May 2025)

UK Government (2011) The Waste Management Licensing (Scotland) Regulations 2011 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/sdsi/2011/9780111012147/contents (Accessed: 9th May 2025)

UK Government (2011) The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2011/209/contents/made (Accessed: 9th May 2025)

How to cite this publication:

Buckingham, S., and Baggaley, N. (2025) ‘Securing soils in a changing climate: A soil route map for Scotland’, ClimateXChange. http://dx.doi.org/10.7488/era/6006

© The University of Edinburgh, 2025
Prepared by SAC Consulting on behalf of ClimateXChange, The University of Edinburgh. All rights reserved.

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

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

Research completed January 2025

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7488/era/5570

Executive summary

Aims

Degraded peatlands are one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in Scotland. The Scottish Government has a budget of £250m to spend towards peatland restoration efforts through the Peatland ACTION (PA) programme up to 2030.

This research explored the evidence for peatland restoration costs in Scotland and examined emerging trends. It also investigated opportunities and challenges for contractors delivering peatland restoration services. We reviewed existing literature and analysed cost data compiled by SRUC from the PA programme projects supported by NatureScot funding between 2018 and 2023. We also carried out interviews with contractors. Data from other PA delivery partners post 2021 was not examined in this project phase due to time constraints.

Key findings

• Observed peatland restoration costs per hectare vary significantly. This reflects a range of influencing factors, including:
  • project-specific factors (e.g. site characteristics, project length)
  • contractor-specific factors (e.g. firm size and history)
  • background commercial conditions (e.g. inflation, funding availability, tendering processes)
  • site location, baseline condition and environmental designation status.
• Approximately half of the variation in unit costs between sites could not be explained by the statistical analysis, often due to noise in the data, for example:
  • Differences in data recording on restoration processes, project characteristics and costs across projects within the study period
  • Wider economic factors such as regional variations in labour and material costs, poor transport networks and local competition for scarce resources (see the recent SRUC Rural and Islands Insights report for evidence of this at a local scale)
  • Limited local competition due to barriers to entry to the market.
• There is some evidence for economies of scale i.e. larger projects have lower unit costs. The extent of such economies of scales is difficult to determine due to other differences across projects.
• Statistically speaking, costs of restoration have not changed over time. The absence of such an observed time trend in restoration unit costs may simplify the use of unit costs as predicted by the model to future years.
• Interview data highlighted the impact of other factors, confirming the influence of complexities and uncertainties, both real and perceived, in the tendering process. These include:
  • perceived uncertainty in long-term commitment to government support for peatland restoration
  • challenging tendering processes
  • environmental and market conditions that add risk to a business engaged in restoration.
• This is largely independent of site characteristics but impairs value for money directly by increasing the overhead costs of tendering, and indirectly by constraining the pool of willing contractors.

Improving operational delivery of peatland restoration

• Estimates for restoration costs from our analysis could be useful for costings of large-scale policy programmes; the spatial approach to estimating variation in unit costs allows extrapolation at larger scale, although further work is needed to understand complex issues.
• Further research into the extent to which economies of scale are present would be helpful, as would steps to improve confidence in the accuracy of reported costs and associated site characteristics.
• Regional differences imply that uniform national benchmarking rates might be inappropriate, with large residual uncertainty of unit costs potentially increasing the risk of falsely rejecting projects that may deliver restoration cost-effectively.
• Using standardised costs to assess projects is also problematic because a large part of variation in costs remains unexplained. Either of the options below can improve this situation.
  • Give greater attention in the tendering process, in particular how that may be improved on both the demand and supply side. This would draw out true context-specific costs in a competitive market.
  • Seek greater transparency around individual cost elements for an individual project bid, including overhead charges and profit margins e.g. open-book tendering with agreed percentage markups.
• Supply of restoration services might be strengthened and value for money in peatland restoration increased through consideration of the following:
  • Include contingency costings as part of the tendering process, to address contractors’ cost risks regarding e.g. inflation spikes in key inputs (e.g. fuel) or unforeseen site complexities.
  • Commit to long-term funding of a pipeline of restoration projects. This will provide reassurance to existing and potential contractors that their investment in staff and machinery is merited.
  • Ensure prompt payment upon project completion with provision for at least part payment when final inspection is delayed due, for example, to weather conditions.
  • Simplify tendering procedures to stimulate supplier interest in peatland restoration work through rationalisation of information required, improved guidance and support for those tendering the work to provide better feedback.
  • Continue with (well received) training support plus opportunities for mutual knowledge exchange between funders and contractors. A specific area for training is in data collection for contractors.

Strengthening future analysis

Challenges and limitations of the analysis presented in this report could be addressed by:

• Exploring potential systemic differences across Peatland ACTION delivery partners by comparing the results derived from the NatureScot Peatland ACTION database with estimates generated by, for example the Cairngorms National Park and Forestry and Land Scotland.
• Confirming that the process of recording spatial location and recording of restoration area based on site outlines is standardised and consistently allows linking area and location with records of restoration costs and activities over time. Verification of reported area estimates through digitization in GIS can reveal important discrepancies. Re-recording of samples of outlines for restored areas, known as restoration footprint, on the ground should be considered for comparison.

Glossary / Abbreviations table

Abbreviations

Glossary

Background

A high proportion of Scottish peatlands are in a degraded state and the Scottish Government has been setting ambitious targets for peatland restoration^[1]. These reflect various overlapping policy objectives, notably reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) but also biodiversity enhancement and water management. Primarily via the Peatland ACTION (PA) programme supported by Scottish Government and administered by Scottish Natural Heritage (now NatureScot), Forestry and Land Scotland, and the National Park authorities, in excess of 52,000 hectares have been restored since 2012.

In February 2020, the Scottish Government announced an increase in investment in peatland restoration of more than £250 million over 10 years, aiming to support the restoration of 250,000 hectares of degraded peat by 2030, as part of the Scottish Government’s Climate Change Plan for net zero. In the Update of the Climate Change Plan, the restoration target is upheld, and it is emphasised that “[t]o deliver on the 2032 emissions reduction envelope annual peatland restoration needs to be far higher than the current 20,000 hectare annual target”.^[2]

Scottish Government funding for peatland restoration is managed via the Peatland ACTION (PA) programme. This has five delivery partners: NatureScot, Forestry and Land Scotland, Cairngorms National Park Authority, Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park Authority and Scottish Water. This research examined only NatureScot projects. Harmonising data from all delivery partners was an initial ambition but considered out of scope within the time and budget available in the project. Nevertheless, cost data collated from NatureScot PA administered projects has wide coverage, geographically and in terms of restoration activities and accounts for c.70% of PA restoration.

Over 10,000 ha of Scottish peatlands were restored under PA in 2023/24, an increase in annual restoration area of 40% compared to the previous year. Despite this increase, meeting the policy ambition for peatland restoration will require significant upscaling of restoration efforts over coming years at times of continued pressure on public budgets. Value-for-money and scale of policy ambition imply a need for targeting restoration efforts where it is most cost effective, taking single (GHG emission reduction) or multiple social and environmental outcomes into account. Determining such cost-effective pathways, requires an in-depth understanding of the costs that currently underpin peatland restoration in Scotland. However, whilst variation in restoration costs across different projects are reported (Glenk et al., 2022), the causes of such variation have yet to be investigated systematically. Furthermore, despite the key role that contractors have in peatland restoration delivery (and therefore associated costs), their perceptions of the tendering and restoration process has not yet been sufficiently studied.

This report examines variation of costs of implementing restoration,^[3] factors affecting contractors ability and willingness to engage in restoration, and explores barriers to scaling restoration efforts related to costs and the supply of restoration services by contractors.

The project had three main aims:

1. Which factors affect restoration costs? (Section 4)

We take a broad perspective to offer an overview that considers environmental and site conditions, factors affecting bidding of contractors and actual restoration work. The synthesis is based on a rapid review of literature discussing bidding behaviour and cost of implementing nature restoration, combined with the joint expertise of the research team. Where possible, we discuss interactions between factors and how they have been evolving over time.

2. Which factors explain variation in restoration cost? (Section 5)

We provide a data driven quantification of relationships between restoration cost and environmental and site characteristics. The analysis draws on cost data collected via the NatureScot PA funded programme^[4], which is matched with spatial information on environmental and site characteristics for statistical analysis. This provides insight into any systematic variation of restoration cost to support restoration budgeting and planning.

3. What are the opportunities and challenges for contractors in engaging with restoration? (Section 6)

We draw on interviews with contractors of restoration services selected to represent a mix of size and geographical spread. Interview notes and transcripts were reviewed to provide perspectives on prospects and difficulties faced by contractors as crucial actors for scaling of restoration efforts.

Factors affecting restoration – an overview

A brief synthesis of related literature

To identify factors affecting restoration cost, we screened relevant literature related to costs of ecosystem restoration and nature-based solutions^[5]; and the factors affecting bidding behaviour of contractors.

Cost of conservation efforts, including ecosystem restoration

There is consensus in conservation literature that costs should play an important role for conservation planning, management and evaluation; they affect ‘value for money’ considerations. The efficiency of conservation spending is enhanced if funding is allocated based on considerations of cost-effectiveness, i.e., the benefit achieved relative to cost (e.g., Babcock et al., 1997; Naidoo et al., 2006; Perhans et al., 2008; Burkhalter et al., 2016; Rodewald et al., 2019; Field and Elphick, 2019). How benefits are measured is of relevance, too: counting benefits simply in terms of area or number of conservation units is associated with less efficient allocation of resources compared to measures that better reflected actual intended outcomes (e.g., biodiversity) (Engert and Laurance., 2019).

The efficiency gains of considering costs depend on the accuracy of cost predictions. This requires the development of cost projections that reflect the (spatial) variability in cost of conservation action (Burkhalter et al., 2016; Van Deynze et al., 2022), also allowing the identification of potential economies of scale (Cho et al., 2017; Armsworth et al., 2018).

Ecosystem restoration projects of all types are generally considered to be high cost, often requiring significant up-front capital investment (Sewell et al., 2016). However, costs of restoration vary greatly across contexts and locations (de Groot et al., 2013; Sewell et al., 2016; Van Deynze et al., 2022). Factors quoted to influence cost variation include the baseline level of ecosystem degradation, local infrastructure availability, type and scale of restoration, population pressure and density, the legal framework, existing land use and tenure arrangements, land value, labour costs and method of measurement (Sewell et al. 2016,). We found studies referring to complexity of restoration works, managing and protecting safe access to sites, access to labour and supplies, and other project characteristics including land cover, slope, elevation, number of sites in a project and distance between sites (Van Deynze et al., 2022).

More specific peatland restoration cost estimates for the UK and Scotland also show great variability. For example, costs per hectare vary greatly by restoration technique used (Artz et al 2018; Okumah et al., 2019; Glenk et al., 2020, 2021, 2022). A previous CXC study (Artz et al., 2019) investigated physical limitations to access to restoration sites. They focused on several factors – physical infrastructure (road network), snow days, rainfall, elevation, peat condition, drainage status and a NatureScot remoteness index. Further, Aitkenhead et al., (2021), in their mapping of peatland emission categories, provided evidence for strong regional variation in peatland conditions and levels of degradation. In an outline of a national peatland monitoring strategy, Artz et al. (2023) proposed features such as bare peat extent, topographic and hydrological connectivity, soil erosion levels, microclimatic proxies water table stabilisation such as rainfall or windspeed and changes to vegetation cover among others, as essential dimensions to monitor the potential success of restoration efforts. Previously, Artz et al., (2019) had also identified strong geographic divide in peatland conditions across Scotland and that high site fragmentation levels introduce substantial error into the estimation process.

Other studies confirm the relevance of factors including altitude and distance from roads (remoteness) (Okumah et al., 2019), and site condition (Glenk et al., 2020, 2021, 2022), pre-restoration site use and land-cover.

The conservation and restoration literature emphasises the importance of reporting cost elements (e.g. fixed & variable, capital, labour cost) instead of simply total cost (Cook et al., 2017; Artz et al., 2018). Knowledge of cost elements, ideally collected in a standardised way (Iacona et al., 2018; Artz et al., 2018), facilitates the transfer of cost estimates across sites and contexts, enhances their potential to enter decision support tools, and improves understanding of the relationship between cost and conservation outcome as spending increases or decreases (Cook et al., 2017). Lack of standardising how costs are accounted for adds to an already large variation in reported cost across projects (Sewell et al., 2016; Glenk et al., 2020).

Synthesis of papers investigating contractors’ decisions to bid

Peatland restoration is primarily undertaken by private-sector contractors who are invited to tender competitively for work. However, little research appears to have been undertaken specifically in relation to peatland contractors’ business models and factors influencing their decisions to bid for restoration projects. Nonetheless, some possible insights are offered by findings for other land-based sectors (e.g. forestry, landscaping, and civil engineering).^[6] Although the analogies are not perfect, they are sufficient to identify relevant types of issues.

Common factors identified in this broader literature fall into various risk categories: client-related, project-related, contractor-related, and other (Cohan, 2018; Oo et al., 2022; Olatunji et al., 2023). The latter relate to background market conditions and government policies which apply across all contractors and projects, for example, wage and price inflation or regulatory obligations. All other things being equal, uncertainty about relative costs and/or future regulatory requirements dampen contractors’ willingness to bid for projects and/or increase quoted bid prices (Oo et al., 2022; Binshakir et al., 2023; Olatunji et al., 2023).

Client-related factors include financial and organisational reputation plus willingness to foster longer-term relationships. For example, promptness in paying, openness of administrative processes, and degree of mutual trust. All other things being equal, a reliable client with simple(r) bidding processes and a willingness to share project information plus commit to a pipeline of work is more likely to receive bids, and at lower prices (Spencer, 1989; Oo et al., 2022; Binshakir et al., 2023; Olatunji et al., 2023).

Project-related factors essentially relate to the size and complexity of projects (and hence overlap with the site-specific factors noted above). For example, larger projects generally benefit from economies of scale and simpler projects have less risk of encountering unforeseen problems. Hence, all other things being equal, simpler and larger projects are more likely to attract bids, and at lower unit prices (Oo et al., 2022; Binshakir et al., 2023; Johansson et al., 2023; Kronholm et al., 2023; Olatunji et al., 2023).

Contractor-related factors relate to the capabilities and confidence of individual firms. For example, prior experience with similar projects, availability of relevant staff and machinery, and sufficient cash-flow. All other things being equal, a contractor is more likely to bid for a given project if they are familiar with the type of work required and either already have the necessary staff and machinery or are sufficiently confident to invest in additional capacity (e.g. perceive a good chance of follow-on work). Confidence to bid may also reflect the anticipated degree of competition from other contractors and perceived fairness of (client-related) bidding processes. For example, the likelihood of a rival bid by a competitor being viewed as strong and/or favoured may discourage bidding (Cohan, 2018; Spencer, 1989; Oo et al., 2022; Binshakir et al., 2023; Johansson et al., 2023; Kronholm et al., 2023; Olatunji et al., 2023).

Implications for costs

Given that all factors identified above are likely to vary across different projects, clients (e.g. funding bodies), contractors and time-periods, it would be expected that observed unit costs (e.g. per ha) will display significant variation. This is confirmed by previous analysis of peatland restoration costs across Scotland (Okumah et al., 2019; Glenk et al., 2020, 2021, 2022). For example, Glenk et al. (2022) report overall median costs of £1025/ha across 158 completed projects but with a standard deviation of £4328/ha, and also show that medians for different types of projects vary between £939/ha and £1778/ha.

Reported costs for other types of ecosystem restoration also show significant (>40%) variation. This is largely attributed to differences in project scales and complexity, including administrative processes, but also to a lack of standardisation in cost reporting. Econometric analysis of the determinants of cost variation typically struggle to explain all such variation (King and Bohlen, 1995; Keating et al., 2015; Knight et al., 2021; Van Deynze et al., 2022).

Likely factors affecting peatland restoration cost

The findings from the available literature are consistent with anecdotal evidence gleaned previously by members of the research team and of the Steering Group. As such, it is possible to hypothesise the types of factors likely to affect peatland restoration costs, to guide (but not dictate) issues to explore through statistical analysis of secondary data and through discussions with contractors.

We identified a wide overview of potential factors affecting restoration costs across sites and at a given point in time (Appendix Table A4.2). There are potential relationships between factors and restoration costs, for example, costs per hectare are likely to fall as project size increases and overhead cost elements can be spread more thinly. However, costs per hectare are likely to increase with severity of baseline degradation (e.g. proportion of site with eroded or bare peat) as the restoration effort required increases. Similarly, more remote sites and sites with more complex mosaics of features may also be relatively more expensive per hectare.

The issue is complex and factors may confound each other. For example, economies of scale effects may not be immediately apparent if larger sites also happen to be more remote and/or more degraded.

The statistical analysis relied on the cost data already collated by researchers of SRUC into a suitable database from PA NatureScot data, although inconsistencies in reporting over projects and the study period (2018-2023) presented challenges. Specific metrics for characterising projects may include various biophysical indicators (e.g. area, location, topography) as well as baseline condition and access conditions affecting which type and density of restoration techniques is cost-effective.

We understand that PA delivery partners differ in their approach to profiling projects for tendering with potential implications for a full analysis of reported cost. For example, the Cairngorms National Park Authority (CNPA) has a model to translate complexity into labour and machinery days necessary for restoration, providing options for adjustments of typical rates in the process. This approach makes intuitive sense given that many site-specific factors affecting cost are related to complexity (Appendix Table A4.2). However, pre-characterization of complexity of restoration via aerial photography is time consuming and may be challenging to apply at scale. This may change in the future, for example employing machine learning mapping tools to assess drainage and erosion features that provide indication for restoration complexity (Macfarlane et al., 2024).

In addition, background changes over time may affect all projects, including advances in restoration techniques (Appendix Table A4.3). For example, inflation increasing the costs of key inputs (e.g. fuel) but also, potentially, innovation and experience reducing unit costs. Dynamics of supply and demand for restoration services may affect unit cost of restoration and also change over time. For example, contractors of restoration services may become more experienced and thus efficient over time. However, whether this impacts on unit costs depends, among other things, also on the level of competition that contractors face.

In addition to the statistical analysis of reported cost data, more qualitative insights can be gained through interviews with contractors undertaking restoration activities on-the-ground. This offers an opportunity to confirm the relevance of factors identified for statistical analysis. It also offers an opportunity to explore other factors not included in the cost database.

For example, contractors’ willingness to bid and quoted prices for particular projects may be affected by their capacity and experience (e.g. number of diggers, work on similar sites previously), but also by alternative income-generating opportunities (e.g. other civil-engineering work). Moreover, it may also be affected by (perceived) complexity and fairness of tendering processes, including the (perceived) likelihood of bidding successfully (i.e., whether tendering is worth the effort).

Such issues can be explored through discussion with contractors using semi-structured interviews. Whilst a range of different types of contractors (e.g. varying by size, location and experience) can be interviewed, results should not be treated as statistically representative but rather as illustrative cases of the types of factors influencing contractors’ engagement with peatland restoration.

Conclusion

Peatland restoration costs are influenced by a range of factors, including:

• project-specific factors (e.g., site characteristics, project length),
• contractor-specific factors (e.g. firm size and history), and
• background commercial conditions (e.g. inflation, funding availability, tendering processes).

These factors vary across different projects, clients (e.g. funding bodies), contractors and time periods, leading to great variation in observed unit (e.g. per ha) costs. Lack of standardising how costs are accounted for further adds to this already large variation in reported cost across projects. Systematic analysis of the factors to identify variation and evidence collected directly from contractors are needed to gain in-depth understanding.

Explaining variation in restoration cost

In this section we use information entailed in the SRUC cost database, which is compiled from NatureScot Peatland ACTION grant application and final reporting forms (see Section 5.1). We combine data in the SRUC cost database with publicly available spatial data to determine how geography, climate, peat condition, land use and site designation (SSSI etc.) are associated with restoration costs. The main output of the work reported in this section is a statistical model which attempts to explain variation in the restoration cost per hectare across completed projects.

The model results can be used to understand systematic relationships between restoration costs and site characteristics (e.g. access, topography, land use) that vary spatially. Findings may provide answers to questions such as ‘typically, is restoring peatland under grassland or forested land more or less expensive?’; or ‘is there a trend for restoration to be more expensive in one region compared to another?’. Answers to such questions may provide insights on how peatland restoration in Scotland could be delivered more cost-effectively. The model may also be used for to derive estimates of costs associated with expanding restoration across Scotland, for example as part of a cost-benefit analysis. We also highlight gaps in knowledge and highlight areas for review and further research that could make this type of analysis more accurate.

Methodological approach: cost data analysis

The SRUC cost database (see Glenk et al., 2022 for an overview) contains detailed information on project costs and activities, and in its most recent form originates from 289 final project report forms of NatureScot PA administered restoration projects covering a period from April 2016 to March 2023. Due to issues with unreliable historic data contained in the forms (see 5.2.4), only 229 of the 289 final observations for a period between April 2017 to March 2023 were complete and sufficiently reliable to be used in the analysis. Full details of the methodology, including limitations of the SRUC database, are given in Appendix A5.

Cost of restoration of a particular peatland site is here defined as the sum of all expenses within the project implementation phase. This includes all the measure-related costs (labour, material, fuel, equipment/machinery), mobilisation costs, project management and monitoring costs (within implementation phase) and other necessary work not directly attributable to restoration measures, such as changes to access infrastructure, site boundaries/fences, location-specific biodiversity protection measures or livestock/wildlife management/exclusion. Cost estimates exclude costs associated with feasibility studies, bidding and grant application process, any pre-restoration site-specific expenses, post-restoration monitoring and maintenance or loss of income due to limited use of the site post-restoration. These non-implementation costs are excluded because they are not part of the contractor tendering process and relate to a different set of activities. In addition, many sites do not yet have a lengthy period of reporting of post-implementation costs.

A statistical model to infer the cost per hectare of a site in the SRUC cost database based on 37 explanatory variables was developed to determine which variables significantly impact on cost. Spatial variables were extracted from several maps based on the location of the restoration project under the assumption that the sites were perfect circles of an area equal to that reported in the SRUC cost database. Spatial variables used to infer cost include rainfall, peat condition, peat depth, pooled-biogeographical-zones. Various configurations of the model were tested (i.e., different explanatory variables, different units of measurement), but the model presented is the best in terms of statistical test performance (see Appendix A5 for more details). A full list of variables used in the model can be seen in the Appendix Table A5.1. and a more detailed description of the data extraction and statistical model can be found in Appendix A5.

Figure 5.1 displays the geographical distribution of projects considered in the analysis across what we refer to as ‘restoration zones’ (Appendix Table A5.4). It is important to note that Figure 5.1 is not a representative map of PA restoration activity. The eight restoration zones were created by pooling the original 21 ‘biogeographical zones’ for the ease of interpretation. The original biogeographical zones, also referred to as ‘Natural Heritage Zones’ represent discrete regions based on similarities in topography, climate and the composition of biological community. Sites within a restoration zone are expected to have similar environmental and geographical features and thus a similar foundation for peatland restoration.

Results of cost data analysis

Descriptive data overview

After removing entries with obvious reporting errors (totalling 60 entries), the average cost per hectare (2020-£/ha) of restoration is £1,550/ha. However, there is a large variation in unit cost. To illustrate this: the unit cost at the 5^th percentile is £191/ha, while the unit cost at the 95^th percentile is £4,483/ha, Appendix Table A5.6.

Therefore, using an overall average cost per hectare to estimate costs of future restoration projects is not advised and further information about the site is required to infer variation in cost per hectare. The average restoration cost per hectare in each restoration zone shows that, all else equal, restoration in the Flow Country was least costly while restoration in the Central Belt was most expensive (Figure 5.2).

On average, 22% of sites were classified as ‘Near Natural Bog’ in the UK LULUCF Inventory (Appendix Table A5.5), and the largest area of restored peatland was classified as ‘Near Natural Bog’ at 32% of the area restored, for the sites considered in this study (Appendix Table A5.5). However, according to information provided by the NatureScot Peatland ACTION team only 3.8% of restored peat bog is near natural bog. It is likely that the ‘circle method’ (Appendix Figure A5.1) for calculating the area of restored peatland and/or the inaccuracy of the peat condition map used in the inventory may cause errors in our calculations.

To analyse the relationship between site area on costs per hectare, the sites were distributed equally to size-classes based on spatial area. The average unit costs for sites in the smallest area category were approximately three times as high as the ones in the largest area category, Table 5.2, pointing to the possibility of economies of scale (see Appendix A5.3 for an explanation and illustrative example related to peatland restoration).

These averages, however, need to be interpreted with caution due to the nature of calculation of costs per hectare (total site costs divided by total site area) and confounding factors, i.e., other factors co-vary (in our data) with size. The suggestion that decreased unit cost associated with larger site size in the data is due entirely to economies of scale could therefore be misleading. For example, a high proportion of larger sites are grassland sites rather than bare peat sites, meaning that their lower per ha costs may partly reflect their scale but may also partly reflect the relative ease of restoring grassland rather than restoring bare peat.

This was evident in the cost database, where we find that the largest sites (N=6 representing 17% of the restored area; site area >380ha) had none of the complex restoration activities such as mulching, stabilisation, felling and sphagnum transplanting (one notion of site-complexity). Therefore, it was difficult to determine if a large site was cheaper per hectare due to economies of scale, or because it required less complex restoration activities; both explanations are likely responsible for the observed decrease in cost per hectare with increased site area.

Statistical model results: drivers of spatial variation in cost per hectare

The results provide a good overview of the spatial drivers of restoration cost but may mask any interactions between variables. The statistical model (log-linear) helps us unpick all the variables that are driving cost for a site and determine features that are making sites more or less expensive (Appendix Table A5.7). The model explained 52.0% of the variation in cost per hectare amongst the 229 sites used in this study. After accounting for the number of variables (37) used in the model relative to the number observations (Adjusted R-squared), the explained variation was 42.4%, which compares favourably to other studies (Van Deynze et al., 2022). The unexplained part is attributed partly to noise in the reported data (e.g. errors in forms and in data entry) and to unobserved influences on costs – both of which reflect some of the limitations of the data collection process. However, it should be noted that it is unrealistic to expect 100% explanatory power on any statistical model: neither is the underlying relationship between different factors often known sufficiently to specify it perfectly in modelling terms nor are all possible data available to populate a perfect model.

Figure 5.3 displays all the variables considered as having an influence on cost per hectare, and the amount that they are predicted by the statistical model to change costs per hectare^[7]. Variables right of the red dashed line increase costs and those left of the dashed line decrease costs. Here we discuss variables which we are almost certain (‘significantly’) to affect cost per hectare according to the available data, i.e. those in green in Figure 5.3 as well as variables we initially expected to drive unit cost.

Year of funding

We expected that cost per hectare would vary across time (Appendix Table A4.3). However, the year in which the funding was granted is not statistically significantly explaining variation in costs. Since the costs are deflated, the data suggests that peatland restoration costs have changed over time in line with inflation. However, mostdata points were unreliable before 2017 and the reliability of data increased after 2019, which leaves only a six-year time period to be investigated here. This then limits conclusions in regards of time trends.

Nevertheless, those interested in time trends may inspect a descriptive analysis of area of restoration sites, restoration measures, land cover and regions over time for the study time period (2018-2023, Appendix 5.4).

Regions

For the pooled biogeographical zones, the lowest restoration unit costs, once all other factors such as forestry land use are controlled for, are reported for the Flow Country (which is used as a reference point in the statistical model and hence does not show up in Figure 5.3). Costs per hectare are significantly greater for sites in all other regions. Note that this applies after controlling for all other factors considered in the model. The restoration zones with the greatest restoration costs per hectare are:

1. The Isles: On average, log-cost per hectare is 2.1 times greater to restore a site in this region than in Flow Country. The high costs may reflect a mix of greater costs (e.g. fuel and haulage costs) on islands. Furthermore, the limited supply of contractor services on specific islands and their need to travel long distances and potentially transport the heavy machinery by ferry are potentially important factors.
2. Argyll: On average, log-cost per hectare is 1.4 times greater than for the Flow Country. The complexity of terrain and remoteness to some extent overlaps with The Isles, and thus similar challenges might be expected.
3. Central & Northern Highlands: log-cost per hectare restored is 1.3 times higher than in the Flow Country. The hilly terrain adds complexity due to more difficult access and environmental conditions in which the restoration needs to take place.

The availability of contractors in different restoration zones may also explain the regional differences (see Section 6 and factors related to demand and supply of contractors in Appendix Table A4.3.) ^[8].

Peatland condition classification

The proportion of peatland in certain condition categories affects restoration costs. In general, sites with lots of peat classified as ‘grassland’ are cheaper to restore, Figure 5.3. We hypothesize that this is because the land is more homogenous and because the grass is protecting the underlying peat from erosion. Therefore, it is more likely that the restoration activities required will be cheaper, such as drain blocking. It may also be that grassland areas have more favourable access conditions that reduce costs.

In contrast, sites with large proportions classified as ‘eroded bog’ increase the restoration cost. This is likely due to the complexity and raised cost of restoration activities to restore eroded bogs, e.g., hag reprofiling and sphagnum moss transplants. The proportion of the site with peat classified as ‘forest’ has the greatest positive effect on cost per hectare amongst Inventory peatland condition categories. We expect that this is due to the cost of felling, and the associated removal of stumps and possibly mulching, before restoration activities can begin. This finding is in line with earlier analysis presented in Glenk et al., (2022).

Site designation

Each site designation is self-reported and model results can be interpreted as the effect of a particular reported site designation, keeping all other designations the same. If a site reports SSSI designation, the log-costs per hectare are 80% higher than without it, Figure 5.3. This could be tied to careful operation on-site and risk of downtime through presence of important wildlife. The national scenic area (NSA) designation has the opposite effect on costs. If a site falls into this category, the log-costs per hectare are 69% lower. This effect might be the result of better access to scenic areas and overall better pre-restoration site conditions and management. Further work is required to understand the influence of this factor.

Site use

Like site designation, site use is a self-reported category, and each site could have several reported uses. The model results for each site use are interpreted as the effect of a particular reported site use, keeping all other reported site uses the same. Forestry reported as a site use dramatically increases restoration costs per hectare. On a hectare basis, sites that are used for grazing are cheaper to restore than those that are not used for this purpose, Figure 5.3. This is in line with ‘forest’ and ‘grassland’ peat condition categories discussed above (5.2.2.3). Although the effect is less certain (i.e., not significant), costs per hectare of sites self-reported as ‘field sports’ (i.e., shooting grouse) tend to be lower. We expect this is due to the good access on such sites.

Average rainfall

In general, sites with a greater average yearly rainfall rate are associated with lower cost per hectare. This could be due to various reasons, such as comparatively higher water tables that might imply healthier peatland and thus less complex restoration activities.

Statistical model results: summary

• The statistical model allows us to explain c.52% of the variation on per hectare peatland restoration costs.
• Site location within restoration zones and specific categories of peat condition, site use and site designation are significant predictors of variation of costs per hectare of peatland restoration.
• Of these factors, the geographical area that the site is in is the largest driver of cost per hectare with significantly greater values on the Isles, and significantly lower values for the Flow Country, after accounting for other factors.
• Forestry, both as a site use and a peat condition category, has a strong effect on overall costs due to complexity of activities related to forest removal^[9].
• High levels of peatland erosion are linked with greater per hectare restoration costs.
• Presence of floodplains/surface water on site, NSA designation and grazing, or peat covered by grassland all significantly reduce site restoration costs per hectare.
• On average, larger sites have lower unit costs (£/ha) than smaller sites. We attribute this to a combination of economies of scale and a tendency for larger sites to be associated with relatively less complex and thus cheaper restoration activities.

Main limitations of the analysis

While the explanatory power of our analysis lies within expectations for this type of study, it is important to note sources of ‘noise’ and data uncertainty. Apart from potential issues with data entry and collation into the SRUC cost database, a major source of uncertainty is related to large variation in detail and rigour of reporting of the restoration process via application and reporting forms. Several reports are missing crucial details making them invalid for further analysis. It is important to point out that such issues primarily arise for older sites in the SRUC cost database, and that reporting forms have been adapted several times over the study period to accommodate insights as the PA program evolved within NatureScot.

Each PA project that has been granted funding by NatureScot can be identified via a grant reference number. Thus, the sites that have been restored within the same restoration grant share the same reference number. However, throughout the duration of restoration, the definitions of sites often change, in part reflecting adjustments to initial restoration plans made throughout a project. Differences concern both the number of sites within a grant, and the area of identified sites can both increase or decrease based on what is currently considered feasible/priority. Therefore, the information detailed in project application forms can only be compared to final forms if these changes were sufficiently documented. Likewise, it was sometimes not possible to link past restoration grants to more recent grants on a specific area of peat. We recommend using the same grant reference codes for additional funding or encoding previous grant codes into new grant reference codes so that previous funding can easily be traced back to new funding for the same overall restoration area.

Inconsistencies of grant reference numbers and site IDs between the SRUC cost database and PA spatial data meant that it was impossible to easily link spatial site outlines to the cost data base. Consequently, we manually “triangulated” matches between sites in the SRUC cost database and sites in the spatial data for restoration from NatureScot PA, which was both time consuming and without guarantee of being free of error.

Due to unavailability of geospatial data for all sites in the SRUC cost database considered for analysis, we assumed that each site was a circle of the reported restoration area around a central point which reduces accuracy. According to NatureScot, spatial data has now a site ID field and the final report document has also this site ID field with cost associated, which should facilitate similar analysis of variation in restoration cost per hectare in the future. Furthermore, moving to digital reporting so that spatial information and cost data can be entered into the same data portal may reduce errors in site identification and matching of cost and spatial data. Due to a lack of a standardised methodology for the calculation of a total area of a restoration site, over time of study (2018-2023) and across restoration sites in the SRUC cost database, the account of area restored provided in the reporting form can be only treated as approximate.

Sites for which the reported areas were missing, unclear or otherwise impossible to work with were removed from the analysis. The format in which the type, unit and (unit or total) cost of restoration measures is reported also varies as reporting forms were updated over the years; and depended on preferences and reporting efforts invested by grantees. For example, the installation of wave dams has been reported either as the total number of individual dams, the total length of all the drains that were dammed, or the total area covered by the specific type of dams. Wave dams also feature only in later editions of application and reporting forms. Such issues with reporting complicate measure-specific analysis of restoration cost. For example, differences in units in which measures are reported make judgment on measure intensity in a restoration site challenging if not impossible. A more technical description of the limitations in the analysis can be found in the Appendix A5.1.5. An account of challenges regarding information used for collating an earlier version of the SRUC cost database is also included in Glenk et al. (2022).

Conclusions

• For costings of large-scale policy programmes, and in the absence of more robust alternatives, our model might be used to provide upper and lower bounds for restoration costs. The use of mostly spatially explicit variables in the statistical model facilitates extrapolation at larger scale. Accepting important caveats regarding the analysis (related e.g. to consistency of recording of cost within SRUC cost database and the proximate approach to deriving spatial variables from reported area), information on variation in unit cost could be combined with spatially explicit restoration pathways to derive baseline estimates of expected costs of large-scale policy implementation and related uncertainty. Such estimates could for example be combined with benefit estimates of peatland restoration in a cost-benefit analysis.
• Statistically speaking, costs of restoration have not changed over time. The absence of such an observed time trend in restoration unit costs may simplify the use of unit costs as predicted by the model to future years.
• Prior to extrapolation of unit cost estimates for large scale policy appraisal, further research is needed to assess the extent to which economies of scale are present. This could be combined with further efforts to improve confidence in the accuracy of reported costs and associated site characteristics.
• Because of the great degree of variation and the relatively large degree of unexplained variation in unit costs, the statistical model should not be used for appraisal of individual projects (as opposed to large scale policy programmes). However, there are potential implications of the unexplained variability for the practice of using standardised costs to assessing projects and benchmarking. Given the large degree of unexplained variability, greater flexibility in appraisals of cost should be offered. In this regard, for example, our model points to a need for accommodating for larger costs on the Isles.
• There has been great progress in harmonising cost and area reporting for projects, especially since 2019. Based on challenges in linking the SRUC cost database with spatial data on NatureScot Peatland ACTION administered projects for the study period, a review of the methodology for recording of the following data may prove useful. This recognises that much of the points below may already be in hand:
  • Costs: clear, separate categories for measure-related expenses and project management; costs identifiable at a site level and over time.
  • Site outlines: precise recording of site location and dimensions. Guidance for recording outlines and areas (e.g. distance buffers around areas where restoration measures are implemented) to record area impacted by restoration has been developed. It might be worth to review that guidance is implemented consistently and enforced for all projects by Peatland ACTION delivery partners.
  • Applied measures: unified accounting of units (i.e. length vs. number of dams).
  • Common and unified project and site identification: ensure that the system in place allows tracking of sites throughout project lifetime and beyond.
• Also, compare the statistical results derived from NatureScot Peatland ACTION projects within the SRUC cost database to the estimates generated for projects administered by other delivery partners.
  • For example, CNPA uses a bottom-up approach that classifies peatland restoration needs and associated costs by complexity mapping based on aerial photography. A more detailed analysis of costs of delivery by Forestry and Land Scotland could provide additional insights into the economics of forest to bog restoration.
• Verify reported area estimates in spatial data provided by NatureScot Peatland ACTION. Re-recording of site outlines (area restored/restoration footprint) on the ground should be considered and could be incentivised and/or organised via Peatland ACTION officers.

Opportunities and challenges for contractors delivering peatland restoration services

The rapid literature review (see 4.1.2) points to a knowledge gap about service providers implementing nature-based solutions. Our research partly addresses this gap with a focus on contractors of peatland restoration and their views and perceptions regarding business models, factors influencing decisions to tender and costing within tenders, and barriers and opportunities to scale business operations in the peatland restoration domain.

Methodological approach: contractor views

Eight interviews were conducted with contractors providing peatland restoration services in Scotland, primarily funded through NatureScot as the PA delivery partner (Table 6.1). Here, we define contractors as the company or individual enacting the peatland restoration. Details of the approach are given in Appendix B6, including the interview protocol (Table B6.2).

Interview notes and transcripts were reviewed to identify commonalities and points of difference in contractor perspectives of the tender process and wider factors affecting the industry. Findings are presented here around nine main themes: factors affecting tendering, alterations to tendering, costs, importance of business diversity to create resilience, consistency of funding and workflow, geographical area of work, recruitment and skills, training and increasing the restoration area.

Table 6.1: Study participant overview. To maintain anonymity, we remove identifiers and randomise order of appearance in this table

Results of interview analysis

Factors affecting tendering

A wide range of considerations affecting the decision to tender were mentioned by participants, including

• Ease of tendering, which determined whether contractors would tender or not. This applied mainly to smaller contractors
• Current workload
• Capacity, although this is increased by machinery hire or sub-contracting
• The accessibility of site
• Whether the operations matched their machinery portfolio
• One large contractor does their own formal value for money assessment to decide whether it is worth tendering

Experience of the tendering process was commonly raised as an important factor affecting the decision to tender, in line with findings from the literature (Section 4.1.2). Contractors further highlighted a number of issues with the tendering process that were leading to frustration and could pose a barrier to expanding the industry. Decision makers in administrations involved in implementing peatland restoration have some control over shaping the tendering process, thus offering potential for operational adjustments.

• Transparency of the process: Contractors highlighted a need for substantiated and clear feedback.
• Timeframes: knowing what is happening when and sufficiently in advance.
• Content of tenders was too involved.
• Public contracts tendering was perceived by smaller contractors as onerous and not always concomitant to the scale of project.
• Tendering is a non-productive aspect of a business that does not favour micro and small businesses. Several contractors perceived that the complexity of tendering is a barrier to smaller contractors entering the industry.

The time spent on tendering ranged from one to five days. Most contractors indicated that they spent several days working on each tender highlighting that tendering is a significant cost to be absorbed by businesses. Where contractors were very keen on a project, they would visit the site, therefore increasing their investment in, and commitment to, the site.

Tendering success was highly variable with smaller contractors often doing jobs not requiring a full tender process. Several contractors reported low success rates with a perception of time being wasted. One large contractor reported that their success rate was around one third. Two further (well experienced) contractors related that they had not won any “Peatland ACTION” work in the last year although they did work for SSE and FLS and had won PA contracts in the past. Contrastingly, one island-based contractor related that their success rate was near 100%. For those reporting low levels of success, this was understandably leading to frustration.

“Do I want to put good money and time toward chasing peatland action work? Right now we will dabble where we think it’s appropriate, but I’d rather put time and effort into chasing work that will actually go somewhere.” (A4)

Contractors generally regarded the tendering process as overly complex and inefficient, requiring a level of information which could be out of proportion to the value of contracts. A particular problem raised was a lack of standardisation in both the information requested and the format required between different organisations, which increased the amount of time required to respond to each. Even those contractors who had built capacity in tendering through dedicated staff perceived that the tendering process was unnecessarily complex; one highlighted that lack of standardisation was a problem as it increased the risk that key information would be missed; another considered that complexity was a barrier to smaller contractors wishing to enter the industry . Adding to frustration around low tendering success, some contractors perceived that there was insufficient feedback provided on why tenders had been unsuccessful. While feedback on relative pricing was provided, other factors used to discriminate between tenders were rarely communicated.

“You don’t even get feedback that you can work off because everybody just goes, [the winning bidder’s] technical submission was better, and you go well, what was better about it? And they go, I’ll need to get back to you. It’s not like there’s a matrix and they go well, here’s where the other person’s scored higher.” (A5)

A perceived lack of transparency in how tenders were awarded was a key concern for one contractor in particular who considered that tendering had become “closed book” and that “it seems to be a small handful of main players who will all the contracts”. Providing an example of where a contract had been awarded to a company closely connected to the commissioning organisation they also voiced concern that contracts appeared to be being awarded without being listed on Public Contracts Scotland (PCS).^[10] These points were raised as breaches in what they considered should be a fair and transparent process to ensure fair allocation of public funds.

Contractors further related that the planning and timeframes for tenders were too often uncertain, which could lead to a “feast or famine” outcome. It was further highlighted that the current funding year had been particularly unusual.

“Due to the way in which projects are being assessed and funded by Scottish Government and Peatland Action, there has been a glut of tenders recently, so I’ve probably done in the space of two months, probably submitted about 24 jobs. And you know never in the history of my working life [have I] ever seen anything quite like it, you know, in terms of a glut of workload, of a single thing.” (A8)

Some contractors also indicated that they had begun bidding strategically to account for the risk that projects ultimately would not go ahead due to funding constraints. One larger contractor related that they ran their own value for money assessment to determine whether it was worth tendering. Another mid-sized contractor similarly indicated that they were starting to consider expected cost per hectare as a factor in their decision to bid for work.

Contractor views on alterations to tendering

Framework agreements were discussed as a potential means to reduce the volume of information in tender submissions. Although easier for the commissioning organisation as they only deal with one contractor, it was considered that the approach favours contractors who have the resources to tender well. One participant raised concern that this would lead to the dominance of larger contractors, leaving the smaller, less lucrative and active part of the contract to be subcontracted to smaller contractors. Although the framework provides a simplified approach, they considered that work could be done at lower cost by directly contracting smaller contractors.

A common view amongst contractors was that restoration work should support the local economy.

“I think it’s only right if the Lewis people get the Lewis work and the Skye people get the Skye work providing they’re doing it at competitive rates” (A7)

Linked to this, one mid-sized contractor questioned whether smaller contracts could be tendered on a different basis, and offered to local contractors first as a means of developing local capacity.

“I know when we were starting up these small jobs were great for us and we even picked up a lot of like ten, twenty grand AECS schemes and they were brilliant for us and they helped us get our feet and learning how to tender for bigger work.” (A4)

A similar view was given by a larger contractor who questioned whether it may be possible to differentiate tenders and make it easier for smaller contractors to bid for the smaller jobs and allow the larger contractors to take larger jobs.

Wishing to highlight a positive example, one contractor pointed to Bidwells as an example of an efficient tender process that was easy to understand and provided a good mapping system. Another contractor similarly praised Bidwells’ efforts to streamline the tender process by maintaining key contractor information on file, reducing the volume of information that must be submitted with each tender.

Risk factors and costs

The key risk factors affecting cost quoted by participants were:

• Difficulty and distance of site access: distance and accessibility affect costs in terms of additional travel time, machinery breakages and increased risk.
• Winter risk, flooding and snow restrict access to sites, potentially stranding machines or requiring premature mobilisation from sites.
• Activities: damming and ditch blocking were assessed as relatively straightforward to estimate, whereas hag- reprofiling was considered to be more variable.
• Contractors further referred to rising costs of machinery, and wages as future drivers of costs.

Importance of business diversity to create resilience

To survive in what potentially is an uncertain environment of peatland restoration and funding, most businesses had a reasonably diversified business model, not relying too heavily on peatland restoration. Two contractors indicated that they were quite specialised, with peatland restoration accounting for more than 80% of their turnover. In some cases, they reviewed their exposure to risk and considered reducing reliance on peatland restoration. Reducing the exposure to risk from peatland contracts included working with utilities, civil engineering (dualling of the A9), estate access, hydro-schemes, footpaths, fencing, dykeing and tree planting. Many of these alternatives are easier to implement, provide more certain longer-term work, reduced risk, with less travelling and reduced ongoing costs.

Consistency of funding and workflow

Consistency of commitment to funding was important for all the contractors. Prior blips in funding reduced confidence in the industry and ultimately the amount of time committed to peatland restoration. Planning, timelines and long-term contracts could all be improved to provide a more continuous flow of work. Multiyear funding was appreciated but it was felt this needed to be more co-ordinated to create a rolling programme of work for both large and small sites.

Although progress has been made in some areas with more summer restoration, the summer gap and down time reduces the amount of restoration completed. Some contractors considered the summer gap as positive, as it gave operators a break and change of scene to alleviate the monotony of peatland restoration.

Improving the diversity of funding was considered a good idea to reduce reliance on Government funding. If Government funding was to be reduced in the future it was suggested to apply gradual tapering rather than the sudden drop that many contractors experienced when the renewable obligation was suddenly stopped for windfarm construction.

Although a few years away, an early indication of the Scottish Governments long term strategy for funding restoration post 2030 would be appreciated to signal long-term commitment to the sector.

Geographical area of work

Most contractors were willing to travel, with some Scotland based contractors working in Ireland and England. The reasons for the travel were partially to diversify the business and provide new experiences for the business and operators. Most businesses preferred to work in their local area, but inevitably not all operatives could find housing near the business base and had to travel anyway. In some cases, contractors may drive up to an hour from their home base, followed by another ½ hour transiting to the sites via an access track. Finding suitable accommodation for staff is an issue in some cases.

Recruitment and skills

Contractors highlighted the importance of rural skills for working on peatlands efficiently. A key requirement voiced by contractors was the ability to ‘read the landscape and the conditions’. Technical skills in operating diggers and machinery were important, but not as critical as knowing how to move the machine on soft ground which was harder to come by and essential to avoid accidents and bogging. Ideal candidates for recruitment were those with hill experience; “farm kids” (A1) or “ex shepherds, stalkers and gamekeepers [who have] been on the hill most of their lives” (A3).

Fortunately, in terms of operator skills it was considered that due to the video gaming industry there were plenty of competent young people who could quickly learn how to operate diggers, and this aspect is not a problem for the businesses. The key issue requiring training was once on site and reading the landscape, which requires time and perseverance.

Retention of staff, particularly younger members present problems with staff leaving for less repetitive jobs or easier working conditions in civil engineering. Businesses try to combat this by offering variability of work and location, or through benefits such as a four- day week.

It was acknowledged that a wider range of skills is now requested of operators, principally mapping and GIS skills. In the case of smaller businesses this presented problems adding to workloads and need for upskilling. One large contractor questioned whether placing additional demands on operators was the most effective way to monitor work, believing that measurement could be undertaken more efficiently by a dedicated third party. Other (typically mid-sized and larger) contractors indicated that they had invested in IT and mapping capabilities.

Peatland ACTION funded training and apprenticeships were being used and appreciated.

Increasing and using restoration capacity

In circumstances where contractors perceived there to be a funding cut, they were not considering increasing their capacity. It was accepted that over time the amount of available work would increase. Using current capacity more efficiently was the approach being taken. Most contractors did not see evidence of additional work coming forward.^[11] The issue for increasing the area restored was not related to capacity.

Current capacity is underutilised due to:

• Uncertainty of funding, leading to contractors looking for other work to reduce risk.
• Poor work stream planning that leads to uncertainty and reduces contractor ability to plan and expand operations.
• A hiatus in contract confirmation after end of March which leads to bunching of contracts, reducing capability to complete within a given timescale.
• Summer working with long daylight would utilise the current capacity to restore substantially more hectares. Breeding birds are the main factor reducing or stopping restoration through the summer. Generally, restrictions on estates regards stalking seasons is now less of a problem as it is understood that by good planning both operations can coexist.
• Some contractors were aware that the Peatland Code and collection of information was delaying contracts and made planning more difficult.

Conclusions

Combining the results from the data analysis and the interviews, we can draw the following conclusions on the questions posed by this research.

The interviews with contractors offer insight into the industry’s views and perceptions regarding the tendering process and further engagement with peatland restoration as a business opportunity. Below is a synthesis of findings and options that may help address identified issues.

• Confidence in future funding is critical for contractors working in the industry. Unexpected reductions in funding reduce contractor confidence and may deter investment. Therefore, funding should ideally be consistent within years, based on a long-term commitment to peatland restoration post 2030 that reflects the importance of restoration to address the twin climate and biodiversity crises. Interest and trust between funder and contractors may also be strengthened if information on how peatland restoration is funded post 2030 involved contractors at a very early stage.
• The tender process and its transparency were factors that concerned all contractors. Current tendering processes were considered to favour larger contractors with specific staff to respond to tenders. The amount of information required, whether the information was used and the ability to receive meaningful feedback were all factors affecting contractors’ willingness to tender. A review of tenders and information required and how that is achieved would encourage a wider range of contractors to engage and tender. Such a review may focus on simplification and proportionality. Consideration might be given to whether basic tendering information could be submitted on an annual (rather than project) basis to stop repetition of effort. A review might also include guidelines for providing substantiated post tender feedback, as several respondents were unclear on how to improve future tenders. Improved feedback could lead to less contractor comeback and a greater willingness to tender.
• Underlying the contractor conversations was that they seek to provide good value for money whilst making a profit in a highly variable environment. All the contractors interviewed valued their reputation and wanted to produce quality restoration. Clearly, tendering requires a balance between bureaucracy and accountability. However, a degree of pragmatism is necessary in light of the urgency for action to counter the twin climate and biodiversity crises. Consequently, the amount of information required as part of the tendering process should ideally be concomitant to the scale of work.
• Access to sites was seen as a key factor influencing the decision to tender (and also the cost of restoration). Poor and long-distance access increases both costs and risk. The purchase of specialised machinery to carry crews to the work site is required and the additional transit time reduces the length of the working day. In addition, poor and rough access results in machinery breakage and costly down time. To improve access conditions, in future any access granted under planning permission could allow for neighbours to use the access for the purposes of land management. There are cases of adjacent road standard tracks to sites that could not be used as they were on neighbouring land. Further considerations might include improving affordable rural housing to increase rural workers and reduce unsustainable travelling.
• Concerns were raised about consistency of funding and projects across the year. Peatland restoration generally has a short window of operation in the autumn, winter and early spring. This is further shortened due to heavy snow. Historical and current precedents of cuts in funding have made contractors very wary. Contractors suggested that diversified funding may help this situation. In response to this, options to assist contractors should be explored to identify and pursue diversified funding sources to reduce risk and increase contractor confidence.
• One opportunity to diversify funding sources lies in improved coordination of environmental projects. Currently there appears little or no coordination of environmental projects. With coordination, peatland restoration contracts could seamlessly run into river restoration contracts. Likewise, Scottish Water have many long-term infrastructure projects that could fill gaps in contractor work. Thus, a more continuous flow of conservation work could be achieved through improved planning and coordination of work across the land-based sector to better integrate peatland restoration contracts with, for example, river restoration and Scottish Water projects.
• Anecdotal evidence suggests that birds are less disturbed by consistent on-site presence than is recorded in scientific literature. A review of bird disturbance policy based on scientific evidence may thus help reducing down time and reducing uncertainty when tendering. To further reduce perceived uncertainty for contractors, low altitude contracts might be retained to cover periods of long-lasting snow.
• To stimulate investment, there is potential for interest free government backed loans for startups/early growth businesses. Consistency of projects would enable more assured payback of finance. In this regard, it might be worth to explore suitability of existing schemes and further opportunities to ease access to interest free government backed loans for startups/early growth.
• Training and apprenticeships for delivery of restoration works are of high value to individuals and businesses interested in entering the market, and should continue to be financially supported.

Conclusions

The research findings presented in this report reflect a rapid synthesis of the literature and our research team’s own expertise plus statistical analysis of cost data compiled from NatureScot administered Peatland ACTION (PA) projects and qualitive interviews with peatland restoration contractors. We have identified a multitude of factors affecting peatland restoration costs and contractors’ decisions to tender for restoration work.

Whilst information on peatland restoration costs is available for NatureScot projects funded through the PA programme, the causes of apparent variation in costs have not yet been analysed systematically. Our statistical model, combining cost data with project site characteristics, is able to explain c.52% of observed variation. This is in-line with attempts to model cost variation in analogous sectors (e.g. other ecosystem restoration, landscaping).

Our analysis does not identify a time trend, but highlights that there are regional differences in cost, with higher costs to be expected for the Isles. Site features indicating greater complexity of restoration action, such as forest land cover and high levels of erosion, are associated with greater restoration cost. While restoration cost per hectare decreases as size of restored sites increases, our data does not allow us to fully and causally attribute this effect to economies of scale alone. This requires further investigation. 

Overall, our analysis points to a need to recognise that there is large degree of unexplained variation in unit costs while unit costs vary considerably across sites in our data. This has implications for the relevance of standardisation in assessing projects and developing benchmarking of costings. For example, regional differences imply that uniform national rates might be inappropriate, while large residual uncertainty regarding unit costs would increase the risk of falsely rejecting projects that in fact deliver restoration cost-effectively.

However, although unexplained variation in costs may reflect genuine unobserved causes, our analysis was also hampered by several potential data imperfections. For example, the precise shape and size of individual projects is subject to some uncertainty, which may lead to errors in characterising sites. Equally, across the study period (2018-2023), categorisation of different types of cost is not necessarily consistent across all projects nor are different phases of the same project necessarily recorded consistently across different funding periods. Efforts to improve data quality have already been instigated. Nevertheless, it might be worth to clarify inconsistencies in older data, and confirm that harmonised data collection (site specific data on activities, cost, location, area, consistently recorded over time) is in place to improve the accuracy of future analysis. 

Contractors are service providers who implement restoration work on the ground. The quality of their work is therefore key to restoration success. Despite their important role in the restoration process, there is a paucity of literature on motivations and barriers to contractors to tender for and enter ecosystem restoration work (including peatland restoration), and on factors that affect costs and long-term viability of restoration work to businesses. We interviewed contractors of different size and varying geographical range of operation. We identify recommendations that will affect cost and quality of delivery and thus enhance value for money of peatland restoration delivery in Scotland.

Specifically, we point to a need for a streamlined tendering process that is simplified and proportionate to scale of work, and that provides meaningful post-tender feedback. Fostering reliable and strong relationships with contractors is important, as is mitigation of short-term (e.g. mitigating risk of interruptions to work) and longer-term (e.g. related to funding situation) business risks. Cash flow availability might be improved through more efficient processing of payments to contractors, although delays may be caused by agents and not the funding institutions (PA delivery partners). Business risk may also be reduced through offering opportunities to diversify funding sources, for example via improved planning and coordination of work across the land-based sector. Training opportunities are appreciated, but barriers to entering peatland restoration as a service provider would benefit from enhanced support for start-up, both in terms of e.g. interest free capital provision and tailored advisory support.

All of the above aspects affect costs and quality and thus value for money of peatland restoration delivery. A revision of the modus to deliver peatland restoration using public funds across Scotland should be embedded in a long-term commitment to peatland restoration post 2030 to attract investment and offer business perspective. Such a commitment to consistency of funding is needed to reflect the importance of peatland restoration to a world experiencing twin climate and biodiversity crises.

Acknowledgements

We like to thank the study participants for offering their time and valuable insights. We also thank the members of the project steering group for input throughout the project. Further, we would like to acknowledge the Peatland ACTION Data & Evidence team and the Peatland ACTION Funding team at NatureScot for their active support of this work. The collation and preparation of peatland restoration cost data for use in the analysis presented in Section 5 of this report was support of the Scottish Government, as part of the Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture (ENRA) Strategic Research Programme 2022-2027, project JHI-D3-2 CentrePeat; and the project Wet Horizons (Horizon Europe GAP-101056848).

References

AECOM. 2024a. Spon’s Civil Engineering and Highway Works Price Book 2024. CRC Press.

AECOM. 2024b. Spon’s External Works and Landscape Price Book 2024. CRC Press.

Aitkenhead, M., Castellazzi, M., McKeen, M., Hare, M., Artz, R., & Reed, M. (2021). Peatland restoration and potential emissions savings on agricultural land: an evidence assessment. The James Hutton Institute.

Armsworth, P. R., Jackson, H. B., Cho, S. H., Clark, M., Fargione, J. E., Iacona, G. D., & Sutton, N. A. (2018). Is conservation right to go big? Protected area size and conservation return-on-investment. Biological Conservation, 225, 229-236.

Artz, R., Faccioli, M., Roberts, M. & Anderson, R. (2018) Peatland restoration – a comparative analysis of the costs and merits of different restoration methods. Climate Exchange Report.

Artz, R., Ball, J., Gimona, A., Blake, D., McBride, A., & Heritage, S. N. (2019). Access to Peatland for Restoration–physical limitations. ClimateXChange Report, 8pp.

Artz, R., Johnson, S., Bruneau, P., Britton, A. J., Mitchell, R. J., Ross, L., … & Poggio, L. (2019). The potential for modelling peatland habitat condition in Scotland using long-term MODIS data. Science of the Total Environment, 660, 429-442.

Artz, R., Coyle, M., Donaldson-Selby, G., Cooksley, S., Gimona, A., Pakeman, R., & Hare, M. (2023). Scoping a national peatland monitoring framework.

Benjaminsson, F., Kronholm, T. and Erlandsson, E., (2019). A framework for characterizing business models applied by forestry service contractors. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 34(8), pp.779-788.

Binshakir, O., AlGhanim, L., Fathaq, A., Al Harith, A.M., Ahmed, S. and El-Sayegh, S., (2023)(. Factors Affecting the Bidding Decision in Sustainable Construction. Sustainability, 15(19), p.14225.

Cho, S.-H., Kim, T., Larson, E.R., Armsworth, P.R., (2017). Economies of scale in forestland acquisition costs for nature conservation. Forest Policy Econ. 75, 73–82

Burkhalter, J. C., Lockwood, J. L., Maslo, B., Fenn, K. H., & Leu, K. (2016). Effects of cost metric on cost‐effectiveness of protected‐area network design in urban landscapes. Conservation Biology, 30(2), 403-412.

Babcock, B. A., Lakshminarayan, P. G., Wu, J., & Zilberman, D. (1997). Targeting tools for the purchase of environmental amenities. Land economics, 325-339.

Cohan, S., (2018). Business Principles for Landscape Contracting. Routledge.

Cook, C. N., Pullin, A. S., Sutherland, W. J., Stewart, G. B., & Carrasco, L. R. (2017). Considering cost alongside the effectiveness of management in evidence-based conservation: A systematic reporting protocol. Biological Conservation, 209, 508-516.

Engert, J.E., Laurance, S.G.W. (2023). Economics and optics influence funding for ecological restoration in a nation-wide program. Environmental Research Letters 18 (5), 054020.

Field, C.R., Elphick, C.S., (2019). Quantifying the return on investment of social and ecological data for conservation planning. Environmental Research Letters 14, 124081. IOP Publishing.

Glenk, K. Novo, P., Roberts, M., Sposato, M., Martin-Ortega, J., Shirkhorshidi, M., Potts, J. (2020). The costs of peatland restoration. Analysis of an evolving database based on the Peatland Action Programme in Scotland. SEFARI report

Glenk, K., Sposato, M., Novo, P., Martin-Ortega, J., Shirkhorshidi, M. (2021). The costs of peatland restoration – March 2021 update on database based on the Peatland Action Programme in Scotland. SEFARI report.

Glenk, K., Sposato, M., Novo, P., Martin-Ortega, J., Roberts, M., Gurd, J., Shirkhorshidi, M. (2022). The costs of peatland restoration revisited. March 2022 update on database based on the Peatland Action Programme in Scotland. SEFARI report.

de Groot, R., Blignaut, J., van der Ploeg, S., Aronson, J., Elmqvist, T., & Farley, J. (2013). Benefits of Investing in Ecosystem Restoration. Conservation Biology, 1286-1293

Iacona, G. D., Sutherland, W. J., Mappin, B., Adams, V. M., Armsworth, P. R., Coleshaw, T., & Possingham, H. P. (2018). Standardized reporting of the costs of management interventions for biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology, 32(5), 979-988.

Johansson, M., Erlandsson, E., Kronholm, T. and Lindroos, O., (2023). The need for flexibility in forest harvesting services–a case study on contractors’ workflow variations. International Journal of Forest Engineering, 34(1), pp.13-25.

Keating, K., Pettit, A. and Rose, S. (2015). Cost estimation for habitat creation -summary of evidence. Environment Agency.

King, D. and Bohlen, C., (1995). The cost of wetland creation and restoration. Final report (No. DOE/MT/92006-9). Maryland University., Solomons, MD (United States).

Knight, M.L. and Overbeck, G.E., (2021). How much does it cost to restore a grassland? Restoration Ecology, 29(8), p.e13463.

Kronholm, T., Larsson, I. and Erlandsson, E., (2021). Characterization of forestry contractors’ business models and profitability in Northern Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 36(6), pp.491-501.

Macfarlane, F., Robb, C., Coull, M., Mckeen, M., Wardell-Johnson, D., Miller, D., Parker, T., Artz, R., Matthews, K., Aitkenhead, M., (2024). A deep learning approach for high-resolution mapping of Scottish peatland degradation. European Journal of Soil Science, 75, 10.1111/ejss.13538.

Minasny, B., Adetsu, D. V., Aitkenhead, M., Artz, R. R., Baggaley, N., Barthelmes, A., … & Zak, D., (2024). Mapping and monitoring peatland conditions from global to field scale. Biogeochemistry, 167(4), 383-425.

Naidoo, R., Balmford, A., Ferraro, P. J., Polasky, S., Ricketts, T. H., & Rouget, M. (2006). Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. Trends in ecology & evolution, 21(12), 681-687.

Okumah, M., Walker, C., Martin-Ortega, J., Ferré, M., Glenk, K. & Novo, P. (2019). How much does peatland restoration cost? Insights from the UK. University of Leeds – SRUC Report.

Olatunji, O.A., Ramanayaka, C.D.E., Rotimi, F.E. and Rotimi, J.O.B., (2023). Analysis of contractors’ administrative characteristics in bid decision factors. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 30(6), pp.2420-2435.

Oo, B.L., Lim, T.H.B. and Runeson, G., (2022). Critical factors affecting contractors’ decision to bid: a global perspective. Buildings, 12(3), p.379.

Perhans, K., Kindstrand, C., Boman, M., Djupström, L.B., Gustafsson, L., Mattsson, L., Schroeder, L.M., Weslien, J., Wikberg, S., (2008). Conservation goals and the relative importance of costs and benefits in reserve selection. Conservation Biology, 22, 1331–1339

Rodewald, A. D., Strimas-Mackey, M., Schuster, R., & Arcese, P. (2019). Tradeoffs in the value of biodiversity feature and cost data in conservation prioritization. Scientific reports, 9(1), 15921.

Sewell, A., Bouma, J., and van der Esch, S (2016) Investigating the challenges and opportunities for scaling up Ecosystem Restoration, The Hague: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency

Spencer, J.A., (1989). Relationship between landscape architects and landscape contractors: real vs. ideal. The University of Arizona.

Van Deynze, B., Fonner, R., Feist, B. E., Jardine, S. L., & Holland, D. S., (2022). What influences spatial variability in restoration costs? Econometric cost models for inference and prediction in restoration planning. Biological Conservation, 274, 109710.

Zentner, J., Glaspy, J. and Schenk, D., (2003). Wetland and riparian woodland restoration costs. Ecological Restoration, 21(3), pp.166-173.

Appendices

Appendix A4 Factors affecting restoration – review and synthesis

Table A4.1: Web of Science Search Terms. Results were supplemented by forward and backward tracing of citations plus the research team’s prior knowledge of relevant references.

Table A4.2: Potential factors affecting cost per hectare of peatland restoration across sites and at a given point in time.

Table A4.3: Factors affecting cost per hectare of peatland restoration over time

Appendix A5 Explaining variation in restoration costs

Appendix A5.1 Methodological approach (detailed) including data preparation and assumptions

Appendix A5.1.1 Factors included in analysis and spatial data sources

The analysis builds on the evidence review in Section 4 and previous work on understanding variation in site-specific restoration costs. For this study, the publicly available spatial data identified as potential predictors of variation in peatland restoration costs come from several sources listed in Appendix Table A5.1.

It is necessary to know location and dimensions (shape) of restored sites to be able to assign spatially explicit data to them. However, due to difficulty to reliably match many of the cost database sites with their Peatland ACTION polygon counterparts (5.2.4 ‘Main Limitations’), the site shape needed to be assumed. As all the sites selected for this analysis reported a UK National Grid location, representing a centroid for each site, and a restored site area (in hectares) was reported, we assumed that all sites were a circle of “restored area” centred at the grid location. This circle was then overlayed with the relevant spatial data and the data extracted. For example, to add the average number of ‘snow days’ expected on a site, we overlay the site circles on the HADUK grid of climate observations and extract the average snow days associated with the site. See Appendix A5.1.4 ‘Merging cost database with external data’ for full details of the methodology.

Appendix A5.1.2 Data modifications

For peatland conditions, land cover classes and biogeographical zones the variables taken from the original data sources were pooled into more general categories to increase the model’s ease of interpretation. For example, all land cover classes associated with forest were classified as one ‘forest’ category in the model, see Appendix table A5.2-A5.4 for more details.

For the costs to be comparable across all the sites, the total cost figure per site was divided by the total site area to arrive at a cost per hectare estimate. The costs have been deflated to 2020 levels using consumer price index (CPI) values from the Office of National Statistics.

Appendix A5.1.3 Multi-linear regression

We developed a multi-linear model which estimates cost per hectare of the final restored area, C, based on the spatial variables described in Table A5.1. The distribution of Cost was right-skewed due to the existence of some notably expensive sites (see Figure A5.2). In such cases it is recommended to transform the dependent variable, for example by taking its natural logarithm. We thus develop a model to predict the natural logarithm of cost per hectare C of the restoration project:

where the variables are continuous, for example ‘Average annual rainfall’ and the variables are dummy variables that take a value of one (else zero) if a condition applies, e.g. if Site Region ‘Argyll’ is associated with the site. Appendix Table A5.1 shows the list of continuous variables and dummy variables considered as well as their sources. Note that not all of the variables were included in the final statistical model (Table A5.7). Since the ‘Biogeographical zones’ are unique and cover every site (every site is in exactly one zone), we can remove one of these dummy variables from the regression and not lose any information. We choose to remove the ‘Flow Country’ and thus analysis of these results is relative to the cost of restoring sites in the Flow Country. Many prospective variables to be used in the log-linear model were likely to co-vary. To ensure there was acceptable levels of multi co-linearity in the variables used in the regression we ensured the variance inflation factors for each variable were less than 5, see Appendix Table A5.8 for the variance inflation factors of the variables used in the model. To account for the fact that multiple observations (sites) can be associated with the same grant, clustered errors for all observations derived from the same grant were calculated.

In the results, we present the coefficients associated with the variables () and dummy variables () on a graph as ‘log Cost multipliers’, along with the 25% confidence interval as error bars (Figure 5.3). For continuous variables this can be interpreted as: For every one-unit change in the variable, by what factor would you expect the log cost per hectare to change. For dummy variables, this can be interpreted as the site having this property will cause this multiplication of the log cost per hectare. Since log is monotonic, we can translate this to how the variable multiplies cost. Each variable has different units and scales, so it is difficult to compare one multiplier to another. A statistically normalised version of the plot can be seen in Figure A5.3, where magnitudes between multipliers can be compared.

Table A5.1: List of variables and dummy variables used in the linear regression to estimate log cost per hectare. If the class of variables are dummy (i.e. binary) then this is indicated in the class column.

Appendix A5.1.4 Merging cost database with external data

The process of merging the SRUC cost database of NatureScot PA administered projects with other spatial data involved the following steps:  

1. The site grid references in the cost database were converted to Easting-Northing coordinates (using standard UK coordinate reference system EPSG:27700) and converted to a GIS point shapefile (using QGIS software package version 3.16). 
2. The circular polygon shapefiles with the centre point being the actual site centroids with a total area corresponding to the reported restored area (in NatureScot PA final reporting forms) were created within the GIS framework.  
3. The maps containing spatial environmental information were overlaid over the circular polygon layer and cropped into the shape of the sites.  
4. For the microclimatic variables (snow days, temperature, wind speed), topography (elevation, slope, ruggedness) and remoteness, an average value per site was calculated (for raster maps that means the total value of each variable for all raster cells in each site divided by the number of cells). For land cover categories, firstly the raster picture was converted into a vector polygon shapefile by smoothing the cell edges with a fineness down to 15 meters. A total area of each category per site vas calculated and recorded as a separate variable (for all the land cover types that a specific site did not contain the variable values were zero). The areas of each category were divided by the total site area to arrive to a ratio of the site that has the particular land cover. The total length of outlines of individual land cover features was calculated to account for terrain heterogeneity (assuming that the more patchy the site is the longer the outline of the individual features). Similarly for the peatland condition map, a total area of each site that is peatland was calculated, individual peatland condition categories were recorded and ratios per site calculated. The bare peat ratio and floodplain/surface water area ratio were calculated as a ratio of the peatland per site rather than the total area of the site. Similarly, average peat depth was considered only for peatland area of each site.  Finally, sites were assigned to a biogeographical region based on the centroids’ precise location. 
5. The data was downloaded from the GIS software into a spreadsheet and merged back into the cost database using a unique site identifier (concatenated from a unique site ID and a report type). The further steps of analysis/ model and figure construction were completed in Excel, STATA and Python packages, respectively.  

Table A5.2: Inventory peatland condition classes pooled into larger categories  

Table A5.3: Land cover classes pooled into larger categories

Table A5.4: Biogeographical zones pooled into larger Restoration zones

Table A5.5: Percentage of total area of restored sites falling into each: a) peatland condition category as defined by the Inventory peat condition map; b) Site designation, and c) Land use as reported on the final report forms for NatureScot Peatland Action.

Appendix A5.1.5 Main limitations

A major source of uncertainty is related to large variation in detail and rigor of reporting of the restoration process via application and reporting forms. Several reports are missing crucial details that make them invalid for further analysis limiting the power of studies such as this.

Each project that has been granted funding by NatureScot can be identified via a grant reference number. Thus, the sites that have been restored within the same restoration grant share the same reference number. However, throughout the duration of projects, the definitions of sites often change. This includes both the number of sites within a grant, and the area of identified sites can both increase or decrease based on what is currently considered feasible/priority. Therefore, the information entailed in project application forms can only be compared to final forms if these changes were sufficiently documented.

For deriving site area and overlay with GIS information, the circular site outline approach was chosen due to difficulty to reliably link a substantial number of the sites from the cost database with spatial data from Peatland ACTION that contains both centroids and site outlines. The grant reference numbers are often inconsistent between cost database and spatial information, and the number, area, account of applied measures and grant amounts often do not match between the information sources. Consequently, we had to manually “triangulate” matches between sites in the cost database and sites in the spatial data from Peatland ACTION, which was both time consuming and without guarantee of being free of error.

Due to a lack of a unified methodology for calculation of a total area of a restoration site, over time and across sites in the database, the account of area restored provided in the reporting form can be only treated as approximate. Sites for which the reported areas were missing, unclear or otherwise impossible to work with were removed from the analysis. As mentioned above, the site areas were in some cases also pooled together within the same project, and thus arriving at a reliable area estimate for the individual sites was difficult.

The format in which the type, unit and (unit or total) cost of restoration measures is reported also varies as application and reporting forms were updated over the years, and depending on reporting efforts invested by grantees. For example, the installation of wave dams has been reported either as the total number of individual dams, the total length of all the dams combined, or the total area covered by the specific type of dams. Wave dams also feature only in later editions of application and reporting forms. Such issues with reporting complicate measure-specific analysis of restoration cost. For example, differences in units in which measures are reported make judgment on measure intensity in a restoration site challenging if not impossible.

Figure A5.1: An example of populating the circular polygons with the cropped spatial features (In this case different colours represent individual land cover classes).  

Appendix A5.2 Supplementary results

Figure A5.2: Distribution of costs considered in the analysis after deflation to 2020 levels.  

Table A5.6: Descriptive statistics of explanatory variable data and cost per hectare of sites, N=229.

In Figure A5.3, we plot the same figure as Figure 5.3 in the main text, but we divide the multiplier by the standard deviation of the variable so that the magnitude of the multipliers can be compared between variables.

Figure A5.3: Normalised Log of the Cost per hectare multipliers (i.e. coefficients in the regression) according to the multi-linear model. For continuous variables, (e.g. average rainfall) this can be interpreted as for every one standard deviation, the log of the cost per hectare increases by the multiplier represented by the dot. For dummy (binary) variables (e.g. region), can be interpreted as the site having that property will increase the log cost per hectare by the multiplier. Positive log of the cost multipliers (right of the red line) implies increasing the variable increases the cost and vice-versa for negative log cost multipliers. If the entry is green, then the multiplier is significant (p<0.05). In this case magnitude of multipliers can be compared.