Research completed November 2024

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7488/era/5742

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

Executive summary

This report presents findings from research exploring the role of government in public engagement and ways to improve Scottish Government’s public engagement approach on climate change. The research is part of the mid-point review of the Scottish Government’s Public Engagement Strategy for Climate Change (PES).

Aims

The research aimed to address the following questions:

• What does recent thinking and research suggest are the most effective roles and practical actions a government such as the Scottish Government can take to successfully engage the public on climate change and deliver the aims of the PES?
• What lessons can be learned from approaches taken by comparative governments internationally to improve delivery of the aims and activities of the PES?
• What are the views of the public in Scotland on the most appropriate ways for the Scottish Government to engage them on climate issues?

The overall aim of the study was to compare findings with the principles set out in the PES and identify any lessons that could enhance the delivery of the PES going forward.

Approach

The research was carried out between September 2024 and January 2025. It involved three strands:

• Stakeholder interviews exploring views from a range of practitioners and specialists involved in public engagement to complement the evidence review
• A desk-based evidence review to identify public engagement activities and examples of best practice
• Focus groups with members of the public to understand their views on how the Scottish Government should approach public engagement on climate change.

Findings

The research showed that there is no single best way to engage the public on climate change. Public engagement should use multiple and varied contexts, scales, activities, depths of engagement, approaches and intervention points.

A number of different examples of best practice on climate change public engagement were identified, grouped under three broad categories:

• Communication and education. This includes large-scale communication campaigns, information packs, door-to-door canvassing, broadcast, social media campaigns and educational activities. Much of the best practice on communication and education is already captured in the PES. This includes the need to be inclusive and accessible, to communicate with different audiences in different ways, to use trusted messengers, and to use messaging that highlights the relevance to individuals and the practical actions they can take.
• Deliberative engagement and co-design. This includes a wide range of participatory activities designed to help people to take part in decision-making processes. The PES has been developed with the good practice principles of participation in mind in line with the Scottish Government’s Participation Framework and the Open Government approach. The findings highlight best practice that aligns with many of the PES principles such as being participative, inclusive, open and transparent. The findings also highlight areas for consideration in the implementation of these types of activities as part of the PES, as outlined below.
• Creative activities. This includes public engagement using art, digital tools, games, virtual reality and other creative approaches. Generally, the evidence supports the effectiveness of creative interactive engagement methods for a variety of outcomes. However, creative forms of engagement are not explored in detail in the PES and could therefore be an area for greater focus going forward.

Implications for the PES

To help identify next steps, the key lessons from this research were presented in two groups:

• Areas in which the content of the PES already aligns with best practice, and which should be continued: Themes such as inclusion, transparency and evidence-based approaches are all principles for the PES and were all identified in this research as important features of public engagement. This suggests that the Scottish Government’s approach is already in line with some of the public engagement best practice happening in other places.
• Areas that are not currently included or not outlined in detail in the PES. These approaches, grouped below under the three overarching objectives of the PES, should be considered for the remainder of the PES.

Understand (Communicating climate change)

• On messaging, ensure that climate change is framed in a way that is relevant to the lives of individuals and communities, reflects the context (cultural, political, geographic and others) and is focussed on practical actions for individuals.
• As well as using positive messaging, do not shy away from conveying the negative consequences of inaction on climate change. While there is a potential conflict between those two directions, the overall sentiment was that governments should be honest about the realities and associated risks of climate change, but also convey positive, practical actions that the public can adopt.
• When conveying the message, the research has identified the characteristics of (e.g. being authentic, sincere, kind, honest, credible) and types of people (e.g. naturalists, healthcare professionals, scientists) who are considered trusted messengers, and those that are not. It also highlights the benefits of exploring different approaches such as the use of visual communication and humour.
• Take measures to build collective efficacy such as using messaging that emphasise social norms, shared beliefs and a sense of community. Examples of this include sharing testimonials, photos and videos of citizens taking action, or hosting competitions, quizzes and user-generated content on social media.
• In education settings, encourage and enable approaches that foster collaboration and co-design with learners. Further explore opportunities for workforce training on technical aspects of climate change.

Participate (Enabling participation in policy design)

• Demonstrate that the public have been listened to and that action has been taken as a result of their participation. This was a strong theme in the general public focus groups and they considered it a high priority for future public engagement. It is important to be clear on and convey how the public are having an influence on decisions, be transparent about how those decisions are being acted upon and keep the public updated on progress towards outcomes. Take lessons from the Irish Citizens Assembly and the permanent climate assembly in Brussels which have established mechanisms for ensuring feedback for participants, helping hold decisions makers to account. Think carefully about who is involved in deliberative, co-design and other participatory processes. As part of the design of the processes, consider how best to draw on people’s local knowledge and lived experience.
• Encourage active forms of participation to help engage people in different ways. This can include approaches such as citizens’ science, which involves the public directly in data collection and other research activities, and participatory budgeting, which has a clear link between the public’s involvement and the decisions being taken as a result.
• Explore the use of digital and creative tools to help share findings from deliberative and co-design approaches with a wider audience.
• Explore the use of creative activities. Some of these approaches, such as gaming and virtual reality, are still relatively new in the literature so would benefit from further exploration and testing before being used more widely.

Act (Encouraging action)

• Making climate change relevant to people’s lives and conveying why their actions are important.
• Give people autonomy by supporting co-production and co-creation processes. These approaches can help give the public a say in the way they engage and ownership over outputs or recommendations. This can foster a sense of empowerment and help legitimise the process.
• Integrate public engagement into policy decision making. This includes responding meaningfully to the outputs and recommendations of public engagement and clearly communicating with the public about how their engagement links with the policy process.
• Take measures that help boost collective efficacy. This includes using messaging that emphasise social norms, shared beliefs and a sense of community. Promoting a sense of ownership of engagement outcomes and recommendation can also support feelings of self and collective efficacy.

Introduction

Background

Public engagement is a central component of the Scottish Government’s commitment to reaching net zero by 2045 and delivering on the ambitions of the updated Climate Change Plan. A commitment to public engagement is also part of the Scottish Government’s National Adaptation Plan and its approach to planning for a Just Transition to net zero.

In 2021, the Scottish Government published the Public Engagement Strategy for Climate Change (PES), which underscores the importance of widespread participation and engagement in order to drive the transformational change needed to reach net zero. The PES sets out a holistic, systemic approach to public engagement with the aim of building a mandate for long term societal change. The overall vision of the PES is that: “Everyone in Scotland recognises the implications of the global climate emergency, fully understands and contributes to Scotland’s response, and embraces their role in the transition to a net zero and climate ready Scotland.”

The PES is guided by three strategic objectives:

• Understand: Communicating climate change. People are aware of the action that all of Scotland is taking to tackle climate change and understand how it relates to their lives.
• Participate: Enabling participation in policy design. People actively participate in shaping just, fair and inclusive policies that promote mitigation of and adaptation to climate change.
• Act: Encouraging action. Taking action on climate change is normalised and encouraged in households, communities and places across Scotland.

Monitoring and evaluation of the PES is being carried out using a multi-stranded approach. As well as annual reporting against key national indicators and evaluating individual public engagement programmes, the Scottish Government committed to an interim review of the PES at the midway point of delivery in 2024. The midpoint review consists of various elements being delivered by the Scottish Government, including a stakeholder survey and evaluations of activities undertaken as part of PES delivery to date. This report presents findings from research conducted by Ipsos and the Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations (CAST), which complements the Scottish Government’s own evaluations. Outside of Scotland, whilst there are many examples of government-led or government-supported public engagement interventions, there are few occasions where these have been evaluated. Therefore, the monitoring and evaluation aspect of the Scottish Government PES is somewhat unique.

Research aims

ClimateXChange and the Scottish Government commissioned Ipsos and CAST to conduct research into the role of government in public engagement and ways to improve Scottish Government’s engagement approach. Specifically, the research aimed to address the following questions:

• What does recent thinking and research suggest are the most effective roles and practical actions a government such as the Scottish Government can take to successfully engage the public on climate change and deliver the aims of the PES?
• What lessons can be learned from approaches taken by comparative governments internationally to improve delivery of the aims and activities of the PES?
• What are the views of the Scottish public on the most appropriate ways for the Scottish Government to engage them on climate issues?

The overall aim of the study was to help understand how well various aspects of the strategy have been working in practice so far and identify any lessons that could enhance the delivery of the PES going forward.

Method

The research involved three strands, outlined below. A more detailed methodology can be found in Appendix A.

• Desk based evidence review – assessing existing national and international evidence published between 2020-2024 of climate and environment-related public engagement activities and examples of best practice as part of answering the first two research questions. Most evidence focused on activities engaging people around broad ‘climate’ or ‘environment’ issues, although some were focused on specific topics within these areas. The range of activities identified in the evidence review fell into three main categories, which are each explored in detail in the remainder of this report: communication and education; deliberative engagement and co-design; and creative activities. Note that these categories are broad and there is a lot of overlap between them. See Appendix A for more detail on the scope and limitations of the evidence.
• Six stakeholder interviews – exploring views from a range of practitioners and specialists involved in public engagement on climate change, to complement the evidence review.
• Four general public focus groups – to answer the third research question and understand the public’s views on how the Scottish Government should approach public engagement on climate change in future. Focus groups were shown four case study examples of public engagement activities in different parts of the world. These included: a public health campaign on the impacts of climate change on children’s health; a carbon footprint food tracking app; a climate coalition working on plans for offshore wind in their local area; and a citizen science project measuring air quality. More detail on each of these is included in Appendix B.

Types of public engagement activities identified

The range of activities identified in the evidence review fell into three main categories, which are outlined in detail in chapters 3, 4 and 5:

• Communication and education: Large-scale communication campaigns, information packs, door-to-door canvassing, e-mail campaigns, radio messages, news broadcasting, social media posts, single message testing (videos, images, pure text), menus, posters. Education included school classes, university modules/lectures, curriculum changes, challenges, gamification, inquiry-based learning (where the learners choose which questions to investigate), writing reflections, argumentation training, apps, cooking classes, nature-based workshops, community action groups, training for particular professions, farmer field schools, peer discussions.
• Deliberative engagement and co-design: Climate assemblies, global assembly, mini-publics, advisory councils, climate commissions, participatory planning, participatory budgeting, participation in decision-making, stakeholder engagement workshops, stakeholder collaboration, citizen science, virtual engagement, gamification.
• Creative activities: Art, interactive theatre, digital games, board games, role-play, escape rooms, virtual reality, simulations, gamified places, mobile devices/apps, social media, internet of things (IoT), artificial intelligence (AI), interactive informational exhibits, plogging, photovoice, environmental events.

How to read this report

The report brings together findings from all strands of the research (the evidence review, stakeholder interviews and focus groups). Rather than setting out the findings under each of the three research questions, they are presented thematically, reflecting the cross-cutting nature of the findings. This means that findings from the evidence reviews, stakeholder interviews and focus groups are presented together within each thematic section. Where findings are specific to just one strand of research, this is stated.

Chapters 3 to 5 focus on specific types of public engagement, grouped by theme. Chapter 6 brings together strategy-level findings that relate across different types of engagement. At the end of each chapter (or sub-section within the chapter) reference is made to how the findings relate to the PES.

Due to the volume of studies reviewed, rather than citing studies individually, these are given within the text via numerical references. Click these to view the full study details in the bibliography (for example [1], [2], [3]).

Communication and education

This section outlines findings related to public engagement that were categorised as “communication”. This included large-scale communication campaigns, information packs, door-to-door canvassing, broadcast and social media campaigns, and more. It also covers forms of engagement classed as “education”, as these had similar findings to those related to communication.

The examples and lessons covered here tend to fall under either the ‘Understand’ and ‘Act’ objectives of the PES. Climate communication campaigns are often focused on increasing knowledge, awareness and pro-climate attitudes and behaviours. There are few examples of climate messaging designed to engage people in decision-making or other participatory processes, or to communicate the outcomes of such processes. Similarly, most literature around education focuses on increasing knowledge and awareness, and there was very little evidence on the impact of education on participation or behaviour. Lessons for the ‘Participate’ objective are covered elsewhere in this report. Source: Public Engagement Strategy

Findings below are outlined in relation to the type of messaging, the means and channels of conveying the message, and the needs of the audiences. Findings related to education initiatives specifically are included at the end.

Key messages

• Use multiple methods and channels, because different types of communication work for different people.
• Tailor communications to the audience and test content with your target audience before rolling it out at scale.
• Design communications to be personal, dynamic and engaging – content should be relevant to people’s lives and appeal to their values and emotions.
• Trial the use of health frames and health professionals as trusted messengers.
• Fear-based messaging can be effective, but should be paired with practical solutions-focused messaging.
• For educational interventions, give learners some autonomy over the process.
• Incorporate environmental education into school/university curricula.

Messaging

Appeal to people’s values and emotions

Climate inaction is often rooted in emotional responses and structural/practical barriers. Therefore providing facts and data alone is usually insufficient to inspire changes in attitudes or behaviour [1], [2], [3], [4]. This isn’t always the case – for example, information provision has been found to increase support for wind turbine developments [5] and intention to adopt pro-climate actions [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Supporting claims with scientific information can lend credibility. However, technical information generally works best for people already knowledgeable about and supportive of climate action [11]. Therefore, climate communications should aim to also be personal, dynamic and engaging, appealing to people’s values and emotions and fostering a sense of efficacy, hope and community [12], [13], [14]. It should also be accompanied by wider structural support to enable action.

Stakeholders echoed this finding from the literature, stressing the valuable role of messages that connect climate change with things people already care about.

“One of the few good things about climate change is that it’s so all encompassing that everybody has a direct and real stake in the outcome… If your kid has asthma, you should care about climate change. If you like chocolate, you should care about climate change. If you’re a person of faith, you should care about climate change. If you love your country and your cultural heritage, you should care about climate change. And 1001 other reasons… As communicators, our job is to figure out how to connect the dots between climate change and the people, places and things that people already love.” (Stakeholder – climate communicator).

There are a number of tactics that communicators can use to ensure climate messages resonate with people’s values and emotions, as outlined in the sections below.

Make it relevant to the audience

Making climate change relevant to audience’s lives gives them a concrete reason to care on a personal level. Climate communicators should reduce the perceived temporal and spatial distance of climate change by highlighting immediate and local climate impacts. Research shows that emphasising the ‘here and now’ of climate issues increases support for climate mitigation policies, sustainable behavioural intentions and perceptions of climate threats [3], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. Although see Section 3.1.3 for more information on how communications framing could change depending on the psychological distance of the issue being discussed.

Tactics to reduce psychological distance include using real-time and historical data to illustrate the effects of climate change [12]; framing costs of climate impacts per household instead of at a national level [18], [23]; highlighting links to iconic local places such as the Great Barrier Reef in Australia [22], and local issues, such as pollution [20]; and platforming local people’s individual experiences of climate change and climate solutions [24]. Additionally, major events, like global climate summits or environmental disasters, can anchor climate change in the present day [14]. Additionally, connecting climate change to local issues, impacts and values increases relevance.

“One of the big things that we see across the developed world, including the United States, is that many people who… basically accept that climate change is real, nonetheless still think of it as distant… Distant in time – that the impacts aren’t going to be felt for a generation or more, so maybe this is a problem for their grandkids. Or distant in space – this is about polar bears or maybe some developing countries, but not my country, not my community, not my friends, not my family, not me. And as a result… it just becomes one of a hundred other issues that’s out there… people don’t understand why this needs to be a priority.” (Stakeholder interview, climate communicator).

Focus group participants also stressed the importance of communicating about climate change that was relatable and relevant to their local contexts.

“[It] makes people get more involved in it if they have a personal link and see, you know, the personal impact that it can have on people.” (Focus group participant)

Participants generally preferred messaging that focused on more “tangible” impacts of climate change that are currently impacting on communities in Scotland, compared to more abstract, hypothetical scenarios. They suggested using examples such as crop failures, food prices, extreme weather, and health impacts to convey the current relevance of climate change to them.

They also highlighted the need for communication to convey the role of the individual as part of a wider societal transformation. There was some scepticism expressed around the need for individual behaviour change relating to certain aspects of climate change. For example, participants questioned how much impact reducing their carbon footprint would have and questioned the need to save water in Scotland.

“I also feel like you would always have that thing in the back of your mind where you would think, in the whole scheme of things, like, what does me watching my food miles really do when there’s, you know, there’s airplanes going over the head every day?” (Focus group participant).

There was a sense that comprehensive, clear explanations and transparency around why people are being asked to make changes are needed to build understanding and trust.

Think about the framing

When trying to engage people on climate change, environmental arguments can be effective [7], [25], [26], [27], [28]. Discussions focusing on maintaining ‘balance with nature’ are particularly well received [14], [24], [28] and adaptation may be a less polarising topic than mitigation [24]. However, non-environmental frames that talk to other values, goals and issues can also be effective [29], [30].

Research shows that presenting climate change in terms of its impacts on health, safety and wellbeing can be effective [1], [14], [24], [26], [31], [32], [33], [34], with heat risk a possible entry point to climate conversations [24]. Equally, activating communal and societal goals such as social protection, unity, care, national security, scientific or economic development and global leadership may be a good tactic [28], [35], [36]. Other effective frames that resonate with many groups include ‘impacts on future generations’ [24], [35], [37], [38]; ‘maintaining freedom and choice’ [26], [39]; and ‘avoiding waste’ [26], [40]. That said, communicators should also clearly articulate their one takeaway message to avoid confusing audiences with multiple topics [41].

Example: Health framing experiment in the UK [34]

A study by Wolstenholme and colleagues tested messaging interventions with UK students. Every morning and evening for two weeks, participants received messages via an automated private chat on Facebook Messenger on the positive impacts of eating less red and processed meat. The messages either highlighted the benefits to people’s health (e.g. reducing the likelihood of developing cancer, heart disease or becoming obese), the environment (e.g. reducing excessive land use, deforestation or the release of greenhouse gases), or both, with a different benefit being highlighted each day. Participants were also reminded to try not to eat more than two portions of red and processed meat each week.

The study found that providing information about the health and/or environmental impacts of eating meat caused students to reduce their red and processed meat consumption during the intervention and one month later. In other words, pro-climate behaviour can be encouraged without talking about climate change.

Some frames work better for particular groups. For example, ‘living well locally’ resonates with rural communities [39]; ‘morality and justice’ works well with left-wing groups [1], [32]; and ‘responsibility and patriotism’ works better with conservatives [1]. Evidence around the effectiveness of economic framing is mixed [25], [27], [36]. Interestingly, frames also vary in their ability to boost behavioural intention depending on the psychological distance of the issue being discussed. When talking about impacts that are psychologically close (concrete and spatially near), communicators should use efficacy framing (highlight the feasibility of solutions). For psychologically distant impacts (abstract and spatially far away), risk framing (highlighting the negative impacts of climate change) is more effective [15]. Given that there is no one ‘best’ way to talk about climate change, communicators should use multiple different frames and recognise the need to balance tailoring messages to the audience with avoiding polarising language [34], [42].

“In general [climate change] has been framed as a scientific story. And it is… but this issue is so much bigger than that. It’s a real estate story, it’s a health story, it’s an arts and culture story. Every traditional beat of the news media should be engaged with the climate connections.” (Stakeholder – climate communicator).

The importance of framing was also clear in the focus groups. Reflecting on one of the case study examples used in the focus groups (the Make it Better campaign, described in Appendix B and shown in Figure 1 below) participants felt that associating climate change with negative impacts on children’s health was a powerful message and one which would encourage people to consider how they could mitigate those impacts.

On framing, participants also felt that climate change discourse can be political and, at times, controversial topic and felt that care should be taken to avoid misinformation in climate change communications.

Make climate change a ‘human’ issue

Telling personal stories about climate change (involving relatable people and familiar places) enhances audiences’ emotional response, increasing engagement, climate belief and risk perceptions, and making the effects more persistent [19], [32], [41], [43], [44]. This holds true for conservative and moderate groups [43]. Communications can also make climate change feel more ‘human’ by emphasising social norms, shared beliefs and a sense of community – these can boost collective efficacy, policy acceptance and behaviour change [19], [38], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]. Tactics include sharing testimonials and photos of citizens taking action, or hosting competitions, quizzes and user-generated content on social media [51]. Importantly, norm-based messaging should be relatable and authentic – it can backfire if overly authoritative or formal [17], [22], [24], [36], [41], [44].

“The other critical element is storytelling… [our radio show plays] short first-person narratives of people who are talking about how climate change matters to them and likewise what they are doing to solve it… These stories feature the voices of people from every walk of life… And what we see in our research results is that those kinds of stories work really well, because suddenly people can realise this is not just a problem for China to solve or the UN to solve, which is so removed from people’s lives. This is about how people just like them – who dress like them, talk like them, have similar values – [are getting involved with climate change].” (Stakeholder – climate communicator).

Example: Bristol City Council Climate Action Stories (source: Bristol Climate Hub website)

This initiative by Bristol One City displays multiple features of good climate communication. A series of 30 short videos, produced by Bristol City Council, tells the stories of a diverse range of Bristolians doing things they enjoy which are also good for the climate. For example, two members of a boxing club share how they’re reducing plastic waste and litter in their gym, while a mother discusses the benefits of walking her children to school instead of driving them.

The videos make the issue of climate change relatable and personal by discussing local issues and including a diverse range of groups. The videos also normalise pro-climate behaviours, by showing that people are already taking (and benefitting from) climate action.

Bristol City Council and partners use these films in social media campaigns and displayed them on screens in key public spaces during COP26 and again in summer 2022. They have had lots of positive feedback on the videos from citizens, including underrepresented groups, and partner organisations.

Use positive, but honest, messaging

Fear-based messaging that highlights the risks and negative impacts of climate change can capture people’s attention and elicit emotional responses [1], [22], [34], [40], [52]. It can be useful for increasing knowledge, but over time can be disengaging and may come across as disingenuous [1], [17], [38], [53]. Positive messaging that highlights our capacity to tackle climate change is important for boosting efficacy and empowerment [1], [4], [14], [17], [19], [20], [22], [24], [29], [33], [41], [47], [51], [53], [54], [55]. Therefore, communicators should platform the opportunities that climate change presents to build a better world, the pro-climate actions already being adopted by others, and the co-benefits already being realised by climate action. But they should also acknowledge the risks and uncertainties of climate change, as well as the fact that solving climate change will require some change to life as we know it.

“We’ve done a pretty good job helping [people] understand the seriousness and the gravity of the problem, but we have not done a good job helping them understand what the solutions are… I get so frustrated with the argument I sometimes hear within the climate community: either ‘let’s scare the bejesus out of people and that’s going to motivate them’ or ‘no, no, don’t talk about all that doom and gloom stuff, only talk about solutions’. No, it’s not an either or, it’s a both.” (Stakeholder – climate communicator).

Providing practical, actionable steps that people can take to tackle climate change increases intention to undertake pro-environmental action [9], [14], [19], [27], [29], [33], [53], [56]. Which types of pro-climate behaviour are best to promote is beyond the scope of this report but some studies suggest that it could be useful to encourage ‘small’/‘easy’ actions first, to create a snowball effect that leads to political engagement [57], and to provide time-oriented goals, such as ‘can you limit your red meat intake to two portions per week in January?’ [9]. Additionally, efficacy can be fostered by using language that is communal (‘we’ rather than ‘you’) and motivational (‘start/grow/support’ rather than ‘don’t/stop’) [14], [22].

Focus group discussions also revealed a need for a balance between positive and negative messaging. On the one hand, there was a view that shocking, fear-based messaging is needed to make people pay attention and ensure the public understand the serious nature of climate-change issues. Participants referenced what they perceived to be effective messaging around the dangers of smoking or the Covid-19 pandemic. This framing was seen as an effective way to demonstrate the serious impacts of climate change, with a suggestion that people may be even more receptive to this type of messaging post-pandemic.

“For people to take stuff seriously when it comes to the news, you have to kind of scare them a little bit. With Covid that is exactly what happened.” (Focus group participant).

At the same time, there was a desire for more information around solutions and positive actions that participants could take. Participants stressed that when negative impacts of climate change were shared (for example the negative health impacts highlighted in the Make It Better campaign case study – see 5.3), specific guidance was needed around what exactly people could do.

“I know that, for a lot of young people my age, people struggle with having money for clothes and stuff. And so they always resort to SHEIN or Teemu or things like that, which are absolutely awful for the environment. So I think putting an emphasis on alternatives [is important].” (Focus group participant).

However, there was a strong feeling that public engagement on climate change issues should avoid “lecturing” people, as this causes them to feel guilty about their lifestyle choices. Rather than focusing solely on individual responsibility, participants felt that communications should also acknowledge the role of companies and governments in contributing to and combatting climate change. Highlighting the need for both individual and systemic action was also flagged as good communications practice in the literature [23], [56].

Relevance for the PES

The importance of messaging is referred to throughout the PES, including commitments to ensuring messaging is evidence-based, easy to engage with, and accessible. The PES also refers to engaging with people’s values, identities and concerns. It is part of the PES principle of ensuring an evidence-based approach.

The literature and focus groups both support these aspects of the PES and provide insights into how they can be delivered. It was clear that, ideally, future messaging would be supported by evidence, appeal to people’s personal values and emotions, and be made relevant to people’s lives. The PES also acknowledges the importance of helping people to see their individual actions within the context of the bigger picture, and that they are not tackling climate change alone. Focus groups findings in particular support this view, as participants highlighted a sense of uncertainty around how much impact their own actions would have.

The merits of both positive and negative, or fear-based, messaging were discussed in the literature and in the focus groups. While there is a potential conflict between those two directions, the overall sentiment was that governments should be honest about the risks and uncertainties of climate change, but also convey positive, pro-climate actions and practical actions that the public can adopt. These findings support the principle underlying the PES, that it will take a positive approach that outlines a vision for climate action that promotes the many benefits. This is described in the PES as a way of combatting climate distress. However, given the findings that a balance between both positive and honest messaging can be effective, this suggests that the PES should not necessarily shy away from conveying the negative consequences of climate change.

Conveying the message

Use trusted messengers

Building trust is important for climate communicators, especially when trying to reach vulnerable groups. It takes time to build trust, and it is much easier to lose it than gain it [58], [59]. In order to become a trusted messenger, communicators should be authentic, human, sincere, down to earth, kind, reliable, honest; show empathy and passion; and demonstrate their credibility [1], [20], [58].

There are certain people who are already trusted by the public. These include: naturalists and nature conservation charities [58]; healthcare professionals [1], [32], [33], [41], [42], [59]; parental groups [1]; scientists, academic experts, environmental specialists and weather presenters [11], [12], [17], [41], [42], [59]; elders [12], [53]; and people with lived experience of the issue on which they are speaking [41]. Other examples include community leaders, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), educators, experts and impartial facilitators [1], [4], [12], [19], [23], [26], [28], [30], [53], [54], [55], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69]. In general, the public is less trusting of activists and elites (celebrities or prominent figures) [1], [17], [19], [58], although there are some exceptions (e.g. David Attenborough is trusted across audience groups) [70]. Again, different groups trust different messengers. People are more likely to trust and engage with local people [6], [12], [17], [21], [23], [33], [42] and in-group members. For example, one study found meat-eaters were more likely to accept a call to reduce their meat intake from other meat-eaters, versus from vegans [71].

“[Tourism workers] are one of the best messengers [to communicate about the impacts of climate change on coral reefs], because they’re the people that access and see these impacts firsthand. Their lives depend on the reef. I have a friend who [takes tourists scuba diving] in the southern Great Barrier Reef, which was the worst hit area earlier this year for the bleaching…He’s made a climate talk, with really clear calls to action.” (Stakeholder – climate campaigner and outreach organiser).

It can also be useful to have multiple messengers from a diversity of backgrounds, including experts, lay public and people from marginalised groups [1], [29].

Make it visual

Visual communication can promote learning and participation. Techniques such as images, graphs, diagrams, infographics, illustrations, interactive displays and pen portraits (fictional characters that represent different sections of the population) can make complex information more accessible, personal (see section 3.1.4 on making climate change a ‘human’ issue) and memorable [12], [32], [39], [41], [59], [63], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76]. More collaborative approaches might include partnering with local communities, architects and designers to produce visualisations of the future [77]. Videos have also been found to be highly emotionally engaging and can increase people’s knowledge, risk perception, collective efficacy and government-related efficacy [10], [41], [42], [78]. Additionally, rather than relying on technical language (such as describing increases in CO₂ emissions), communicators should use figurative expressions (such as “the planet is heating up” or “the pollution produced is equivalent to that from 10 car journeys”) [17], [79].

As with written and verbal communications, visual climate communications should aim to make climate change relevant and ‘human’. For example, images should show real people (not staged scenarios) [63] and local impacts (clearly linked to climate change) [63], [72], [80]. Visuals should be emotionally salient, reflecting the severity of the topic and highlighting people’s vulnerability [24], [59], [72], [80]. For example, in one study images of people suffering from respiratory illness due to air pollution were found to be effective for communicating the health impacts of climate change, because they caused participants to feel more vulnerable and susceptible towards the issue. However, images of ‘problems’ should be paired with those of solutions, to promote action alongside urgency [63], [72], [77]. Images depicting air pollution [72] may be particularly salient. However, protest imagery can be alienating [1]. Again, as with other forms of communication, videos should be short, relatable and easy-to-understand [10], [41], [42].

Trial the use of humour

Emerging evidence suggests that humour could offer a unique way to engage audiences on climate change by catching their attention, breaking taboos, and helping people cope with the psychological weight of the topic. Methods like cartoons, memes, satirical shows and live performances can encourage people to interact with content (including online), as well as increase their belief in and understanding of environmental issues [81], [82]. That said, evidence regarding humour’s ability to stimulate behaviour change is mixed and there are concerns that taking a humorous approach to climate change may trivialise the issue [81], [82]. Communicators should therefore test humour-based approaches with their target audiences.

Example: Climate Science Breakthrough (source: initiative website)

This initiative produces videos in which climate scientists are paired with comedians who ‘translate’ climate science into emotional, shareable and actionable formats. It’s a great example of using humour to make climate information more accessible and engaging. According to Climate Science Breakthrough’s own research, their videos make 87.5% of viewers more likely to take climate action.

Think about the medium/channel

Communications campaigns are most effective when they use multiple mediums (e.g. website, e-mails, social media, posters, flyers, community bulletins, meetings, events, word-of-mouth, TV, radio, newspaper, slogans, icons), including a mix of grassroots and top-down, formal and informal, and digital, creative and traditional methods [3], [8], [10], [12], [21], [32], [83]. This finding was echoed in focus groups, in which participants believed a variety of methods of sharing information would be required to meet the needs of different groups of people, covering both online and offline approaches. It is also advisable to communicate regularly and consistently [14], [17] and put messages where people will naturally see them, without having to seek them out – for example, in schools, supermarkets, doctor’s surgeries and on Google maps or TV shows [41].

Example: Information packs to reduce household energy consumption [7].

In a field study in Belgium, households were provided with information packs about how to reduce their energy use. Packs included information on the monetary and/or environmental consequences of saving energy; neighbourhood energy consumption data (broken down by house size); guidance on how to interpret kWh as a unit of energy use; testimonials from citizens who successfully reduced energy consumption; energy-saving advice (adapted to each season); links to further resources; and physical tools (e.g. radiator bleeder, energy saving tip stickers for household appliances and a meter reading chart).

Over the three-year study period, households who received information packs reduced their gas consumption more than households who didn’t receive the packs. The effect was particularly strong in high-consuming households. These packs follow several principles of good climate communication – the information was highly accessible (by being delivered directly to households rather than requiring people to seek it out); the packs included a variety of different types of content; and the content included practical advice and tools, rather than only highlighting the problem of climate change.

The evidence suggests that people still value communication via traditional methods, such as news media, TV and radio (especially in rural communities) [6], [62], [84]. Additionally, face-to-face and community-based communication is well received, especially by older people and rural communities [12], [21], [39], [85].

Social media can also be an effective way to reach a large audience (particularly young people) in an informal, relatable way [12], [16], [17], [18], [51], [66], [68], [83], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94]. Exposure to sustainability-related content on social media has been found to increase individuals’ sustainability-related knowledge, fear of climate change, subjective norms, pro-environmental attitudes, perceived behavioural control, behavioural intent, and actual behaviour [51]. Social media may be a particularly effective way to engage with young people [52], [68], [83], [88], [91], [93], [94]. That said, communicators should be wary not to overwhelm people with information [93] or to narrow the focus to topics that are highly (socially) contagious but less impactful regarding fighting climate change (e.g. plastic pollution) [40]. Digital communication methods (such as texts and e-mails) are less effective for deep communication but could be useful for delivering information and alerts [27], [74].

“[To reach out to youth] social media is our best friend.” (Stakeholder – Advocacy and engagement organisation).

In focus groups, participants felt that sharing information online, including on social media, can be an effective way to reach a large number of people and younger age groups in particular. Rural participants also highlighted the importance of using social media for those living in rural areas in Scotland, who may not regularly pass through towns or villages where they might see posters or leaflets. At the same time, participants thought that certain people are not able or comfortable spending time online. Therefore, more traditional communication channels were suggested such as printed materials, TV, radio or newspapers (particularly local stations/publications), and information sent by post. They felt that social media campaigns bring benefits, such as using hashtags to gain traction and providing opportunities for people to more easily engage with, share and interact with the information that is posted.

Finally, embedding climate communications in entertainment (e.g. films, TV shows, podcasts and live performances) shows promising initial results in terms of boosting climate awareness, attitudes and action [10], [51], [95], [96], [97]. It is important that the entertainment aspect takes priority, to avoid being boring or ‘preachy’ [95], [96], [97]

Relevance for the PES

As part of the ‘Understand’ objective, the PES includes a commitment to using a range of communication challenges, including both traditional and digital channels. This research supports the need for this multi-pronged approach, to help ensure the messaging is accessible and has wide appeal.

The PES acknowledges the needs to use trusted messengers and describes these messengers as individuals and organisations working to engage the public, from small local groups up to stakeholders delivering national campaigns. The evidence review has provided some further insights into who are considered trusted messengers, and their characteristics. The type of organisation, and what principles they stand for, are therefore both important considerations when partnering with these messengers on public engagement.

Some of the specific means of communication highlighted in the evidence are also referenced in the PES. This includes the use of storytelling, as part of the Scottish Government’s efforts to lead the way in developing and promoting climate conversations as a means of sharing views and improving climate literacy. The PES also refers to power of the arts to help the public to understand and visualise the potential impacts of the climate change. The findings suggest that these different channels should continue to be used to communicate and education on climate change. Humour is not specifically mentioned in the PES and is one of the more emerging strands in the evidence review. This is potentially an area for further testing and development in the next stages of the PES.

Responding to the audience

Tailor communications to the audience and context

“That’s a crucial question for any, especially national, strategy… no country has the resources to do everything. You’ve got to be strategic. This is why you start with audience analysis… You’ve got to first get very clear about exactly what it is you’re trying to accomplish. Then figure out who’s the audience… Then figure out the best way to reach them.” (Stakeholder – climate communicator).

As has been highlighted, different groups and people respond differently to climate communications materials. The evidence is emphatic that the choice of framing, language, messenger and medium must consider the audience and context. For example, responses vary according to many different factors:

• Cultural context: In ‘individualistic nations like the UK (that value self-sufficiency, personal achievement and competition), emphasising the individual gains made by taking climate action is effective [47].
• Religion: Linking climate change to ‘creation’ works well with Muslim, Jewish and Christian faith groups, but not as well with Hindu and Buddhist groups [1].
• Political ideology: Liberals respond better to expert knowledge and participatory engagement, whereas moderates and conservatives prefer hearing from lay people with direct experience of climate change [98].
• Level of engagement with climate change: Factual/scientific information and messengers are better received and more likely to boost climate beliefs and support for mitigation policies among people already knowledgeable and concerned about climate change [11], [41]. However, these people don’t need to be convinced that climate change is a problem, they mostly want to hear about the steps they can take to solve it [99]. For groups ‘in the middle’ (cautious but not fully engaged), communicators should highlight the relevance of climate change through simple, clear, repeated messages from a range of trusted sources [41], [99]. Doubtful groups are more likely to negatively appraise climate change materials, so highlighting widely accepted contributions of science to society (e.g. vaccinations) [11] and using non-climate frames [41], [99] may be effective. That said, non-climate frames can also be interpreted as ‘propaganda’ [41].
• Climate attitudes and beliefs also vary with location (rural versus urban) [18], [39], [99]; income [39]; (dis)ability [39]; degree of experienced climate impacts [18]; age [1], [27], [39], [73]; and gender [73], [100].

Make it accessible

Accessibility was a common theme across the literature and the focus groups. An overarching principle in the literature is the importance of making climate communications accessible to a wide range of people [3], [13], [21], [22]. Information should be concise and easy to understand [27]. For example, communicators should focus on one key message, consistently communicated; use a limited number of statistics, ensuring those that are used are clear and memorable; avoid technical language, jargon and acronyms; and provide contextual/explanatory information for any maps and diagrams [7], [12], [17], [33], [41]. Communication materials should also be shared in multiple languages, including local languages, via a variety of media channels, and be sensitive to the cultural, social and accessibility needs of different audiences [1], [12], [17], [23], [29], [33], [59], [63].

Relevance for the PES

These findings on understanding the audience are closely in line with the content of the PES and some of its central messages. Under the action of “ensuring accessibility”, the PES states that communication should include a variety of channels to reach different audiences in ways that are most appropriate and engaging for them.

While findings align with the PES, the evidence review provides some further considerations for understanding the audience and ensuring accessibility. In particular, ensuring communication is sensitive to cultural, political, religious, geographical and other contexts is an area not explored in detail in the PES.

Education

Use a range of approaches to inform and educate

The evidence found that in some instances information provision alone can increase environmental knowledge and lead to further positive outcomes. This is most likely to happen when the information is simple and action-based. For example, providing simple guidelines about climate friendly food choices can increase people’s ability to choose climate friendly products in easy product choice situations [9].

However, generally didactic presentation of information is more effective when combined with other methods, preferably interactive ones. Such methods include: art activities [101]; challenges and competitions [102], [103]; gamification [104], [105]; inquiry-based learning [106], [107], [108], [109]; cooking classes [110], [111]; projects [112], [113]; argumentation training [114], [115], [116]; writing reflections [104]; farmer field schools [117], [118], [119], [120]; tree planting [121]; experiential learning [116], [122]; and group exercises and discussions [123], [124], [125]. One notable project took portable aquaponic pods to schools to engage pupils in food production and foster learning about sustainability, climate change and healthy eating [126]. Effective interventions often use multiple combined approaches.

Example: Interactive learning intervention in UK schools [127]

An activity-based educational intervention was embedded into the curriculum of Year 9 classes in two schools in the UK. It used a range of interactive approaches, including student-led inquiry, drawing flowcharts/maps, discussions and quizzes. As a result of engaging with the intervention, students developed a stronger understanding of the causes and effects of global warming. This supports the use of engaging, collaborative methods in climate education.

Tailor to the audience and context

As with communications campaigns, multiple studies highlighted the importance of tailoring educational interventions to the audience and local environment [117], [128], [129], [130], [131]. One way this can be accomplished is through designing interventions which focus on applying global issues to local contexts and issues [125].

Enable learners to be co-creators

Effective educational interventions that increased environmental knowledge/awareness often took a collaborative approach. This includes staff-student collaborations and student-led projects [108], [132]; training local community members or action groups to deliver non-formal education [133], [134]; and co-developing toolkits with key stakeholders [135].

“The workshop is kind of like a menu…every group has different baseline knowledge. So, if you’d like to dig into [specific topics], we can totally go into that. But if all you need to know is that [climate change is] bad and here’s what we can do, we can start there as well. And most people go for the second option… I guess you’re giving them that autonomy. You’re not just lecturing at them.” (Stakeholder – climate campaigner and outreach organiser).

Support systemic change

The literature emphasised the need for change beyond individual interventions. Several studies outlined that environmental issues could be better embedded in school and university curricula [130], [136], [137], [138], [139]. Key points to consider here include defining the aim of climate change and sustainability education; involving educators and students in developing change; incorporating sustainability education across different elements of the curriculum (and linking these up); and making education place-based and grounded in real-world contexts and issues [130], [138]. However, some schools do not have adequate resources (including funding and time) to implement initiatives that can effectively educate students [126], [140], so these are areas where the Government could lend support. Ledwell and colleagues [63] also highlight how climate change education can empower communities to be better able to adapt to environmental impacts and argue for similar programmes (that focus on developing the skills and knowledge needed for climate adaptation and resilience) among the adult workforce.

Relevance for the PES

One of the PES actions is to embed climate change within formal education. It includes a commitment to supporting climate change education, for example by implementing the Learning for Sustainability action plan and working with the Teach the Future campaign. The evidence review findings provides insights into the types of approaches that would work best, particularly in terms of the type and style of information provision and the opportunities for collaboration and co-creation.

Training is not currently part of the PES, therefore the findings suggest that further exploration of opportunities for upskilling young people and workers would be a valuable addition.

Summary

The evidence is clear that following good communications principles is essential for successful public engagement on climate change. Much of the research supports known ‘best practice’ for communicating about climate change, but there are also some emerging new areas of opportunity. A common theme is that there is no single ‘best’ way of communicating about climate change. It is therefore important to use multiple methods and test communication campaigns and messages with your audience before rolling them out at scale [12], [33], [41], [141].

Findings from the evidence review and the focus groups have highlighted that much of the best practice on communication and education is already captured within the PES. This includes the need to be inclusive and accessible, to communicate with different audiences in different ways, to use trusted messengers, and to use messaging that highlights the relevance to individuals and the practical actions they can take.

As well as endorsing various elements of the PES, the findings also provide insights into areas for further consideration for the remainder of the PES period. These include:

• On messaging, ensure that climate change is framed in a way that is relevant to the lives of individuals and communities, reflects the context (cultural, political, geographic and others) and is focussed on practical actions for individuals. As well as using positive messaging, do not shy away from conveying the negative consequences of inaction on climate change.
• When conveying the message, the research has identified the characteristics of (e.g. being authentic, sincere, kind, honest, credible) and types of people (e.g. naturalists, healthcare professionals, scientists) who are considered trusted messengers, and those that are not. It also highlights the benefits of exploring different approaches such as the use of visual communication and humour.
• In education settings, encourage and enable approaches that foster collaboration and co-design with learners. Further explore opportunities for workforce training on technical aspects of climate change.
• Take measures to build collective efficacy such as using messaging that emphasise social norms, shared beliefs and a sense of community. Examples of this include sharing testimonials, photos and videos of citizens taking action, or hosting competitions, quizzes and user-generated content on social media.

The lessons outlined in this chapter can be applied across many aspects of climate change messaging, but are particularly relevant for the following PES actions:

• Develop and implement our public communications approach to ensure people understand Scotland’s climate ambitions and the policies that will be required to reach them
•  
• Collaborate with key delivery organisations to ensure information reaches key audiences, including through initiatives such as Climate Week
• Working with Adaption Scotland and others to provide consistent messaging that makes clear the impact of climate change locally, nationally and globally
• Support trusted messengers to promote climate literacy
• Embed climate change within formal education
• Use marketing and communications activity to ensure that households understand the changes needed to help Scotland get to net zero.

Deliberative engagement and co-design

This section outlines the findings related to public engagement that are categorised as “deliberative engagement” and “co-design” approaches.

The examples and lessons covered here relate to the ‘Participate’ objective of the PES. There is a wide range of activities that fall under the deliberative engagement and co-design banner and huge variation in how the same activities are delivered in different settings. Participatory activities such as these are all about getting people to take part in decision-making processes. Therefore, they mainly contribute to the ‘Participate’ objective. Source: Public Engagement Strategy

However, they also enhance climate knowledge and awareness, and promote behaviour change and support for climate solutions/actions [133], [134], [142], [143], [144]. Furthermore, they can lead to antecedents to pro-climate behaviour, including feelings of trust, community, ownership, empowerment, self-efficacy and stewardship over the local environment [92], [145], [146], [147]. Therefore, deliberative and co-design activities can also support the ‘Understand’ and ‘Act’ objectives of the PES.

For this chapter, a summary of the relevance of these findings for the PES is provided at the end of the chapter, rather than after each sub-section.

Who is involved

Be inclusive

Deliberation and co-design activities should involve a diverse range of people, including traditionally marginalised groups such as young people, ethnic minorities and those who are less physically able. Organisers could use purposive recruitment to gather an approximately representative group of participants or identify key stakeholders affected by the issue [53], [148], [149]. They could also support people facing financial, temporal, spatial or physical restrictions by providing compensation, child- or elder-care, support with logistics, a dedicated helper, and options to engage virtually [28], [150], [151]. Particular attention should be paid to the barriers faced by marginalised communities [152], [153], [154]. Additionally, internal dynamics should be well managed to ensure that all participants feel welcome and able to contribute [28], [29], [77], [150]. This includes organisers and facilitators reflecting on their own assumptions, being conscious of people’s differing values, and as getting to know participants’ motivations for engaging in a project [148], [155].

“What I think is really powerful about [citizens] assemblies is getting that diversity in one room and talking across different communities… learning together, deliberating together, crafting recommendations together… I think that’s really unusual and really hard to replicate in any other way.” (Stakeholder – climate assemblies expert).

It is also important to combine diverse sources of information, including local knowledge, indigenous knowledge, lived experience and scientific expertise [55], [156]. Local people are best positioned to monitor and solve local problems [148], [157], [158], [159] and bringing together groups that don’t usually work together can foster new perspectives and ideas [147], [159], [160], [161].

“By the time the government takes action, the divers and the fishermen have seen it. But they don’t have a channel of communication, [so they feel like] the government doesn’t listen to them… So I would advise to [listen to] the observers, the person in the forest that sees that the trees are dying are those who live in the forest.” (Stakeholder – Public engagement delivery organisation).

This finding was echoed among focus groups participants. They highlighted the need for public engagement activities to be promoted in an inclusive way so that everyone with a potential stake in the topic was aware of how they could be involved. This was particularly thought to be the case to reach people who may not actively seek out opportunities to share their views and avoid only recruiting people who are already very engaged in climate change issues or have strong views about particular subjects. One participant shared frustrations about having recently missed out on attending a climate change-related event in their local village due to not being aware of it until after it had occurred. This was despite being ‘active’ online.

Participants also stressed that it was important not to overwhelm people with too much information in advance of an engagement event, and to make sure people feel welcomed and understand that their contributions are valuable.

“It’s about making sure that people don’t feel that because it’s a climate advocate [and] they’re going to know a lot more […] it doesn’t mean that their opinion is of greater importance than the person who’s living in that community.” (Focus group participant).

Focus group participants felt that, to encourage views from a diverse range of people (beyond those already interested in the topic), public engagement practitioners should reassure the public that any lack of knowledge or prior involvement in discussions about climate change is not a barrier to taking part.

Content and format of engagement

Tailor to the audience and context

The literature emphasises that deliberative and co-design activities are not ‘off the shelf’ solutions. Organisers and facilitators should consider the local environmental issues; political, social and economic context; and participants’ demographics. For example, people in countries where citizen participation in democracy is high will likely expect a more involved approach. Power relations between the people in the room are also important, as social divisions and tensions can be barriers to participation, especially on a local scale [143], [154].

Make it accessible

In focus groups, participants felt that using a variety of different engagement methods – both online and offline – would help to make these types of engagements more accessible. For example, to ensure the accessibility of face-to-face engagement events, participants suggested holding these in places that were easy for participants to get to and in physically accessible buildings. They also noted a need for convenient timings, taking into account different schedules. Participants felt that online engagement, such as through video platforms or apps, could help encourage participation from those unable to attend an in-person activity. However, they also noted the risk of digital exclusion and that these tools are not accessible to everyone. A balance between offline and online methods was therefore seen as necessary.

Support active and innovative forms of participation

Focus group participants felt that giving the public the opportunity to get directly involved in activities would help to make the topic of climate change more engaging and impactful for them. For example, they welcomed the citizen science approach demonstrated in one of the case studies, in which volunteers helped to collect data as part of a study on air quality in Buenos Aires (see 7.3). Participants felt that taking an active part in data collection in this way would make people more interested in the findings compared to having simply been told about them.

“If you get involved with something […], you’re more interested in what the results come back than if you didn’t get involved with it in the first place.” (Focus group participant)

There was support for including a level of active engagement even in relation to information campaigns where possible. For example, in the Make It Better case study campaign (see Appendix B), the public were encouraged to sign a pledge and this was praised for being “at least [the] start of doing something”. However, concerns were raised about asking participants to do too much and the risk of “volunteer fatigue”. Similarly, others stressed the need for engagement to be easy, especially if it was taking place over a longer period of time.

Enjoyment in participatory processes has been linked to increased awareness and behaviour change [143]. Therefore, practitioners could employ creative methods of engagement, such as art, visioning exercises and even field trips, which are generally well received by participants [62], [162].

“There were a couple of juries which banned PowerPoint, which I thought was really funny, and there was one classic one where you had a climate scientist on the floor building a graph with Lego blocks to show the cumulative growth [of emissions]. And that really stuck in people’s heads.” (Stakeholder – climate assemblies expert).

Digital tools (such as mobile phone apps – see the Floop app example in Appendix D – websites and social media) are also increasingly available. These may be less effective for in-depth deliberation and discussion, but could be useful for capturing and sharing information with a large audience (for example, in citizen science or quick consultation activities) [163].

Example: People’s Plan for Nature, UK (source: expert interviewee)

This project, led by three environmental organisations (the WWF, RSPB and National Trust), used a participatory process to develop a plan of action for protecting nature in the UK. The organisations collaborated with an assembly of 100 people from across the country, who met over four weekends to discuss nature-related issues and put together recommendations for action. The approach was blended – i.e. involved meeting face to face (for the first and last weekend), as well as digitally (for the second and third weekend). This combination made the process accessible, and the timing of the in-person sessions meant that people were able to get to know each other at the start of the process and then produce recommendations collectively at the end.

Give participants autonomy

Promoting a sense of ownership and empowerment among participants supports feelings of self and collective efficacy, legitimises the process and increases acceptability of solutions [156], [164], [165], [166]. This can be achieved by giving participants control over the agenda and activities, and giving the public ownership of outputs or recommendations [144], [152], [167]. Interestingly, there may be no difference in perceived acceptability of solutions when participants are given full control or partial control (i.e. some expert input remains) [156].

“It’s about the dynamic. We ran an assembly years ago with experts…they give their presentation and then they sit at the top [of the room] and the citizens ask their questions. It looks a bit like Question Time. And that is…basically pandering to the expert status of the people at the top. So what we did in the next one was … got the citizens to think about their questions and the experts moved around the tables… [citizens] were in control of what they asked and if they wanted to move on to the next question, it was completely up to them, completely changed the dynamics.” (Stakeholder – climate assemblies expert).

Some participatory processes have divided participants into groups to cover more topics in depth, but this may mean participants don’t feel ownership over recommendations they were not involved in [167]. Another caveat to be aware of is that while bottom-up control over framing and design increases citizen input and creativity, it may also lead to less feasible policy options [69].

Example: Citizen science and co-policy design in the ClairCity Project [143]

This project engaged people across six European regions around air pollution and carbon emissions. It involved a variety of activities that gave residents a sense of ownership and control over the process. For example, participants used apps to monitor their own transport habits, emissions production and emissions exposure. A crowdsourcing process also gathered lived experiences and policy ideas. Residents involved in the project found it enjoyable and reported increased understanding of air quality. 74% of those surveyed indicated that they would make a behaviour change to improve air quality.

Create a supportive atmosphere

To ensure participants feel comfortable, activities should be conducted in informal, familiar places. For example, the literature cited locations such as coffee shops, community centres and participants’ homes [66].

“It’s very important where you meet your focus group. I don’t call everybody to the city to come to a focus group meeting. We go to the comfort zone. It’s very important to be where the people are comfortable, [so they can] express themselves.” (Stakeholder – public engagement delivery organisation).

Additionally, practitioners should explicitly communicate that participants’ contributions are valued [148], [168] and given enough time to cover topics in depth and discuss ideas fully. Participants’ privacy should be respected [153] and issues surrounding data handling and ethics should be taken seriously [148], [149]. Further, to promote credibility and legitimacy, deliberative processes should be transparent and well-communicated [169], [170].

Echoing the literature, focus group participants suggested that there should be opportunities for people to speak in small groups or with others one-to-one (to reduce anxiety around speaking in groups).

Consider practical issues

Planning ahead is crucial in ensuring the success of deliberation and co-design interventions. A clear remit and goal should be set in advance [171]; policymakers and facilitators should be sufficiently trained [77]; proper resources and funding should be provided [171]; and, ideally, tools that can be used in different contexts and at different scales should be employed [172]. Where participants act as data collectors – for example, in citizen science projects – organisers should ensure that the data collection method is congruent with the data analysis plan [148].

It is also important to enable initiatives to self-reflect and learn from each other. For example, useful actions include conducting pilots [147], [171]; gathering feedback from participants [168]; and sharing evidence, evaluations and failures with wider networks and organisations [148], [169], [173].

Impacts of the engagement

Engage meaningfully with outputs and recommendations

Alongside lessons relating to the delivery of individual deliberation and co-design activities, a common finding across the literature, interviews and focus groups was the need to respond meaningfully to outputs and recommendations. When these are ignored, engagement activities can appear tokenistic. This may call into question the legitimacy of participatory processes (in the eyes of participants and policymakers) and reinforce conflict within the involved communities [174], [175], [176].

Responding to, acting on and monitoring the implementation of recommendations should be seen as part of the participatory process and factored into the plan and budget [153], [164], [169], [177], [178], [179], [180]. Generally, integrating the outcomes of participatory activities into policy is easier when these are government-led. However, such interventions are also more likely to be perceived as ‘box-ticking exercises’ designed to give commissioners legitimacy [181].

To ensure decision-makers respond meaningfully to participatory processes, organisers should get buy in early on from actors that will be affected by the outcomes [166]. There should be a core policy team that is responsible for taking recommendations through the policy process, preferably involving officials from multiple departments and the core government, not just climate teams. Decision-makers should avoid merely assigning individual recommendations to the appropriate government departments for action, but also respond to the wider context, ethos and vision of participatory outputs. Additionally, the response process should be transparent to participants – participants should be told from the outset how their efforts will be acknowledged [148], [168], [182] and be regularly updated on how recommendations are being implemented [1], [30], [60], [61], [65], [66], [67], [169], [182].

“How are we going to follow up on [climate assemblies] in a way that does justice to what the assembly members have done? We’re so obsessed by the citizen engagement bit that we don’t focus enough on getting the structures around it right… I think we kind of go – ‘oh, that’s the participation there’. Actually, the participation is all of it… Don’t deliver an assembly unless you are sure you understand what the follow up is going to be.” (Stakeholder – climate assemblies expert).

Example: Irish Citizens Assembly (source: expert interviewee and EPA report)

In the Irish Citizens’ Assembly, 99 citizens deliberated on how Ireland can become a leader in tackling climate change. The process produced 13 recommendations which were more radical than many expected. A strength of the process was that a specific all-party parliamentary committee – the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Climate Action (JOCCA) – was set up to respond to the recommendations (via a published report). JOCCA’s report gave the recommendations momentum and ended up significantly shaping the Government’s Climate Action Plan to Tackle Climate Breakdown.

Example: Permanent climate assembly in Brussels (source: expert interviewee)

The permanent climate assembly in Brussels has a small committee of ten diverse citizens who spend a year working with the municipality after each deliberation cycle. This involves a new group of people each time and they have the right to ask for any information they want. The municipality is required to say after three months, what it’s going to do, and after a year what it’s done. While permanent assemblies will not always be possible and appropriate, this example highlights a practical approach to ensuring that engagement is built into decision making and that participants are kept close to the outputs and recommendations.

Another activity to consider is green participatory budgeting, where local people get together to decide how funds will be spent on environmental initiatives. This was flagged by one of our expert interviewees as a useful local-level participatory activity, that is less traditional than climate assemblies and garners involvement from a wide range of people.

“Participatory budgeting (PB) is one of the few participatory processes where the people who get involved can very directly see how their contribution then results in resources being mobilised to take action, to fund projects, to reform a service, to start a new initiative, or to channel resources in a new direction… It’s a more proactive and co-produced type of engagement. It’s not just led by the local authorities, it’s a partnership with a number of community organisations and third sector organisations. Green PB, I think, is a real opportunity that should play a central role in the public engagement strategy.” (Stakeholder – public policy and engagement expert).

Example: Green participatory budgeting in Lisbon, Portugal [23]

Lisbon’s green participatory budgeting programme empowers citizens to use part of the City Council’s budget each year for projects that make the city more sustainable, resilient and environmentally friendly. It is open to everyone in the municipality of Lisbon over the age of 16 and engagement is hybrid, with in-person events for discussion and debate alongside web-based platforms for voting and proposal submission. Winning projects are integrated into the City Council’s Plan of Activities and Budget and then implemented. Evidence suggests that citizens are actively engaged in Lisbon’s PB process and that this leads to the commissioning of sustainability-related projects.

Summary and relevance for the PES

Deliberation and co-design activities often lead to high levels of satisfaction among participants and can deliver benefits for the local community and those facilitating engagement [145], [183]. They are effective at engaging the public in climate change and crucial for bringing a topic onto the public stage [145], [184], [185]. However, practitioners should be aware that solutions that come out of participatory processes may not be ambitious enough to meet climate targets [171] and data gathered by citizens without expert input may be of poor quality [87].

The PES has been developed with the good practice principles of participation in mind, in line with the Scottish Government’s Participation Framework and the Open Government approach. The findings highlight some of the best practice which align with many of the PES principles such as being participative, inclusive, open and transparent. The findings also highlight areas for consideration in the implementation of these types of activities as part of the PES. These include:

• When designing these engagement approaches, thinking carefully about who is there and how best to draw on local knowledge, lived experience and other types of expertise.
• Encourage active forms of participation such as citizens’ science techniques, which involve the public directly in research, and approaches such as participatory budgeting which have a clear link between the public’s involvement and the decisions.
• Explore the use of digital and creative tools to help share findings from deliberative and co-design approaches with a wider audience.
• From the beginning, build in ways of measuring and demonstrating the impact of the engagement process. Take lessons from the Irish Citizens Assembly and the permanent climate assembly in Brussels which have established mechanisms for ensuring feedback for participants, helping hold decisions makers to account.

The lessons outlined in this chapter are particularly relevant for the following PES actions:

• Build on Scotland’s Climate Assembly to develop further deliberative approaches
• Continue to facilitate meaningful climate engagement conversations with people and audiences not currently engaged on the topic
• Develop our approach to ensuring key climate change policies exhibit the principles of Open Government through meaningful consultation and participation

Creative activities

This chapter details the final theme identified in the literature, where “creative” approaches to public engagement have been used.

Creative engagement methods have a variety of outcomes and can be used in any of the other activity categories already explored (communication, education, deliberation and co-design). Therefore, creative interventions could contribute to all three of the PES objectives (‘Understand’, ‘Participate’ and ‘Act’).

Source: Public Engagement Strategy

Art, exhibits and digital tools

Use art

Creating and working with art can increase environmental awareness and understanding [186]. It also facilitates reflection, critical thinking, empowerment and discussion, so is useful in participatory/deliberative processes [77], [90], [186]. Viewing climate change art – even virtually [78] – can enhance engagement, awareness, reflection and discussion [90], [187]. It also strengthens local/community identity [187] and cohesion [188], support for climate action [90] and sustainable behavioural intention [187].

Art exhibitions are particularly effective when they are collaboratively designed (by a diverse range of stakeholders), interactive, in public places and linked to local contexts, as they make people consider how climate change relates to their own lives [77], [90], [187], [189]. For example, exhibits could take place in squares, parks and streets, platform local stories and experiences, use local imagery and references, and engage local organisations.

Example: ‘Floodlights’, an art exhibit in Hull, UK about sea level rise and flooding [187]

‘Floodlights’ was a multi-media, interactive exhibit that involved a range of pieces, including large projections onto iconic local landmarks, interactive activities and soundscapes. The exhibit increased attendees’ behavioural intention to take water and climate action, with engagement thought to be driven by emotional response, place-based attachment and civic pride. This highlights the potential role of interactive creative initiatives that are tailored to the local context in encouraging pro-climate behaviour.

Use interactive information exhibits

Interactive information exhibits are stands or displays that incorporate activities such as posters, flash cards, infographics, models, digital or in-person games, live displays and sensory exercises. They are effective at increasing environmental knowledge and behaviour change intention [75], [190], [191]. They may do this by changing people’s perceptions of how their peers think, feels and act in relation to climate action, as well as increasing people’s confidence in taking action [191]. Such exhibits are interesting, engaging, memorable and enjoyable to people from a range of age-groups [189], [190]. They are also low-cost and easy to implement.

Interactive information exhibits should incorporate multiple activities which are playful, emotional, locally relevant and solutions-focused, but not present so much information that viewers feel overwhelmed. Having well-trained facilitators and communicators on hand to support discussion and answer questions is useful. Additionally, there are considerations for presenting interactive data – for example, presentation approaches that mimic the form, material and colour of biological processes are intuitively understood, as are colour scales like red-green [75].

Use digital tools, but be aware of drawbacks

As highlighted in previous sections, digital tools may be useful in achieving certain aims in certain contexts. Digital tools have the capacity to support environmental education, communication, participation, behavioural intention and real-world behaviour change [87], [192], [193], [194], [195].

Virtual platforms are a relatively quick, easy and cheap way to connect with a wide range of people, which is especially useful for collecting data (e.g. for environmental monitoring or opinion polls) and disseminating information (e.g. early warnings during disasters). Further, digital reward systems and currencies, where users accumulate points for carrying out pro-environmental behaviours – e.g. ‘Ant Forest’ [194] and ‘Greencoin’ [193] – can promote real life behaviour change. Digital platforms should be interactive, customisable and easy to use. They should not only be used to connect policymakers with the public, but also to connect publics and stakeholders with each other and encourage collaboration, information-sharing and discussion.

“Digital has this capacity of reach… It has generated participants who wouldn’t have come to face to face. There were people who, for example, had long term sickness, who would actually dial in from their beds. There were people with anxiety, who wouldn’t come to a face to face, but would do online.” (Stakeholder – climate assemblies expert).

However, there are a number of caveats to be aware of regarding digital tools [87]. First, these are complex technologies that we don’t yet fully understand – they can be unreliable and difficult to fix when things go wrong. They require practitioners and users to have technological skills, knowledge and resource, therefore aren’t accessible to everyone. They are less effective for deep engagement and may only be as good as the original data or communications content that they share [87]. Additionally, technology use comes with risks and negative consequences, such as carbon emissions, technology dependence, mental disorders, preventing people developing traditional skills, job losses and breaches of user privacy and agency [87].

“It can be a combination of both [online and offline], depending on resources and time. [Offline] is very effective because the interpersonal nature, the chemistry… That dynamic, you cannot get it online.” (Stakeholder – public engagement delivery organisation).

Example: Environmental health app [195]

An app called AirRater was developed in Australia to encourage behaviours that protect health in response to environmental hazards.

The app enabled users to view information on multiple atmospheric health hazards in real time, view local environmental conditions, and track their personal symptoms.

Supporting the use of digital tools, most users valued the app’s visual features (e.g. maps and location settings) and found the information easy to understand.

In focus groups, the use of virtual tools, such as video platforms or apps, was seen as making public engagement more accessible in certain situations. The former was seen as useful for including people in group discussions where there are travel limitations, such as for those living in rural areas. Participants specifically discussed the use of apps as a means of public engagement in the context of one of the case studies (the food carbon tracking app – see Appendix D and Figure 3). Among those who were familiar with using apps, this approach was seen as an easy and convenient way to engage. However, while these approaches could increase accessibility in some ways, participants acknowledged that they were not always easy for everyone to use. Concerns were raised around digital exclusion, and the difficulties of taking part in a group discussion at home if there are other people or distractions around.

Gaming, virtual reality and emerging approaches

Trial the use of games

There is promising evidence around the use of games for environmental public engagement, but there are caveats. Games have been found to support environmental risk perception [196]; reduced psychological distance [196], [197]; interest [198]; awareness and understanding [196], [198], [199], [200], [201], [202], [203], [204], [205], [206], [207], [208], [209]; efficacy and hope [196], [198], [199], [208]; emotional and affective engagement [196], [208]; feelings of urgency and responsibility [196], [208]; attitudes [210]; discussion, participation, collaboration and cooperation [77], [200], [201], [203], [209]; policy support [207]; behavioural intentions [196], [197], [207]; and sustainable behaviour change and emissions reduction [197], [199], [203], [204], [205].

Participants across a range of ages and groups have found games fun, interesting, engaging and accessible [196], [197], [198], [201], [204], [205], [206], [207], [208], [211]. Games can be used on a variety of topics and at a variety of scales (individual to community-level). Energy saving behaviours in households and offices show particular benefit from gamification [199]. Further, games may be very useful in educational settings as they foster experiential learning [77], [204], [205], which translates to real life settings [209]. Gamified places (where playful interactions are built into everyday activities) foster more active engagement and behaviour change as citizens gain a sense of ownership and community [203].

That said, research into climate change games is relatively new. The methods of evaluation are inconsistent and the results are not conclusive [212], [213], [214]. Benefits can be often short-term, with constant/repeated engagement needed for changes to be effective [199], [203], [210]. Further, games risk trivialising and commodifying the serious issue of climate change [203].

Example: Challenge-based game intervention between students [197]

Students at two universities competed on real-world behaviour change challenges, using a virtual platform to receive information, track their progress and view real-time scores. Participants enjoyed playing the game and it resulted in sustainable behaviour change and emissions reduction. The element of competition in this game was found to be particularly motivating for students.

Example: ‘SuDSbury’ board game [207]

A serious board game about sustainable drainage solutions (SuDS) increased players’ knowledge, comprehension, awareness, behavioural intention and acceptance of SuDS interventions. Providing support for the use of games in climate engagement, players found the game fun and engaging, although they also highlighted that the experience would be improved if the game was more realistic.

Initial evidence suggests that climate change games are most effective when they are realistic (in look, narrative and activities), responsive and intuitive [194], [196], [201], [207], [208], [210], [212], [213]. A challenge or competition element makes games particularly engaging [197], [199], [204], [205], [206], [210], as does giving the player some sense of autonomy and control [194], [212]. When implementing games, practitioners should encourage players to be open to scientific evidence, even if it goes against their existing beliefs [198]. And in educational settings, games should be customisable, co-designed with educators and integrated into the existing workflow/curriculum [204], [205], [206].

Trial the use of (immersive) virtual reality

Immersive virtual reality (IVR) has been used in games but also in non-game-based interventions, such as visualisations. Evidence surrounding the effects of IVR is inconclusive, with meta-analyses having found mixed results [215]. Some studies find that IVR experiences can enhance efficacy, learning, behavioural intentions and (virtual and real-life) pro-environmental behaviour [196], [215], [216], [217], [218], [219]. IVR users have also reported greater feelings of presence, immersion, usability, engagement and emotion, compared to other engagement methods [196].

However, other studies find IVR has minimal effects on behavioural intention [219] or is as effective as other modes of delivery (e.g. computer-based, text with graphics) in fostering learning and other benefits [196], [202]. IVR may be particularly useful for visualising scenarios far away in time or place, that would be difficult, dangerous, expensive or environmentally damaging to visit in real life [217], [219]. Recommendations seem to be similar to those for game design – make experiences realistic, relevant and immersive [215], [216]. IVR should be used with caution to supplement other activities.

Example: Virtual fieldtrips [218]

Users travelled virtually to a national park and witnessed environmental destruction due to dietary choices. This immersive intervention was more effective than a virtual intervention which just presented information at increasing users’ pro-environmental intentions, virtual pro-environmental behaviour and real life pro-environmental behaviour around food choices, including a week after the intervention. This suggests that the availability of virtual reality to transport people to another place is particularly valuable in climate change engagement.

Be aware of other methods

The literature highlighted a few other activities which have not been extensively researched but show some promising initial evidence. These include:

• Interactive theatre (‘science shows’ which are educational but also involve characters, narratives, engaging delivery, demonstrations and audience participation) can increase behavioural intention and are particularly well received by families and children [97], [220].
• ‘Plogging’ (picking up litter while jogging, or doing another physical activity) can increase awareness of littering and the benefits of taking environmental action [221].
• Photo voice activities (where participants take photos and use these as a catalyst for discussion) can encourage environmental awareness, comprehension, sustainable behaviour change, community building, discussion and new ways of thinking [222].
• Attending environmental events such as beach cleans and birdwatching events can increase people’s environmental concern, subjective norms (belief that other people are taking environmental action) and behavioural intention [86].

Summary and relevance to the PES

Generally, the evidence supports the effectiveness of creative interactive engagement methods for a variety of outcomes [68]. This may be because creative activities are intuitively understood, accessible and tap into people’s emotions. Creative methods are also often well-received by participants.

Creative forms of engagement are not explored in detail in the PES. One of the activities outlined in the PES involves engaging through culture and heritage, and highlights that the arts act as a significant communication tool. However, specific uses of art and other creative approaches are not explored in detail. Creative forms of engagement could therefore be an area for greater focus going forward.

The lessons outlined in this chapter can be applied across many aspects of climate change messaging, but are particularly relevant for the following PES actions:

• Collaborate with key delivery organisations to ensure information reaches key audiences, including through initiatives such as Climate Week
• Continue to facilitate meaningful climate engagement with people and audiences not currently engage on the topic
• Continue to champion and fund community-led climate action
• Utilise the potential of the arts, creativity and heritage to inspire and empower culture change.

Strategy-level findings

This section outlines findings that were relevant across all strands of public engagement activity, including strategy-level considerations identified in the literature. As these findings are broader that those in chapters 3 to 5, they are more closely related to the overarching principles of the PES, rather than specific actions.

Have a clear strategy linked to a vision for net zero

The evidence review was clear that having a national-level, government-led strategy on public engagement is important. Scotland is already leading the way by having a climate change public engagement strategy. The suggestions for what such a strategy should include mirror much of what is within the existing PES, however the findings serve as a reminder to ensure the strategy is support by sufficient resource, encourages cross-sector thinking, and is linked to a feasible vision for net zero.

Literature and stakeholder interviews suggest that an engagement strategy should coordinate large-scale activities and support local activities, over a sustained period of time [28], [55], [60], [66], [67], [68], [182], [223]. It should raise awareness, normalise climate action, invite people to shape decision-making and enable people to take action via structural support and behavioural approaches [4], [26], [30], [54], [57], [63], [69], [223].

“Joining of the dots into a coherent system is so important. It’s important to make effective use of public budgets and resources, to not burn people out and create more scepticism, and to demonstrate that there is a … coherent system of different spaces that are complementary… It’s not about any single public engagement process. All of them have strengths and weaknesses. It’s about their combination and their purpose.” (Stakeholder – public policy and engagement expert).

A government public engagement strategy should be embedded in the national climate change strategy [67] and be properly resourced and funded. It should include a concrete, positive, feasible vision for net zero, that has been co-produced and consistently communicated [14], [23], [26], [28], [30], [54], [60], [67], [223]. It should encourage cross-sector thinking and discussion [67], as well as including sector-specific strategies for hard-to-decarbonise areas [223].

Build on and support existing public engagement initiatives

The literature and stakeholders highlighted the importance of acknowledging and building upon any public engagement work that is already being carried out. This includes mapping, linking up and giving a platform to small-scale, bottom-up initiatives. Stakeholders suggested that a role for governments could be to provide resources, funding, legal advice and networking opportunities to grassroots and community initiatives already taking place.

“In some communities of place, there’s very little social capital left to initiate [engagement or advocacy]. What happens there? Well, that’s where the state needs to take the first step… What is needed is that kind of seed investment to get things going… The role of the state is to create the spaces where those ideas and actions can be supported and invested in.” (Stakeholder – public policy and engagement expert).

Stakeholders also pointed out that not all relevant groups may describe themselves as ‘climate’ groups (e.g., they may fall under community engagement labels) and not all will want to engage in the same way.

Show strong leadership, be trustworthy and transparent

Several sources highlighted the importance of strong government leadership in building collective efficacy and trust [4], [17], [30], [54], [63], [69]. This not only means having ambitious climate targets and strong climate policies, but also ‘leading by example’ (government actors and departments behaving in line with their climate communications and policy). Platforming and supporting others’ pro-climate behaviours is also considered part of strong leadership, as is leading international cooperation on public engagement (also referred to as Action for Climate Empowerment or ‘ACE’) [223].

Literature showed the importance of being honest about the engagement process and about the environmental issue being discussed, including the benefits, risks and areas of uncertainty [12], [53]. The importance of trusted messengers, who are referred to throughout the PES, was also clear from the literature. Building trust was also seen as important among focus group participants. They felt it was important for the information shared as part of public engagement on climate change to be balanced and evidence-based, in order for people to make informed judgements on the issues. Similarly, they felt that there should be a neutral or balanced perspective among people running or speaking at public engagement events. There was some cynicism about the motivations of those that carry out public engagement, which can diminish trust in the process.

“It depends on the answer [the commissioner] is chasing…. if they want something to go through, they’ll find the people they want to sit on that meeting. It’s very easy to buy the answer that you want.” (Focus group participant).

Some felt that public engagement can be used to endorse a pre-determined point of view and that participants can be chosen because they already have a vested interest in the outcome. They gave examples of recent consultations on topics such as local transport or farming practices which they felt had a foregone conclusion.

To help built trust in the engagement process, focus group participants felt that the organisation responsible for implementing the findings should be transparent about the actions they are taking as a result and be held accountable for doing so.

“Once we agree, or the Government agrees, a plan… they have to be accountable. So how do you make them accountable?…[Continually provide us with] an update on how [Scotland] is doing [on climate change targets] and how we’re doing against other countries. Make it real for everyone.” (Focus group participant).

This need for accountability was linked to a concern that organisations might change their minds about a decision or go back on what was agreed as part of the engagement. While this concern was largely framed in terms of private sector organisations overturning decisions due to commercial interests, it reflects a broader point about ensuring transparency about how findings from engagement activities have been acted upon.

Get the timing right

The research did not identify an optimum length or duration of public engagement, as this varies depending on the style, purpose and context of activities. However, literature did suggest that good public engagement should be conducted consistently over long periods of time. Even ‘standalone’ projects should give people the opportunity to stay involved and be updated after completion. This requires commissioners and practitioners to be proactive, organising engagement activities at the right time, for example well before legal obligations or public pressure necessitate it [1], [4], [12], [26], [28], [60], [66], [182]. People may also be particularly open to change during big life events (e.g. moving cities) and key societal moments (e.g. Covid-19) [69].

Embed public engagement in decision-making

A theme that emerged strongly in the literature and interviews was the importance of integrating public engagement within formal decision-making processes, in a co-ordinated way. Partly that means responding meaningfully to the outputs and recommendations of participatory activities and clearly communicating with the public about how engagement links with the policy process. But, broader than that, it also means viewing engagement activities not as isolated ad hoc events, but as part of an ongoing process that is systematically linked with decision-making [169]. For example, participants should be supported by permanent structures that enable them to hold decision-makers to account [179]. These could include permanent assemblies [173], invitations to government meetings and involvement in the implementation and monitoring of public engagement outputs.

“I think that’s the next frontier, making participation a way of everyday working.” (Stakeholder – climate assemblies expert).

“What we are short on is on a public engagement that is more co-productive, that puts as much emphasis on … that ongoing, more kind of co-productive relationship, I guess. And I think that’s where the public engagement agenda in Scotland needs to move.” (Stakeholder – public policy and engagement expert).

The evidence suggests that efforts should also be made to embed public engagement in the way government works, making it a ‘reflex’ for policy makers – i.e. something automatic, that happens as part of everyday operations [54], [55], [68], [182]. For example, public administrations should get a clear mandate from policy makers for using public engagement to inform policy and make public engagement an aim of new projects. Public engagement training could be provided to policy makers and their annual appraisals and promotions could consider involvement with engagement initiatives.

Demonstrate how the public’s views have been acted on

The need for demonstrable outcomes from public engagement was a strong theme in the focus groups. Participants felt that, for engagement to be worthwhile, it needs to have a clear outcome and, ideally, result in real change. They stressed the importance of ensuring that the public feel that they are being listened to, as this creates a sense of empowerment.

“It is really important to make sure that people thought their opinions were valued. So, make sure that they’re actually being listened to and take away the feeling of, like, powerlessness in the conversations…If you’re not in a position of power, it can be kind of difficult to make that happen.” (Focus group participant).

There was some cynicism, however, about whether public engagement always leads to action. This criticism was not directed at one particular type of engagement or organisation, but participants shared their own experience of local consultations or engagement activities that they felt had lacked impact. One example was a consultation about ferry services in island areas, during which participants felt concerns had not been listened to acted upon. This had created a sense of frustration and diminished trust in the organisation and the process. Another example was the hosting of COP26 in Glasgow, which was criticised for not having resulted in any meaningful change for the public.

“A lot of these things, you can go to them, but does it make a difference? I’ve been to [consultation events] about the ferries and they just spout the company line and they go away. People get annoyed. Nothing happens.” (Focus group participant)

“COP26, there was so much hype around it but really, was there enough messaging that filtered through and made people want to make change?” (Focus group participant)

Summary and relevance for the PES

These findings provide lessons for the overall direction of the PES at a strategic level. They suggest that, for the remainder of the PES, consideration should be given to:

• Ensuring the PES is supported by sufficient resource, encourages cross-sector thinking, and delvers multiple approaches to engagement.
• Working through existing networks of organisations delivering engagement at a local, community and regional basis. Scottish Government’s role in this respect could be as enabler and supporter of these public engagement activities, either through funding, advice, or other types of support.
• Leading by example. To demonstrate credibility and ensure the public trust in delivery of the PES, the Scottish Government could be transparent about what actions are being taken and why, showcase pro-climate behaviours, and be open about the role of public engagement activities and how the findings will be used.
• While there is no set guidance on when public engagement should take place, timing should be considered part of the overall approach to gaining trust and credibility. In practice this means engagement taking place early enough so that the findings can make a difference to a particular policy area.
• Making clear how the public’s involvement will have an impact on decisions. Focus group participants were clear that the public should be reassured that they have been listened to and that their contributions have made a difference. Potential approaches could be to build this messaging into specific engagement activities at the beginning (i.e. making clear what has already happened as a result of previous engagements), at the end (i.e. through follow-up communications after an initial exercise) or as part of an ongoing programme of communication from government. Lessons can be learned from countries such as Ireland and Belgium where citizens’ assemblies have included formalised feedback processes.

Conclusions

The research showed that there is no single best way to engage the public on climate change. Public engagement should use multiple and varied contexts, scales, activities, depths of engagement, approaches and intervention points. Top-down approaches may be more effective at raising awareness at scale, but grassroots approaches lead to more meaningful engagement.

This research has identified a number of lessons for future public engagement on climate change that can inform future decisions related to the PES. These lessons are based on a combination of best practice examples in the evidence review and the views from focus groups with the general public. Of course, it will not be possible to do everything or to reach everyone. What can be achieved will be dependent on time, money and other resources, and choices will need to be made about what public engagement approaches to take and when. To help prioritise next steps, the key lessons from this research are presented in two groups:

• Firstly, the areas that are not currently included or not outlined in detail in the PES. These “newer” lessons could be prioritised for the remainder of the PES.
• Secondly, the areas in which the content of the PES already aligns with best practice, and which should be continued.

Areas for future consideration in the PES

The research has identified areas that are not referred to, or not outlined in detail, in the PES. These newer approaches could be taken into consideration for the remainder of the PES period. These are not presented in order of priority, but are grouped under the three strategic objectives of the PES to which they most closely relate.

Understand

• Ensure that climate change messaging reflects the context of those it is aimed towards (including cultural, political and geographic factors) and is focussed on practical actions for individuals. Linking with other, non-climate topics can help to engage the public on climate change. Framing it in terms of impacts on health, safety and wellbeing were seen as particularly effective.
• Balance both positive and negative, or fear-based, messaging. The merits of both these approaches were discussed in the literature and in the focus groups. While there is a potential conflict between those two directions, the overall sentiment was that governments should be honest about the risks and uncertainties of climate change, but also convey positive, practical actions that the public can adopt. This point was particularly relevant to communications campaigns but could also be applied to information conveyed through other communication channels and in educational settings.
• When conveying the message, explore different approaches such as the use of visual communication and humour to convey information. Humour is an area not specifically mentioned in the PES and is one of the more emerging strands in the evidence review. This is potentially an area for further testing and development in the next stages of the PES.
• In education settings, encourage and enable approaches that foster collaboration and co-design with learners. Examples in the literature included staff-student collaborations and student-led projects, training local community members or action groups to deliver non-formal education, and co-developing toolkits with key stakeholders.

Participate

• Demonstrate that the public have been listened to and that action has been taken as a result of their participation. This was a strong theme in the general public focus groups and they considered it a high priority for future public engagement. It is important to be clear on and convey how the public are having an influence on decisions, be transparent about how those decisions are being acted upon, and keep the public updated on progress towards outcomes. Potential approaches could be to build this messaging into specific engagement activities at the beginning (i.e. making clear what has already happened as a result of previous, similar engagements), at the end (i.e. through programming in follow-up communications after an initial exercise) or as part of an ongoing programme of communication from government.
• Think carefully about who is involved in deliberative, co-design and other participatory processes. As part of the design of the processes, consider how best to draw on people’s local knowledge and lived experience.
• Encourage active forms of participation to help engage people in different ways. This can include approaches such as citizens’ science, which involves the public directly in data collection and other research activities, and participatory budgeting, which has a clear link between the public’s involvement and the decisions being taken as a result. These approaches can complement other, more established engagement approaches such as citizens’ assemblies.
• Explore the use of creative activities. Some of these approaches, such as gaming and virtual reality, are still relatively new in the literature so would benefit from further exploration and testing before being used more widely.

Act

• Make climate change relevant to people’s lives and conveying why their actions are important. The research showed that climate change can seem a distant topic for some, and there is still some scepticism amongst the public about the difference that their individual actions can make to climate change targets.
• Give people autonomy by supporting co-production and co-creation processes. These approaches can help give the public a say in the way they engage and ownership over outputs or recommendations. This can foster a sense of empowerment and help legitimises the process.
• Integrate public engagement into policy decision making. This includes responding meaningfully to the outputs and recommendations of public engagement and clearly communicating with the public about how their engagement links with the policy process. More broadly it means viewing engagement activities not as isolated ad hoc events, but as part of an ongoing process that is systematically linked with decision-making.
• Take measures that help boost collective efficacy. Measures to build collective efficacy included using messaging that emphasise social norms, shared beliefs and a sense of community. Examples of this include sharing testimonials, photos and videos of citizens taking action, or hosting competitions, quizzes and user-generated content on social media. Promoting a sense of ownership of engagement outcomes and recommendation can also support feelings of self and collective efficacy.

Existing aspects of the PES that should continue

Overall, findings from this research support many of the principles, activities and initiatives within the PES. Themes such as inclusion, transparency, and evidence-based approaches are all principles for the PES and were all identified in this research as important features of public engagement. This suggests that the Scottish Government’s approach is already in line with some of the public engagement best practice happening in other places.

The research highlights some key areas that the Scottish Government should continue to focus on in the delivery of the PES:

• Have a clear strategy with multiple engagement approaches. Scotland is already leading the way, not just in have the PES in place but also having a built-in process of monitoring and evaluation. The PES should continue to provide a clear and positive vision for the future and include multiple approaches, including co-ordinating large-scale engagement and supporting smaller local engagement. It could explore more creative innovative activities than those currently used, including strategy-level ideas such as an Open Climate Data Platform and cross-Government digital public engagement tools
• Ensure communication is inclusive, wide-reaching and targeted to the audience. Much of the best practice on communication and education is already captured within the PES. This includes the need to be inclusive and accessible, to communicate with different audiences in different ways and to use messaging that highlights the relevance to individuals.
• Consider what makes a “trusted” messenger and use these to help convey relevant messages. Clear and specific examples of trusted messengers were highlighted in the research (e.g. nature conservation charities, healthcare professionals, scientists, etc.). Specific groups aside, overarching characteristics that people trusted included sincerity, kindness, honesty, empathy, passion, and credibility. The type of organisation, and what principles they stand for, are therefore both important considerations when partnering with these messengers on public engagement.
• Follow best practice on participatory approaches and how to remove barriers to engagement. Continuing to follow best practice and learnings from previous engagements such as Scotland’s Climate Assembly for deliberative and co-designed processes. This includes thinking carefully about who is there and how best to draw on local knowledge, lived experience and other types of expertise. In keeping with best practice engagement principles, the research highlighted the need to remove barriers to participation as much as possible. Particular attention should be paid to the barriers faced by marginalised communities and thinking carefully about how best to engage them.
• Tracking and evaluating effectiveness. As well as the ongoing evaluation that is written into the PES, this should also involve testing different interventions, measuring their impact, and sharing learnings with others

Appendices

1. Appendix A – Research methodology additional detail

A.1. Desk-based evidence review: Approach to identifying evidence

A desk-based review of evidence was carried out to identify public engagement activities and examples of best practice. The review was designed to primarily answer the first two research questions.

A systematic search of academic literature was carried out on Scopus and Google Scholar, using pre-agreed search terms and parameters. This was supplemented with searches of relevant grey literature using Overton, OECD Library, World Cat and organisational websites. Inclusion criteria for the review were agreed in advance. All literature was written in English and published in 2020 or later (since a previous ClimateXChange study in 2020 that explored public engagement on climate change). The review included examples relevant to all three aspects of the PES objectives (‘Understand’, ‘Participate’ and ‘Act’). It focused as much as possible on sources that evaluated public engagement, to shed light on the question of “how to do good public engagement?” This included empirical studies, case studies, evidence reviews, and lessons drawn from relevant theory.

A total of 292 sources were reviewed, 236 of which were academic and 56 of which were grey literature.

A.2. Desk-based evidence review: Types of evidence reviewed

The evidence review highlighted a wide range of public engagement activities. Most of these engaged people around broad ‘climate’ or ‘environment’ issues. But some focused on more specific topics, including adaptation, consumption, waste, diet, transport, energy, justice, health, land use, nature, ocean sustainability, water management, sea level rise, geoengineering and carbon capture and storage (CCS).

The evidence had a global reach, but rich ‘Western’ regions such as the UK, Europe and North America dominated. Public engagement interventions covered a range of scales (from local to multi-country) and timeframes (from single sessions to multi-year projects). Audiences were generally citizens or residents, but some initiatives targeted particular groups (e.g. healthcare professionals, students, farmers, rural communities, young people).

Whilst there are many examples of government-led or government-supported public engagement interventions, there are few occasions where these have been evaluated. Therefore, as this review only included sources that evaluated public engagement activities, most of the interventions were academic or NGO-led rather than government-led.

A.3. Desk-based evidence review: Quality and limitations of evidence

There was a substantial amount of evidence that evaluated public engagement interventions, including those with pre- and post-measurement designs. However, evaluation was often over short periods of time, in artificial settings and involved self-report data, limiting the applicability of findings. Additionally, Scotland is one of very few countries to have a public engagement strategy on climate change. Therefore, while there is evidence regarding how to effectively conduct climate change public engagement activities, there are limited occasions where a (national) climate change engagement strategy has been evaluated. Strategy-level reflections tends to be suggestive, based on relevant theory, rather than on practice.

It is also important to point out that links between variables such as engagement, awareness, attitudes and behaviour are complex. Notably, many studies measured behavioural intention, which is an important antecedent of behaviour but does not automatically lead to behaviour change.

A.4. Desk-based evidence review: Types of public engagement

The range of activities identified in the evidence review fell into three main categories:

• Communication and education: Large-scale communication campaigns, information packs, door-to-door canvassing, e-mail campaigns, radio messages, news broadcasting, social media posts, single message testing (videos, images, pure text), menus, posters. Education included school classes, university modules/lectures, curriculum changes, challenges, gamification, inquiry-based learning (where the learners choose which questions to investigate), writing reflections, argumentation training, apps, cooking classes, nature-based workshops, community action groups, training for particular professions, farmer field schools, peer discussions.
• Deliberative engagement and co-design: Climate assemblies, global assembly, mini-publics, advisory councils, climate commissions, participatory planning, participatory budgeting, participation in decision-making, stakeholder engagement workshops, stakeholder collaboration, citizen science, virtual engagement, gamification.
• Creative activities: Art, interactive theatre, digital games, board games, role-play, escape rooms, virtual reality, simulations, gamified places, mobile devices/apps, social media, internet of things (IoT), artificial intelligence (AI), interactive informational exhibits, plogging, photovoice, environmental events.

These categories are broad and there is a lot of overlap between them – for example, creative methods were used in educational and participatory interventions; communication principles were referenced in all activity types. There were also some sources that took a more top level (rather than activity-specific) approach, discussing general principles for doing good public engagement or ideas for developing and implementing a public engagement strategy.

Regarding the PES objectives, there was a lot of overlap across different types of activity, with many sources relating to more than one objective. There were some trends – for example, literature around deliberation and co-design activities tended to focus on ‘participate’, while education literature often focused on ‘understand’. However, overall, links between activities and PES objectives were not clear cut.

A.5. Stakeholder interviews

Interviews were conducted with six stakeholders, representing public engagement practitioners and specialists. These interviews were designed to complement the evidence review, and explored views on public engagement best practice and lessons for future public engagement for governments like the Scottish Government. Stakeholders with the following roles and from the noted locations represented different types of organisations involved the climate change public engagement space:

• Climate communicator (USA)
• Climate assemblies expert (Europe)
• Climate campaigner and outreach organiser (Australia)
• Public engagement delivery organisation (Seychelles)
• Climate advocacy and engagement organisation (Europe)
• Public policy and engagement expert (UK)

The stakeholders were identified by the research team at Ipsos and CAST based on the team’s existing knowledge of the sector. The mix of stakeholders was chosen to reflect different types of involvement in public engagement on climate change, different international locations and different topic specialisms. The list was agreed with ClimateXChange and the Scottish Government in advance. Interviews were conducted by phone or video, following a semi-structured discussion guide.

A.6. General public focus groups

Focus groups were carried out with members of the Scottish public to help address the third research question. The broad aim of the focus groups was to understand the public’s views on what good public engagement on climate change looked like, and how the Scottish Government should approach public engagement on climate change in future.

Four focus groups were carried out, each with seven or eight participants and each lasting 90 minutes. A mix of online and in-person focus groups were used, to help cater to different needs and accessibility requirements. Each group was designed to be broadly representative of the population (in terms of age, gender, working status, and disability or health condition) with certain groups intentionally over-represented to ensure adequate representation (those from ethnic minority groups and 16-24 year olds).

Participants were recruited by telephone via a specialist recruitment agency. A screening questionnaire was used to ensure their eligibility for the research and to meet the demographic quotas. A summary of each group is provided in Figure 1.

Figure A1 – Focus group summary

Focus groups were structured around a topic guide designed by the research team and agreed with ClimateXChange and the Scottish Government in advance. As part of the discussions, participants were shown examples of public engagement on climate change in the form of international case studies that had been identified in the evidence review. These are referred to throughout the report. Discussion guides and stimulus materials used in the focus groups are shown in Appendices C and D.

1. Appendix B – Case studies of public engagement

During the focus groups, participants were presented with four case study examples of previous public engagement activities from different parts of the world. While their views on each case study informs the main report, a summary of views on each is included here.

1. Make It Better campaign

The Make It Better campaign was run by the Ontario Public Health Association to raise awareness of the health impacts of climate change for children. Information was shared via social media, on a dedicated website, and through local public health professionals. People were able to sign a pledge on the website, committing to taking action.

Positives:

• Topic seen as relevant – a current issue that lots of people will relate to
• Subject seen as relatively uncontroversial for most people
• Topic seen as serious and ’hard hitting’
• Hashtag to boost reach

Concerns:

• Digital exclusion
• Pledges insubstantial/easily ignored
• Not ‘dramatic’ enough to capture attention and ‘cut through the noise’
• Would need to be more information about actions to take to be effective

“[The campaign] makes [climate change impacts] very tangible […] like, how does it affect us right now, right here? And it really joins the dots a bit.”

2. Carbon footprint food tracking app: Floop

Floop is a free app that allows people to track the carbon footprint of the food they buy. Developed by a private UK company, Floop’s features include meal logs, target setting, and suggested recipes.

Positives:

• Easy and convenient to use an app
• Liked that it has multiple features
• Potential to compare or compete

Concerns:

• Too much hassle
• Digital exclusion
• Needs promotion to people who wouldn’t think to look for it
• Focus on individual lifestyle choices and making people feel guilty
• Would make food shopping expensive
• Not always a wide choice for consumers (especially in rural areas)
• Preference for carbon labelling on packaging instead
• Distrust of how politicians would use data from this type of app
• A feeling that apps are commercial -not associated with public bodies
• Wariness around in-app purchases

“It’s just too much faffing about […] I try not to buy anything that’s travelled too far […] but something like this, I just could not be bothered.”

3. Maine’s climate coalition

This was a partnership, including labour unions, climate groups and advocates, who worked together develop plans for how offshore wind energy should be put in place in Maine. They met with community groups, including those who opposed windfarms, and government officials. The plans they developed informed a new bill brough in by the government.

Positives:

• A “ground up” approach
• Driven by organisations without a vested interest in making a profit
• Diverse stakeholders – e.g. unions will consider jobs not just the climate
• Inclusion of opposing viewpoints
• Created a significant impact

Concerns:

• Lack of involvement of ordinary members of the public
• Risk of only those with strong views being included
• Climate specialists may cause public to feel underqualified to share views
• Sounds like a big time commitment

“It wasn’t just, you know, one government official saying, this is what I want, or, you know, or one private company. [It] came from the ground up.”

4. Citizen’s science air quality project

A team at a university in Buenos Aires ran workshops with students to build air quality sensors. They put out an open advertisement for volunteers, who attached the sensors to their bikes for 7 weeks. The data collected was used to produce a city-level visualisation of air pollution.

Positives:

• Community given the chance to get involved and make a difference
• Brings people together, builds networks, could lead to further action
• People would be more interested in the findings/the topic
• Gets people active
• Concept could work well via different mediums, e.g. data collection apps

Concerns:

• Demanding – risk of volunteer fatigue
• Public may not collect accurate data
• Not clear what the impact would be, it’s just a data gathering exercise
• Topic of air pollution – some negative associations e.g. potential for ULEZ
• Bikes not suitable for all people/areas

“[People] are actually allowed to get involved more than just [sharing] thoughts […] it’ll certainly feel so much more like they are [making an impact].”

1. Appendix C – Discussion guides for focus groups

• Introduction – 18.00 (3-5 mins)

Aim: to set expectations and cover ground rules

Thank you for joining us today. My name is …. and I work for Ipsos, an independent research company.

Today we are going to be discussing the best ways to engage the public in conversations relating to climate change.

This research has been commissioned by ClimateXChange, Scotland’s centre of expertise on climate change, on behalf of the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government is interested in finding out how people feel about the ways the public have been involved in discussions about climate change in the past, and how best to engage with the public in future. The research involves group discussions (including this one) with people across Scotland, as well as looking at other research that has already been carried out in Scotland and other countries about what works well when engaging people in climate change issues. It is looking at ways that people are informed about climate change, how they are encouraged to take part in discussions about climate change, and how they are encouraged to take action.

The findings from this research will be used by ClimateXChange and the Scottish Government to understand what might work well to engage with people about climate change in future. So your input is really valuable and we really appreciate you joining us.

Firstly- a brief overview of how the discussion will work:

• Explain that the discussion will last until 7.30 pm
• Cover general housekeeping, videos on, mobile phones on silent
• FOR IN PERSON GROUPS: cover practicalities e.g. toilets/exits
• FOR ONLINE GROUPS: if connection drops in online groups – text moderator/wait for moderator to return SHARE MOBILE [redacted]

Before we begin, I would like to…

• stress that there are no right or wrong answers – we are just interested in understanding your views
• reassure you about anonymity and confidentiality. Ipsos is fully compliant with the Market Research Society Code of Conduct. No information about individuals will be passed on to anyone outside the research team
• note that there’s a lot to cover, so I may move you on from time to time
• ask if you could respect each other’s viewpoints and speak one at a time
• give you the option of writing down your thoughts on a post-it or in the chat if you would like to
• request permission to record the discussions to assist with our analysis and reporting

CHECK FOR CONSENT TO RECORD

3. Warm up – 18.05 (5-7 mins)

TURN ON RECORDER

Let’s start off with some introductions. It would be great to have everybody introduce themselves and let us know what you would usually be doing this evening if you weren’t taking part in this discussion?

GO ROUND EVERYONE

4. Discussion 1: Awareness and experiences of public engagement on climate change – 18.10 (10 mins)

Aim: Get an understanding of experiences and views on public engagement generally.

As you heard, we are interested in how the Scottish Government and other organisations communicate with people about climate change.

Firstly, what kind of issues come to mind when you think about climate change?

PROMPT if needed: What sorts of words or phrases come to mind when you hear that term?

What aspect of climate change would you say you have heard most about?

• PROBES (ONLY USE IF NECESSARY): How about the ways in which we might respond to climate change and how it impacts our lives day-to-day, e.g.
• The way we get around?
• The way we heat our homes?
• The types of food we produce and eat?
• Other things, such as clothes, that we buy?
• The way we handle our waste?

What sorts of ways would you say the public can be involved in discussions and have their say about climate change issues?

• Any examples they can think of?

Before today, have you taken part in activities where you shared your views on issues relating to climate change? (E.g. this might have been a public meeting, a consultation, attending an event)

IF NO: Have you shared your views on other topics, for example about changes in your local area, how public spaces are used, or public transport?

• IF YES TO EITHER:
• What did this involve?
• Why did you get involved?
• How did you find this? What worked well/less well?
• IF NO TO BOTH: Do you think you would have liked to have taken part in something like this?

5. Discussion 2: What is ‘good’ public engagement? 18.20 (15 mins)

Aim: to develop understanding of what public engagement is, some key approaches used, and explore expectations about what would characterise a successful engagement. These principles will then be applied to their ‘review’ of detailed examples in the next section.

Getting involved in these conversations and having your say about climate change in the ways we’ve been discussing can be described as “public engagement”. This slide summarises what we mean be that:

SHARE SLIDE WITH DEFINTION OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & EXAMPLES

So when we talk about public engagement, we mean a range of ways that raise our awareness and understanding of an issue, enable us to participate in decision making, and encourage people to take action.

There are lots of different examples of public engagement. Later this evening we will look at a few of this in detail, but for now I’ve shown on the slide here some of the main types. You may or may not have heard of these, but they include:

• Communication campaigns raise awareness about a topic, with information shared in range of ways such as through websites, social media, advertising, other media channels and public events.
• Organised group discussions, where members of the public are invited to come along (either in a room, or online like we are tonight) to discuss their views about a particular issue or topic. There is usually a limit to the number of people that are asked to attend these discussions, and they are usually on a set date and time.
• Public meetings, or drop in events, where the public can come along and have their say about topic. The difference between this and organised group discussions is that in a public meeting anyone that wants to can attend, whereas with organised groups there are usually some criteria used to decide how many and what different types of people can attend.
• Open online consultations, where you can submit ideas or feedback on an issue, via a website
• And then the final one, you may have heard some of these terms like Citizens Assemblies or Citizens Forums. These are like the organised group discussions, but are typically bigger, so 50 to 100 people at each meeting, and usually run over several days or weekends. But we’ll say more about those later.
• Why do you think organisations would choose one type of public engagement over another?
• PROBE: What sorts of considerations do you think they would have in mind when deciding what approach is best?

Now that we’ve seen what public engagement is and some of the ways it can be done, I’d like you each take a few minutes and think about the following question:

What would ‘good’ public engagement look like to you? (5 MINS)

IN-PERSON GROUPS: Could you please pair up with the person next to you and do this together? Write down your thoughts on post-it notes and then we can put them all on the flipchart. [Suggest which pairings to avoid confusion, include group of 3 if odd number]

ONLINE GROUPS: Note down your thoughts, and then I’ll ask everyone to share this, and I’ll write it all d own on my [slides/screen].

FOR ALL:

Try to think about public engagement about climate change issues specifically, as that is what we are most interested in.

• There are no right or wrong answers here, we just want to hear any views at all
• You could think about things like:
• who organises the public engagement,
• what information is shared with the public,
• how this information is shared and with who?
• whether members of the public get involved,
• how those people are selected/invited,
• what people are asked to do etc.

PROBE EACH PAIR ON REASONS FOR THEIR ANSWERS.

• Would good public engagement be the same no matter what the organisers of the engagement are trying to achieve?
• And final question before we take a quick 5 minute break, what would ‘bad’ public engagement look like then? Would it just be the opposite of the things you have listed under ‘good’, or would it be anything else?

BREAK 18.35 – 18.40 (5 mins)

Case Study examples – 18.40 (45 mins)

Aim: to test views on different types of public engagement on climate change in more detail, by examining specific examples identified in the literature review. As well as getting views on these specific examples, the aim is to get to some of the underlying views on what they consider important in terms of future public engagement.

So far we have been talking about how and why people get involved in decisions about climate change, and what ‘good’ public engagement would look like. I’d now like us to talk about that in a bit more detail, by looking at some examples of how this has been done in the past.

There are a few examples we are going to talk through, and we’ll show some information on screen to summarise what they involved. After each one, I’ll stop and ask for your views. Really what we are interested in here is how you feel about the way the public have been engaged in each example – you might think they are good examples, you might not, but any opinions are welcome.

SHOW THE FOLLOWING 4 METHOD EXAMPLES AS IDENTIFIED IN THE EVIDENCE REVIEW. HAVE POWERPOINT SLIDES SUMMARISING EACH ONE (INCLUDING IMAGES).

SPEND 10 MINUTES ON EACH CASE STUDY. ORDER OF THE EXAMPLES WILL BE ROTATED BETWEEN FOCUS GROUP, SO THAT EACH GROUP STARTS WITH A DIFFERENT ONE.

FACILITATOR NOTE – IF ASKED, THERE ARE NO SET PLANS FOR THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT TO IMPLEMENT THESE ACTIVITIES IN SCOTLAND, BUT SIMILAR ACTIVITIES HAVE TAKEN PLACE HERE. STRESS THAT THE AIM OF THESE EXAMPLES IS TO UNDERSTAND IF THERE ARE ANY ELEMENTS OF THEM THAT THEY PARTICULARLY LIKE OR DISLIKE, RATHER THAN TO DECIDE WHETHER THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT SHOULD PUT THESE SPECIFIC IDEAS IN PLACE.

FOR EACH EXAMPLE, PROBE ON:

• Immediate thoughts/reactions?
• What are the positives about this example? And negatives? (REFERRING BACK TO THEIR IDEAS FOR WHAT ‘GOOD’ ENGAGMENT LOOKED LIKE)

SPECIFIC PROBES FOR EACH EXAMPLE:

Example 1: Make It Better campaign:

How did you feel about….

• The link between climate change and health?
• The way information was share with the public?
• How easy or difficult it would be to find out about this?
• That this was targeted at parents, caregivers and health professionals?
• What is missing? How could it be better?
• What would you do if you saw this campaign?
• What if the Scottish Government or another public agency had a similar campaign – how would you feel about that?
• Would it make a difference who was delivering the campaign?
• Would you do anything differently if you saw a campaign this like from the Scottish Government? Why/why not

Example 2: The food carbon app:

How did you feel about….

• The link between climate change and food?
• The fact that this was an app?
• How easy or difficult it would be to get involved in this?
• How easy or difficult it would be use?
• What is missing? How could it be better?
• What would you do if you saw this app?
• What if the Scottish Government or another public agency had an app like this – how would you feel about that?
• Would it make a difference what organisation launched the app?
• Would you do anything differently if you saw something like this from the Scottish Government? Why/why not

Example 3: Main’s climate coalition

How did you feel about….

• The types of groups that were involved – labour unions, environmental groups and climate advocates?
• The amount of time and input they gave i.e. meetings with each other, meetings with government, working up plans?
• How easy or difficult it would be for members of the public to get involved in this?
• What is missing? How could it be better?
• What if this sort of activity was happening in your area – would you get involved? Why/why not?
• What if the Scottish Government or another public agency was encouraging groups to get together and develop plans like this – who would you feel about that?
• Would it make a difference what organisation led this sort of programme?
• Would you do anything differently if you saw something like this being organised by the Scottish Government? Why/why not

Example 4: Measuring air quality

How did you feel about….

• The way they recruited volunteers through an open advertisement?
• The number of people involved?
• What people were asked to do?
• The fact that the volunteers were asked to contribute to the research by going out and collecting data?
• How easy or difficult it would be to get involved in this?
• What is missing? How could it be better?
• What if the Scottish Government or another public agency was encouraging people to take part in an activity like this – who would you feel about that?
• Would it make a different what organisation led the activity?
• Would you do anything differently if you saw something like this being organised by the Scottish Government? Why/why not

Feedback and wrap up – 19.25 (5 mins)

We’re getting to the end of the discussion now, so I just have a few more questions

• From the examples we discussed, what are the most positive things that stand out for you?
• What would ideal future public engagement on climate change look like?
• If you could tell the Scottish Government one thing about how best to engage with the public in future what would be it be?

Thanks very much everyone for sharing your thoughts on these examples of public engagement, it’s been really interesting and useful to hear.

• Are there any final points anyone wants to add?
• Any final questions?

EXPLAIN INCENTIVES AND NEXT STEPS. THANK AND CLOSE.

1. Appendix D – Stimulus for focus groups

The stimulus for the focus groups took the form of six Powerpoint slides. For accessibility reasons, the content of these slides has been formatted into Word. Therefore, please note that this information looks slightly different to how it was displayed in PowerPoint, although it is as close as possible.

D.1. Content of stimulus slide 1 of 6 – Background information

Public engagement

A range of approaches that help to raise the public’s awareness and understanding of an issue, enable us to participate in decision making, and encourage us to take action. For example…

D.2. Content of stimulus slide 2 of 6 – What is good public engagement to you?

What would ‘good’ public engagement look like to you?

Figure D.3. Content of stimulus slide 3 of 6 – Make It Better Case Study

Make It Better campaign

• A campaign by the Ontario Public Health Association to address the health impacts of climate change.
• It aimed to inform people about the health-related risks of climate change for children (Lyme disease, asthma, heat-related illness).
• It provided tools and information to help parents, caregivers, health professionals and community members take actions that would help reduce the health risks of climate change.
• Information was shared by the Public Health Association over social media (using #MakeItBetter), on a dedicated website, and through local public health professionals.
• People were asked to:
• Sign the #MakeItBetter pledge (meaning they supported the campaign were committed to taking action)
• Keep themselves informed by learning more about how children’s health is impacted by climate change
• Share what they had learned with other people
• Discover ways to combat climate change and its impacts and take actions.

Figure D.4. Content of stimulus slide 4 of 6 – Food carbon app case study

Food carbon app

• “Floop” is a free app which tracks the carbon footprint of our food
• It was founded by three individuals who formed the company, based in the UK.
• It aims to bring attention to our carbon footprint and encourage people to eat more sustainable food.
• Users can download the app, log their daily meals and it calculates the carbon footprint of each meal. It also allows you to set targets for how much you want to reduce your carbon footprint by, and provides recipes and meal plans.
• The app includes information about the research that has been used to develop the app.
• Note that a number of other apps that calculate the carbon impact of food have been tested and/or launched elsewhere.

Figure D.5. Content of stimulus slide 5 of 6 – Maine’s climate coalition case study

Maine’s climate coalition

• A partnership in Maine, USA, that worked together to help inform local policies in relation to offshore wind energy.
• A number of labour unions, environmental groups and climate advocates came together and formed a partnership to push for the development of offshore windfarms in their area. Their view was that offshore wind could address climate change by creating clean energy and create jobs by building a new industry in the area.
• They met and worked together several times to develop plans for how offshore wind energy should be put in place. As well as meeting with each other, they met with various community groups, including those that opposed windfarms and various government officials.
• The plans they developed were shared with government and helped to inform a new bill that sets out how offshore wind should be put in place.

Figure D.6. Content of stimulus slide 6 of 6 – Measuring air quality case study

Measuring air quality

• A team at a university in Buenos Aires, Argentina, set out to understand the differences in air quality across different parts of the city.
• They ran workshops with 80 students where they built air quality sensors and learnt about the impact of air quality on health.
• They then put out an open advertisement for volunteers and recruited 20 people. These volunteers collected data on changes to air quality in the city by carrying the air quality sensors on their bikes for 7 weeks.
• Each volunteer regularly uploaded their data to an open platform. The data was then used to produce a city-level visualisation of air pollution (see image on right).
• Since then they launched similar air quality pilots in other cities in Argentina in partnership with local authorities.

References

Sources cited in the report

[1] Centre for Public Impact, ‘Public engagement for net zero: A literature review’, Centre for Public Impact, Apr. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.centreforpublicimpact.org/europe/engaging-the-public-on-climate-change

[2] C. Cherry, C. Verfuerth, and C. Demski, ‘Discourses of climate inaction undermine public support for 1.5 °C lifestyles’, Glob. Environ. Change, vol. 87, p. 102875, Jul. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2024.102875.

[3] A. McCarron, S. Semple, C. F. Braban, V. Swanson, C. Gillespie, and H. D. Price, ‘Public engagement with air quality data: Using health behaviour change theory to support exposure-minimising behaviours’, J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol., vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 321–331, 2023, doi: 10.1038/s41370-022-00449-2.

[4] K. Mitev, L. Player, C. Verfuerth, S. Westlake, and L. Whitmarsh, ‘The implications of behavioural science for effective climate policy: Output 1: Literature review and background report’, The Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations (CAST), Bath, England, Sep. 2023.

[5] K. Winter, M. J. Hornsey, L. Pummerer, and K. Sassenberg, ‘Anticipating and defusing the role of conspiracy beliefs in shaping opposition to wind farms’, Nat. Energy, vol. 7, no. 12, pp. 1200–1207, 2022, doi: 10.1038/s41560-022-01164-w.

[6] E. Kwakye and Y. B. Agyeman, ‘Influence of climate change information on community-based livelihood adaptation around Lake Bosomtwe, Ghana’, Int. J. Clim. Change Impacts Responses, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 21–34, 2022, doi: 10.18848/1835-7156/CGP/v14i02/21-34.

[7] F. Lange, R. Van Asbroeck, D. Van Baelen, and S. Dewitte, ‘For cash, the planet, or for both: Evaluating an informational intervention for energy consumption reduction’, Energy Policy, vol. 194, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2024.114314.

[8] H. Malan et al., ‘Increasing the selection of low-carbon-footprint entrées through the addition of new menu items and a social marketing campaign in university dining’, J. Assoc. Consum. Res., vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 461–470, 2022, doi: 10.1086/720450.

[9] K. Schmidt, ‘Behavioral effects of guideline-provision on climate-friendly food choices – A psychological perspective’, J. Clean. Prod., vol. 277, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123284.

[10] G. Shreedhar, A. Sabherwal, and R. Maldonado, ‘Cli-fi videos can increase charitable donations: Experimental evidence from the United Kingdom’, Front. Psychol., vol. 14, 2023, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1176077.

[11] M. Andreotta, F. Boschetti, S. Farrell, C. Paris, I. Walker, and M. Hurlstone, ‘Evidence for three distinct climate change audience segments with varying belief-updating tendencies: Implications for climate change communication’, Clim. Change, vol. 174, no. 3–4, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s10584-022-03437-5.

[12] K. Altman, B. Yelton, D. E. Porter, R. H. Kelsey, and D. B. Friedman, ‘The role of understanding, trust, and access in public engagement with environmental activities and decision making: A qualitative study with water quality practitioners’, Environ. Manage., vol. 71, no. 6, pp. 1162–1175, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s00267-023-01803-2.

[13] H. Palm, H. Pfeffer, N. Raith, and N. Brandstetter, ‘An interdisciplinary approach for successful municipal energy transition communication’, J. Environ. Stud. Sci., Jun. 2024, doi: 10.1007/s13412-024-00960-y.

[14] C. Shaw and S. Wang, ‘After the lockdown? New lessons for building climate change engagement in the UK’, Climate Outreach and the Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations (CAST), 2021.

[15] H. Chu and J. Z. Yang, ‘Risk or efficacy? How psychological distance influences climate change engagement’, Risk Anal., vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 758–770, 2020, doi: 10.1111/risa.13446.

[16] Y. Guo and Y. Hou, ‘COVID-19 pandemic as an opportunity or challenge: Applying psychological distance theory and the co-benefit frame to promote public support for climate change mitigation on social media’, Environ. Commun., vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 550–568, 2024, doi: 10.1080/17524032.2023.2205038.

[17] House of Lords, ‘In our hands: Behaviour change for climate and environmental goals’, Environment and Climate Change Committee, House of Lords, Oct. 2022.

[18] V. S. Limaye and B. Toff, ‘Evaluating responses to health-related messages about the financial costs of climate change’, J. Clim. Change Health, vol. 10, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.joclim.2023.100218.

[19] D. Powell and E. James, ‘How can politicians avoid a net-zero backlash? The role of public engagement: A briefing for policy makers and communicators. CAST Briefing 20’, The Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations (CAST), Bath, England, Nov. 2023.

[20] L. A. Selvey, M. Carpenter, M. Lazarou, and K. Cullerton, ‘Communicating about energy policy in a resource-rich jurisdiction during the climate crisis: Lessons from the people of Brisbane, Queensland, Australia’, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health, vol. 19, no. 8, 2022, doi: 10.3390/ijerph19084635.

[21] L. T. H. Sen, J. Bond, N. T. Dung, H. G. Hung, N. T. H. Mai, and H. T. A. Phuong, ‘Farmers’ barriers to the access and use of climate information in the mountainous regions of Thừa Thiên Huế province, Vietnam’, Clim. Serv., vol. 24, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.cliser.2021.100267.

[22] Y. L. Waters, K. A. Wilson, and A. J. Dean, ‘The role of iconic places, collective efficacy, and negative emotions in climate change communication’, Environ. Sci. Policy, vol. 151, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2023.103635.

[23] Centre for Public Impact, ‘Public engagement on climate change: A case study compendium’, Centre for Public Impact, Apr. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.centreforpublicimpact.org/europe/engaging-the-public-on-climate-change

[24] A. Corner, C. Demski, K. Steentjes, and N. Pidgeon, ‘Engaging the public on climate risks and adaptation: A briefing for UK communicators’, Climate Outreach, Oxford, 2020.

[25] C. Bretter, K. L. Unsworth, S. V. Russell, T. E. Quested, G. Kaptan, and A. Doriza, ‘Food waste interventions: Experimental evidence of the effectiveness of environmental messages’, J. Clean. Prod., vol. 414, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137596.

[26] C. Demski, ‘Net zero public engagement and participation: A research note’, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Mar. 2021.

[27] M. Lähdesmäki and A. Matilainen, ‘Female forest owners as a market segment? Results from a marketing experiment in the context of a small forest service enterprise’, Balt. For., vol. 27, no. 2, 2021, doi: 10.46490/BF606.

[28] C. Verfuerth, C. Demski, S. Capstick, L. Whitmarsh, and W. Poortinga, ‘A people-centred approach is needed to meet net zero goals’, J. Br. Acad., vol. 11, no. S4, pp. 97–124, 2023, doi: 10.5871/jba/011s4.097.

[29] R. J. Romsdahl, ‘Deliberative framing: Opening up discussions for local-level public engagement on climate change’, Clim. Change, vol. 162, no. 2, pp. 145–163, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s10584-020-02754-x.

[30] B. Zanin, C. Verfuerth, C. Demski, C. Cherry, L. Whitmarsh, and D. Powell, ‘Five principles for good public engagement: How to get people involved in the climate conversation. CAST Briefing 29’, The Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations (CAST), Bath, England, Jul. 2024.

[31] C. Mullins-Jaime and J. K. Wachter, ‘Motivating personal climate action through a safety and health risk management framework’, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health, vol. 20, no. 1, 2023, doi: 10.3390/ijerph20010007.

[32] E. Peters et al., ‘Evidence-based recommendations for communicating the impacts of climate change on health’, Transl. Behav. Med., vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 543–553, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.1093/tbm/ibac029.

[33] M. Sanderson, H. Doyle, and P. Walsh, ‘Developing and implementing a targeted health-focused climate communications campaign in Ontario—#MakeItBetter’, Can. J. Public Health., vol. 111, no. 6, pp. 869–875, 2020, doi: 10.17269/s41997-020-00352-z.

[34] E. Wolstenholme, W. Poortinga, and L. Whitmarsh, ‘Two birds, one stone: The effectiveness of health and environmental messages to reduce meat consumption and encourage pro-environmental behavioral spillover’, Front. Psychol., vol. 11, 2020, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.577111.

[35] S. Akehurst and L. Murphy, ‘A rising tide: Strengthening public permission for climate action’, Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), 2022.

[36] C. F. Nisa, J. J. Bélanger, and B. M. Scumpe, ‘Assessing the effectiveness of food waste messaging’, Environ. Sci. Policy, vol. 132, pp. 224–236, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2022.02.020.

[37] L. S. Svenningsen and B. J. Thorsen, ‘The effect of gain-loss framing on climate policy preferences’, Ecol. Econ., vol. 185, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107009.

[38] S. Timmons, Y. Andersson, and P. Lunn, ‘Framing climate change as a generational issue: Experimental effects on youth worry, motivation and belief in collective action’, Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI Working Paper No. 731, 2022.

[39] A. Prosser, D. Thorman, K. Mitev, L. Whitmarsh, and A. Sawas, ‘Developing an evidence-based toolkit for car reduction’, The Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations (CAST) and Climate Outreach, 2022.

[40] D. Barrios-O’Neill, ‘Focus and social contagion of environmental organization advocacy on Twitter’, Conserv. Biol., vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 307–315, 2021, doi: 10.1111/cobi.13564.

[41] L. Cameron, R. Rocque, K. Penner, and I. Mauro, ‘Evidence-based communication on climate change and health: Testing videos, text, and maps on climate change and Lyme disease in Manitoba, Canada’, PLoS ONE, vol. 16, no. 6 June, 2021, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252952.

[42] K. L. Akerlof, C. Boules, E. Ban Rohring, B. Rohring, and S. Kappalman, ‘Governmental communication of climate change risk and efficacy: Moving audiences toward “danger control”’, Environ. Manage., vol. 65, no. 5, pp. 678–688, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s00267-020-01283-8.

[43] T. Bolsen, R. Palm, and R. E. Luke, ‘Public response to solar geoengineering: How media frames about stratospheric aerosol injection affect opinions’, Clim. Change, vol. 176, no. 8, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s10584-023-03575-4.

[44] A. Gustafson, M. T. Ballew, M. H. Goldberg, M. J. Cutler, S. A. Rosenthal, and A. Leiserowitz, ‘Personal stories can shift climate change beliefs and risk perceptions: The mediating role of emotion’, Commun. Rep., vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 121–135, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.1080/08934215.2020.1799049.

[45] C. C. Anderson et al., ‘Public acceptance of nature-based solutions for natural hazard risk reduction: Survey findings from three study sites in Europe’, Front. Environ. Sci., vol. 9, 2021, doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2021.678938.

[46] O. I. Asensio, C. Z. Apablaza, M. C. Lawson, and S. E. Walsh, ‘A field experiment on workplace norms and electric vehicle charging etiquette’, J. Ind. Ecol., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 183–196, 2022, doi: 10.1111/jiec.13116.

[47] M. N. Bechtoldt, A. Götmann, U. Moslener, and W. P. Pauw, ‘Addressing the climate change adaptation puzzle: A psychological science perspective’, Clim. Policy, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 186–202, 2021, doi: 10.1080/14693062.2020.1807897.

[48] G. Caso, A. Annunziata, and R. Vecchio, ‘Let us go with the flow − Impact of a dynamic social norm nudge on parents’ school menu selection’, Food Qual. Prefer., vol. 121, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2024.105274.

[49] S. J. Goerg, A. Pondorfer, and V. Stöhr, ‘Regional variation in social norm nudges’, Sci. Rep., vol. 14, no. 1, 2024, doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-65765-z.

[50] C. R. Schneider and S. van der Linden, ‘Social norms as a powerful lever for motivating pro-climate actions’, One Earth, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 346–351, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2023.03.014.

[51] B. León, M. Bourk, W. Finkler, M. Boykoff, and L. S. Davis, ‘Strategies for climate change communication through social media: Objectives, approach, and interaction’, Media Int. Aust., vol. 188, no. 1, pp. 112–127, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.1177/1329878X211038004.

[52] Z. Shah, L. Wei, and U. Ghani, ‘The use of social networking sites and pro-environmental behaviors: A mediation and moderation model’, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 1–21, 2021, doi: 10.3390/ijerph18041805.

[53] A. Randall, D. Basu Ray, G. Kaur, and D. Zayad, ‘Something to talk about – success stories of public engagement to tackle climate change’, Climate Outreach. Accessed: Sep. 19, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://climateoutreach.org/public-engagement-case-studies/

[54] S. Allan, ‘What role for government? A practical guide to the types, roles and spaces of public engagement on climate’, Involve, Sep. 2023.

[55] National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, ‘Public engagement to build a strong social contract for deep decarbonization’, in Accelerating decarbonization in the United States: Technology, policy, and societal dimensions, in Accelerating Decarbonization in the United States: Technology, Policy, and Societal Dimensions. , 2024, p. 806. doi: 10.17226/25931.

[56] A. Rakhimov and E. Thulin, ‘Knowing behavior matters doesn’t hurt: The effect of individual climate behavior messaging on green policy support’, Oxf. Open Clim. Change, vol. 2, no. 1, 2022, doi: 10.1093/oxfclm/kgac007.

[57] C. Wamsler et al., ‘Meaning-making in a context of climate change: Supporting agency and political engagement’, Clim. Policy, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 829–844, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.1080/14693062.2022.2121254.

[58] Climate Outreach, ‘Beyond “trusted messengers”: New insights on trust & influence in climate communications’, Climate Outreach, Oxford, 2024.

[59] N. McLoughlin, C. Howarth, and G. Shreedhar, ‘Changing behavioral responses to heat risk in a warming world: How can communication approaches be improved?’, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change, vol. 14, no. 2, 2023, doi: 10.1002/wcc.819.

[60] M. Bapna et al., ‘Decision making in a changing climate: Adaptation challenges and choices’, United Nations Environment Programme, 2020.

[61] L. Fritz, C. M. Baum, S. Low, and B. K. Sovacool, ‘Public engagement for inclusive and sustainable governance of climate interventions’, Nat. Commun., vol. 15, no. 1, p. 4168, May 2024, doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-48510-y.

[62] F. S. Khatibi, A. Dedekorkut-Howes, M. Howes, and E. Torabi, ‘Can public awareness, knowledge and engagement improve climate change adaptation policies?’, Discov. Sustain., vol. 2, no. 1, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s43621-021-00024-z.

[63] C. Ledwell, D. Basu Ray, N. Hameed, and A. Sawas, ‘Public engagement on climate change adaptation: A briefing for developing country National Adaptation Plan teams’, Climate Outreach and the International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2023.

[64] O. Marquet, L. Mojica, M.-B. Fernández-Núñez, and M. Maciejewska, ‘Pathways to 15-minute city adoption: Can our understanding of climate policies’ acceptability explain the backlash towards x-minute city programs?’, Cities, vol. 148, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2024.104878.

[65] M. Murunga, C. Macleod, and G. Pecl, ‘Assumptions and contradictions shape public engagement on climate change’, Nat. Clim. Change, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 126–133, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.1038/s41558-023-01904-0.

[66] P. Parmiter and R. Bell, ‘Public perception of CCS: A review of public engagement for CCS projects’, EU CCUS Projects Network, 2020.

[67] T. Sasse, S. Allan, and J. Rutter, ‘Public engagement and net zero’, Institute for Government, Sep. 2021.

[68] I. Soutar et al., ‘Constructing practices of engagement with users and communities: Comparing emergent state-led smart local energy systems’, Energy Policy, vol. 171, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2022.113279.

[69] C. Verfuerth et al., ‘Catalysts of change: People at the heart of climate transformations: Key messages from five years of social science research on climate change’, The Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations (CAST), London, 2024.

[70] S. Wang, A. Corner, and J. Nicholls, ‘Britain Talks Climate: A toolkit for engaging the British public on climate change’, Climate Outreach, Oxford, 2020.

[71] J. L. Thürmer, J. Stadler, and S. M. McCrea, ‘Intergroup sensitivity and promoting sustainable consumption: Meat eaters reject vegans’ call for a plant-based diet’, Sustain. Switz., vol. 14, no. 3, 2022, doi: 10.3390/su14031741.

[72] V. Creative, ‘The air we breathe: How imagery of air pollution can communicate the health impacts of climate change’, Climate Outreach. Accessed: Sep. 19, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://climateoutreach.org/reports/the-air-we-breathe/

[73] H. Komatsu, H. Kubota, K. Asano, and Y. Nagai, ‘Effect of information provision by familial nudging on attitudes toward offshore wind power’, PLoS ONE, vol. 19, no. 1 January, 2024, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297199.

[74] L. Li, X. Yuan, and J. Li, ‘Understanding visual feedback mechanism from three-dimensional of information, time and display: A meta-analysis of feedback research for household electricity conservation’, Energy Build., vol. 316, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2024.114297.

[75] E. Margariti, V. Vlachokyriakos, A. C. Durrant, and D. Kirk, ‘Evaluating ActuAir: Building occupants’ experiences of a shape-changing air quality display’, presented at the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – Proceedings, 2024. doi: 10.1145/3613904.3642396.

[76] T. Metze, ‘Visualization in environmental policy and planning: A systematic review and research agenda’, J. Environ. Policy Plan., vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 745–760, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.1080/1523908X.2020.1798751.

[77] A. Restrepo-Mieth, J. Perry, J. Garnick, and M. Weisberg, ‘Community-based participatory climate action’, Glob. Sustain., vol. 6, 2023, doi: 10.1017/sus.2023.12.

[78] A. Mah, C. Aragón, and E. Markowitz, ‘Visualizing hope: Investigating the effect of public art on risk perception and awareness of climate adaptation’, Weather Clim. Soc., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 185–204, 2024, doi: 10.1175/WCAS-D-23-0081.1.

[79] T. Ye and A. S. Mattila, ‘The impact of environmental messages on consumer responses to plant-based meat: Does language style matter?’, Int. J. Hosp. Manag., vol. 107, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2022.103298.

[80] B. León, S. Negredo, and M. C. Erviti, ‘Social engagement with climate change: Principles for effective visual representation on social media’, Clim. Policy, vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 976–992, 2022, doi: 10.1080/14693062.2022.2077292.

[81] M. Kaltenbacher and S. Drews, ‘An inconvenient joke? A review of humor in climate change communication’, Environ. Commun., vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 717–729, Aug. 2020, doi: 10.1080/17524032.2020.1756888.

[82] B. Zhang and J. Pinto, ‘Changing the world one meme at a time: The effects of climate change memes on civic engagement intentions’, Environ. Commun., vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 749–764, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.1080/17524032.2021.1894197.

[83] A. Varni, C. L. Thai, and S. Jamaleddine, ‘Using an Instagram campaign to influence knowledge, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and behavioral intentions for sustainable behaviors’, Front. Psychol., vol. 15, 2024, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1377211.

[84] I. Willig, M. Blach-Ørsten, and R. Burkal, ‘What is “good” climate journalism? Public perceptions of climate journalism in Denmark’, Journal. Pract., vol. 16, no. 2–3, pp. 520–539, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.1080/17512786.2021.2016069.

[85] Neighbours United and MECCE, ‘Changing the climate and energy conversation’, Neighbours United and MECCE, 2023.

[86] S. I. N. W. Abdullah, F. K. Tat, T. Subramaniam, and A. A. M. Mustafa, ‘Going green: The impact of green initiative events on environmental practice intentions’, J. Sustain. Sci. Manag., vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 1–23, 2023, doi: 10.46754/jssm.2023.08.001.

[87] A.-L. Balogun et al., ‘Assessing the potentials of digitalization as a tool for climate change adaptation and sustainable development in urban centres’, Sustain. Cities Soc., vol. 53, p. 101888, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2019.101888.

[88] R. Briandana and M. S. M. Saleh, ‘Implementing environmental communication strategy towards climate change through social media in Indonesia’, Online J. Commun. Media Technol., vol. 12, no. 4, 2022, doi: 10.30935/ojcmt/12467.

[89] C40 Cities, ‘Youth engagement playbook for cities: How to tackle the climate crisis through collaboration with youth’, C40 Cities, 2021.

[90] M. Colavito, B. Satink Wolfson, A. E. Thode, C. Haffey, and C. Kimball, ‘Integrating art and science to communicate the social and ecological complexities of wildfire and climate change in Arizona, USA’, Fire Ecol., vol. 16, no. 1, 2020, doi: 10.1186/s42408-020-00078-w.

[91] D. Giacomini, L. Rocca, P. Zola, and M. Mazzoleni, ‘Local Governments’ environmental disclosure via social networks: Organizational legitimacy and stakeholders’ interactions’, J. Clean. Prod., vol. 317, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128290.

[92] J. Kong, W. He, Y. Zheng, and X. Li, ‘Awareness of spontaneous urban vegetation: Significance of social media-based public psychogeography in promoting community climate-resilient construction: A technical note’, Atmosphere, vol. 14, no. 11, 2023, doi: 10.3390/atmos14111691.

[93] Y. Meng, D. Chung, and A. Zhang, ‘The effect of social media environmental information exposure on the intention to participate in pro-environmental behavior’, PLoS ONE, vol. 18, no. 11 November, 2023, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294577.

[94] Q. Tong, Q. Zhang, and J. Zhang, ‘More is not always better: The role of Social Media Information in shaping individual low-carbon behavioral intention’, Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol., vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 639–652, 2024, doi: 10.1080/13504509.2024.2315553.

[95] N. S. Corser, ‘Don’t Look Up is a wonderful talking point, but will it unify people into acting on climate change?’, Climate Outreach. Accessed: Oct. 17, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://climateoutreach.org/dont-look-up/

[96] S. Sood, A. H. Riley, and L. Birkenstock, ‘Entertainment-education and climate change: Program examples, evidence, and best practices from around the World’, in Storytelling to accelerate climate solutions, Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2024, pp. 17–46.

[97] G. J. Walker, ‘Here be science show dragons: Ice, icons and metaphoric approaches to climate change communication’, in Communicating Ice through Popular Art and Aesthetics, A. Hemkendreis and A.-S. Jürgens, Eds., Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2024, pp. 63–83. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-39787-5_4.

[98] B. Suldovsky and D. Taylor-Rodríguez, ‘Epistemic engagement: Examining personal epistemology and engagement preferences with climate change in Oregon’, Clim. Change, vol. 166, no. 3, p. 48, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s10584-021-03138-5.

[99] A. Leiserowitz, C. Roser-Renouf, J. Marlon, and E. Maibach, ‘Global warming’s Six Americas: A review and recommendations for climate change communication’, Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci., vol. 42, pp. 97–103, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.04.007.

[100] D. C. Null, K. F. Hurst, and L. A. Duram, ‘Beyond the classroom: Influence of a sustainability intervention on university students’ environmental knowledge and behaviors’, J. Environ. Stud. Sci., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 224–235, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s13412-023-00882-1.

[101] C. D. Trott, ‘Children’s constructive climate change engagement: Empowering awareness, agency, and action’, Environ. Educ. Res., vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 532–554, Apr. 2020, doi: 10.1080/13504622.2019.1675594.

[102] E. Duda, ‘Case study-based research on understanding app user engagement to develop environmental literacy of urban residents’, presented at the 31st International Conference on Computers in Education, ICCE 2023 – Proceedings, 2023, pp. 624–626. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85181539543&partnerID=40&md5=a8fa4da1e105fe13044c70c66a6402bd

[103] Y. Li et al., ‘Effectiveness evaluation of a primary school-based intervention against heatwaves in China’, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health, vol. 19, no. 5, 2022, doi: 10.3390/ijerph19052532.

[104] A. Deep, A. Pathak, and N. Chatterjee, ‘An evaluation of the online course on climate change and emotion’, presented at the 30th International Conference on Computers in Education Conference, ICCE 2022 – Proceedings, 2022, pp. 387–391. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85151062737&partnerID=40&md5=2399a602326be562efaea6b59992b88d

[105] M. Stevens et al., ‘Drawing a line from CO2 emissions to health—evaluation of medical students’ knowledge and attitudes towards climate change and health following a novel serious game: A mixed-methods study’, BMC Med. Educ., vol. 24, no. 1, 2024, doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-05619-4.

[106] V. Deisenrieder, S. Kubisch, L. Keller, and J. Stötter, ‘Bridging the action gap by democratizing climate change education – The case of k.i.d.Z.21 in the context of fridays for future’, Sustain. Switz., vol. 12, no. 5, 2020, doi: 10.3390/su12051748.

[107] C. Slimings, E. Sisson, C. Larson, D. Bowles, and R. Hussain, ‘Adaptive doctors in Australia: Preparing tomorrow’s doctors for practice in a world destabilised by declining planetary health’, Environ. Educ. Res., vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 786–801, 2022, doi: 10.1080/13504622.2021.2025343.

[108] F. Stevenson and A. Kwok, ‘Mainstreaming zero carbon: Lessons for built-environment education and training’, Build. Cities, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 687–696, 2020, doi: 10.5334/bc.84.

[109] B. Tremblay and J. Hawkins, ‘Climate and health: Impact of climate education on nursing student knowledge, confidence, and intent to act’, Nurse Educ., vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 85–90, 2024, doi: 10.1097/NNE.0000000000001524.

[110] L. Jans, N. Koudenburg, and L. Grosse, ‘Cooking a pro-veg*n social identity: The influence of vegan cooking workshops on children’s pro-veg*n social identities, attitudes, and dietary intentions’, Environ. Educ. Res., vol. 29, no. 9, pp. 1361–1376, 2023, doi: 10.1080/13504622.2023.2182750.

[111] N. Rosenau, U. Neumann, S. Hamblett, and T. Ellrott, ‘University students as change agents for health and sustainability: A pilot study on the effects of a teaching kitchen-based planetary health diet curriculum’, Nutrients, vol. 16, no. 4, 2024, doi: 10.3390/nu16040521.

[112] Z. Ahmed et al., ‘Fostering innovation and sustainable thinking in surgery: An evaluation of a surgical hackathon’, Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl., vol. 106, no. 6, pp. 504–508, 2024, doi: 10.1308/rcsann.2024.0010.

[113] A. Kuthe, A. Körfgen, J. Stötter, and L. Keller, ‘Strengthening their climate change literacy: A case study addressing the weaknesses in young people’s climate change awareness’, Appl. Environ. Educ. Commun., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 375–388, Oct. 2020, doi: 10.1080/1533015X.2019.1597661.

[114] V. Dawson and K. Carson, ‘Introducing argumentation about climate change socioscientific issues in a disadvantaged school’, Res. Sci. Educ., vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 863–883, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11165-018-9715-x.

[115] L. M. Zummo and S. J. Dozier, ‘Using epistemic instructional activities to support secondary science teachers’ social construction of knowledge of anthropogenic climate change during a professional learning experience’, J. Geosci. Educ., vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 530–545, 2022, doi: 10.1080/10899995.2021.1986785.

[116] J. M. P. Sanchez, M. T. Picardal, S. R. Fernandez, and R. R. A. Caturza, ‘Socio-scientific issues in focus: A meta-analytical review of strategies and outcomes in climate change science education’, Sci. Educ. Int., vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 119–132, 2024, doi: 10.33828/sei.v35.i2.6.

[117] D. Campbell and S. Lester, ‘Building resilience in Jamaica’s farming communities: Insights from a climate-smart intervention’, Case Stud. Environ., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 273–286, 2023, doi: 10.1525/cse.2023.1233811.

[118] C. Gichuki, M. Osewe, and S. W. Ndiritu, ‘Dissemination of climate smart agricultural knowledge through farmer field schools (FFS): Analyzing the application CAS knowledge by smallholder farmers’, Int. J. Dev. Issues, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 399–417, 2023, doi: 10.1108/IJDI-04-2023-0109.

[119] L. Silici, A. Rowe, N. Suppiramaniam, and J. W. Knox, ‘Building adaptive capacity of smallholder agriculture to climate change: Evidence synthesis on learning outcomes’, Environ. Res. Commun., vol. 3, no. 12, 2021, doi: 10.1088/2515-7620/AC44DF.

[120] H. van den Berg et al., ‘Monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) in farmer field schools on food security and adaptation to climate change: pilot testing of a framework in Malawi’, Food Secur., vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 1611–1627, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s12571-023-01386-0.

[121] B. Irawan, ‘Mangrove planting initiative within a collaborative project-based biology course to improve students’ climate literacy’, presented at the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 2023. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/1148/1/012044.

[122] B. Kligler, G. Pinto Zipp, C. Rocchetti, M. Secic, and E. S. Ihde, ‘The impact of integrating environmental health into medical school curricula: A survey-based study’, BMC Med. Educ., vol. 21, no. 1, 2021, doi: 10.1186/s12909-020-02458-x.

[123] J. Keller et al., ‘Evaluating the Public Climate School, a multi-component school-based program to promote climate awareness and action in students: A cluster-controlled pilot study’, J. Clim. Change Health, vol. 15, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.joclim.2023.100286.

[124] University of Education, Winneba and MECCE, ‘Dry season gardening as climate action by rural women: A case study of Kuliyaa Community in Northern Ghana’, University of Education, Winneba and MECCE, 2023.

[125] K. J. Wilby, E. K. Black, A. Benetoli, and B. Paravattil, ‘Students’ conception of local responses to global problems for a more peaceful and sustainable world: A collaborative education project between Brazil, Canada, Qatar, and New Zealand’, JACCP J. Am. Coll. Clin. Pharm., vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 605–612, 2022, doi: 10.1002/jac5.1608.

[126] A. Kluczkovski et al., ‘Aquaponics in schools: Hands-on learning about healthy eating and a healthy planet’, Nutr. Bull., vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 327–344, 2024, doi: 10.1111/nbu.12689.

[127] P. M. Kurup, R. Levinson, and X. Li, ‘Informed-decision regarding global warming and climate change among high school students in the United Kingdom’, Can. J. Sci. Math. Technol. Educ., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 166–185, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s42330-020-00123-5.

[128] B. Borde, P. Lena, and L. Lescarmontier, ‘Education as a strategy for climate change mitigation and adaptation’, in Handbook of Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation, Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022, pp. 3089–3113.

[129] Centre for Environment Education (CCE) and MECCE, ‘Blue flag beaches as place-based climate and sustainability education sites in India’, Centre for Environment Education (CCE) and MECCE, 2023.

[130] D. Nusche, M. F. Rabella, and S. Lauterbach, ‘Rethinking education in the context of climate change: Leverage points for transformative change’, OECD, OECD Education Working Papers 307, Feb. 2024. doi: 10.1787/f14c8a81-en.

[131] L. Rodrigues et al., ‘User engagement in community energy schemes: A case study at the Trent Basin in Nottingham, UK’, Sustain. Cities Soc., vol. 61, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2020.102187.

[132] A. Navarrete-Welton et al., ‘A grassroots approach for greener education: An example of a medical student-driven planetary health curriculum’, Front. Public Health, vol. 10, 2022, doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1013880.

[133] D. L. Coppock et al., ‘Non-formal education promotes innovation and climate change preparedness among isolated Nepalese farmers’, Clim. Dev., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 297–310, 2022, doi: 10.1080/17565529.2021.1921685.

[134] U. Sharma, B. Brahmbhatt, and H. N. Panchal, ‘Do community-based institutions spur climate adaptation in urban informal settlements in India?’, in Climate Change and Community Resilience: Insights from South Asia, 2021, pp. 339–356. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85167533916&doi=10.1007%2f978-981-16-0680-9_22&partnerID=40&md5=e156db7fb77e52ded0b0b46b981ed21a

[135] C. Torres and J. Dixon, ‘Pathways to climate health: Active learning and effective communication to optimize climate change action an evaluation of the climate change and renal health awareness and education toolkit for healthcare providers: Reducing climate-health risks in primary care’, J. Clim. Change Health, vol. 9, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.joclim.2022.100198.

[136] K. Hampshire, N. Islam, B. Kissel, H. Chase, and K. Gundling, ‘The Planetary Health Report Card: A student-led initiative to inspire planetary health in medical schools’, Lancet Planet. Health, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. e449–e454, 2022, doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(22)00045-6.

[137] L. Müller, M. Kühl, and S. J. Kühl, ‘Climate change and health: Changes in student environmental knowledge and awareness due to the implementation of a mandatory elective at the Medical Faculty of Ulm?’, GMS J. Med. Educ., vol. 40, no. 3, 2023, doi: 10.3205/zma001614.

[138] A. Okada and P. Gray, ‘A climate change and sustainability education movement: Networks, open schooling, and the “CARE-KNOW-DO” Framework’, Sustain. Switz., vol. 15, no. 3, 2023, doi: 10.3390/su15032356.

[139] V. A. Whitener, B. Cook, I. Spielbauer, P. K. Nguyen, and J. A. Jay, ‘Impact of a college course on the sustainability of student diets in terms of the planetary boundaries for climate change and land, water, nitrogen and phosphorus use’, Front. Sustain. Food Syst., vol. 5, 2021, doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2021.677002.

[140] O. A. Blanchard, L. M. Greenwald, and P. E. Sheffield, ‘The climate change conversation: Understanding nationwide medical education efforts’, Yale J. Biol. Med., vol. 96, no. 2, pp. 171–184, 2023, doi: 10.59249/PYIW9718.

[141] D. Greene, O. Yuheng Zhu, and S. Dolnicar, ‘Vegan burger, no thanks! Juicy American burger, yes please! The effect of restaurant meal names on affective appeal’, Food Qual. Prefer., vol. 113, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2023.105042.

[142] A. Boeri, D. Longo, S. Orlandi, R. Roversi, and G. Turci, ‘Temporary transformations to access and experience sustainable city public spaces’, WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ., vol. 249, pp. 43–55, 2020, doi: 10.2495/SC200051.

[143] L. Fogg-Rogers, A. M. Sardo, E. Csobod, C. Boushel, S. Laggan, and E. Hayes, ‘Citizen-led emissions reduction: Enhancing enjoyment and understanding for diverse citizen engagement with air pollution and climate change decision making’, Environ. Sci. Policy, vol. 154, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103692.

[144] J. Knook, V. Eory, M. Brander, and D. Moran, ‘The evaluation of a participatory extension programme focused on climate friendly farming’, J. Rural Stud., vol. 76, pp. 40–48, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.03.010.

[145] M. Ambani, G. A. Gbetibouo, and F. Percy, ‘Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue to co-Design Anticipatory Adaptation: Lessons from Participatory Scenario Planning in Africa’, in Handbook of Climate Change Management: Research, Leadership, Transformation, vol. 6, 2021, pp. 4819–4843. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85161926175&doi=10.1007%2f978-3-030-57281-5_111&partnerID=40&md5=f7b18e4f35873e8cf9d97bc5953b3db1

[146] L. Donkers, ‘Revitalising embodied community knowledges as leverage for climate change engagement’, Clim. Change, vol. 171, no. 1, p. 2, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s10584-022-03327-w.

[147] R. Murti, S.-L. Mathez-Stiefel, and S. Rist, ‘A Methodological Orientation for Social Learning Based Adaptation Planning: Lessons from Pilot Interventions in Rural Communities of Burkina Faso, Chile and Senegal’, Syst. Pract. Action Res., vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 409–434, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11213-019-09495-8.

[148] D. Fraisl et al., ‘Citizen science in environmental and ecological sciences’, Nat. Rev. Methods Primer, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–20, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.1038/s43586-022-00144-4.

[149] K. Peach, A. Berditchevskaia, G. Mulgan, G. Lucarelli, and M. Ebelshaeuser, ‘Collective intelligence for sustainable development: Getting smarter together’, Nesta’s Centre for Collective Intelligence Design, 2021.

[150] Involve and KNOCA, ‘Innovations in subnational climate mini publics in the UK’, Involve and KNOCA, 2023.

[151] H. Solman, M. Smits, B. van Vliet, and S. Bush, ‘Co-production in the wind energy sector: A systematic literature review of public engagement beyond invited stakeholder participation’, Energy Res. Soc. Sci., vol. 72, p. 101876, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2020.101876.

[152] G. Mullally et al., ‘A Roadmap for Local Deliberative Engagements on Transitions to Net Zero Carbon and Climate Resilience’, Environmental Protection Agency, 2022.

[153] OECD, Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/innovative-citizen-participation-and-new-democratic-institutions_339306da-en

[154] R. Shunglu et al., ‘Barriers in Participative Water Governance: A Critical Analysis of Community Development Approaches’, Water Switz., vol. 14, no. 5, 2022, doi: 10.3390/w14050762.

[155] Nesta, ‘Engaging local residents in conversations about pathways to net zero’, nesta. Accessed: Sep. 19, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.nesta.org.uk/project-updates/engaging-local-residents-in-conversations-about-pathways-to-net-zero/

[156] L. Liu, T. Bouman, G. Perlaviciute, and L. Steg, ‘The more public influence, the better? The effects of full versus shared influence on public acceptability of energy projects in the Netherlands and China’, Energy Res. Soc. Sci., vol. 81, p. 102286, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2021.102286.

[157] A. Boeri, D. Longo, S. Orlandi, R. Roversi, and G. Turci, ‘COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND GREENING STRATEGIES AS ENABLING PRACTICES FOR INCLUSIVE AND RESILIENT CITIES’, Int. J. Environ. Impacts, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2022, doi: 10.2495/EI-V5-N1-1-14.

[158] T. Dawson, J. Hambly, A. Kelley, W. Lees, and S. Miller, ‘Coastal heritage, global climate change, public engagement, and citizen science’, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol. 117, no. 15, pp. 8280–8286, 2020.

[159] C. Makate, ‘Local institutions and indigenous knowledge in adoption and scaling of climate-smart agricultural innovations among sub-Saharan smallholder farmers’, Int. J. Clim. Change Strateg. Manag., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 270–287, 2020, doi: 10.1108/IJCCSM-07-2018-0055.

[160] L. P. Hopkins, D. J. January-Bevers, E. K. Caton, and L. A. Campos, ‘A simple tree planting framework to improve climate, air pollution, health, and urban heat in vulnerable locations using non-traditional partners’, Plants People Planet, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 243–257, 2022, doi: 10.1002/ppp3.10245.

[161] J. Langfermann, ‘How Citizen Entrepreneurship Works’, J. Entrep. Innov. Emerg. Econ., 2024, doi: 10.1177/23939575241263677.

[162] C. Verfuerth, G. Jones, and L. Roberts, ‘Workshops to discuss the future of tree planting with Welsh farmers’, Welsh Government, 2023.

[163] A. B. Raschke, J. Davis, and A. Quiroz, ‘The Central Arizona Conservation Alliance Programs: Use of Social Media and App-Supported Community Science for Landscape-Scale Habitat Restoration, Governance Support, and Community Resilience-Building’, Land, vol. 11, no. 1, 2022, doi: 10.3390/land11010137.

[164] Global Assembly Team, ‘Report of the 2021 Global Assembly on the Climate and Ecological Crisis: Giving everyone a seat at the global governance table’, Global Assembly, 2022.

[165] S. H. Hamilton et al., ‘Affecting behavioural change through empowerment: conceptual insights from theory and agricultural case studies in South Asia’, Reg. Environ. Change, vol. 22, no. 3, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s10113-022-01939-7.

[166] R. Shammin, R. Firoz, and R. Hasan, ‘Frameworks, stories and learnings from disaster management in Bangladesh’, in Climate Change and Community Resilience: Insights from South Asia, 2021, pp. 239–256. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85167529664&doi=10.1007%2f978-981-16-0680-9_16&partnerID=40&md5=ac9f2ec22fa5fcf1c579960f9e3ad4ca

[167] S. Elstub, J. Carrick, D. M. Farrell, and P. Mockler, ‘The scope of climate assemblies: Lessons from the climate assembly uk’, Sustain. Switz., vol. 13, no. 20, 2021, doi: 10.3390/su132011272.

[168] E. Teko and O. Lah, ‘Capacity Needs Assessment in Transport Innovation Living Labs: The Case of an Innovative E-Mobility Project’, Front. Future Transp., vol. 3, 2022, doi: 10.3389/ffutr.2022.799505.

[169] C. Cherry, S. Capstick, C. Demski, C. Mellier, L. Stone, and C. Verfuerth, ‘Citizens’ climate assemblies: Understanding public deliberation for climate policy’, The Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations (CAST), Cardiff, 2021.

[170] R. Sandover, A. Moseley, and P. Devine-Wright, ‘Contrasting views of Citizens’ Assemblies: Stakeholder perceptions of public deliberation on climate change’, Polit. Gov., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 76–86, 2021.

[171] P. Hofman, F. Wade, J. Webb, and M. Groenleer, ‘Retrofitting at scale: comparing transition experiments in Scotland and the Netherlands’, Build. Cities, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 637–654, 2021, doi: 10.5334/bc.98.

[172] A. Berditchevskaia, A. Albert, K. Peach, G. Lucarelli, and A. Cottica, ‘Untapped: Collective Intelligence for Climate Action’, United Nations Development Programme, New York, 2024.

[173] N. Abbas and G. Smith, ‘Towards Permanent Climate Citizens’ Assemblies: Learning from the Early Adopters. KNOCA Briefing No. 10’, Knowledge Network on Climate Assemblies, 2024.

[174] M. Araos, ‘Democracy underwater: Public participation, technical expertise, and climate infrastructure planning in New York City’, Theor Soc, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 1–34, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s11186-021-09459-9.

[175] J. Jeffers, ‘Barriers to transformation towards participatory adaptation decision-making: Lessons from the Cork flood defences dispute’, Land Use Policy, vol. 90, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104333.

[176] E. ter Mors and E. van Leeuwen, ‘It matters to be heard: Increasing the citizen acceptance of low-carbon technologies in the Netherlands and United Kingdom’, Energy Res. Soc. Sci., vol. 100, p. 103103, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2023.103103.

[177] J. Ainscough and R. Willis, ‘Embedding deliberation: guiding the use of deliberative mini-publics in climate policy-making’, Clim. Policy, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 828–842, 2024, doi: 10.1080/14693062.2024.2303337.

[178] J. Boswell, R. Dean, and G. Smith, ‘Can citizen deliberation address the climate crisis? Not if it is disconnected from politics and policymaking’, EUROPP. [Online]. Available: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2022/12/07/can-citizen-deliberation-address-the-climate-crisis-not-if-it-is-disconnected-from-politics-and-policymaking/

[179] G. Smith, We Need To Talk About Climate: How Citizens’ Assemblies Can Help Us Solve The Climate Crisis. London: University of Westminster Press, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.uwestminsterpress.co.uk/site/books/10.16997/book73/read/?loc=002.xhtml

[180] The Scottish Parliament, ‘Scottish Parliament People’s Panel reviewing the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009’, The Scottish Parliament, 2024.

[181] P. Kashwan and H. Lee, ‘Beyond stakeholder consultations: Red-green coalition democratizes Maine’s offshore wind energy policymaking’, Energy Res. Soc. Sci., vol. 116, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2024.103692.

[182] K. Peach, ‘Creating a Citizen Participation Service and other ideas: Reimagining government for better climate policy’, Nesta’s Centre for Collective Intelligence Design, 2023.

[183] K. A. McNamara, M. Kostelny, G. Kim, D. M. Keating, J. Estiandan, and J. Armbruster, ‘A novel resident outreach program improves street tree planting outcomes in Los Angeles’, Environ. Chall., vol. 9, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.envc.2022.100596.

[184] G. Lucertini, G. Di Giustino, C. F. dall’Omo, and F. Musco, ‘An innovative climate adaptation planning process: iDEAL project’, J. Environ. Manage., vol. 317, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115408.

[185] D. Silveira, ‘The role of deliberative public engagement in climate policy development: A report for the Climate Change Committee’, Climate Citizens and Lancaster Unversity, 2022.

[186] J. Bentz, ‘Learning about climate change in, with and through art’, Clim. Change, vol. 162, no. 3, pp. 1595–1612, Oct. 2020, doi: 10.1007/s10584-020-02804-4.

[187] K. Smith, B. McDonagh, and E. Brookes, ‘Place-based arts engagement and learning histories: An effective tool for climate action’, Environ. Commun., 2024, doi: 10.1080/17524032.2024.2382473.

[188] K. Lee, ‘Urban public space as a didactic platform: Raising awareness of climate change through experiencing arts’, Sustain. Switz., vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 1–17, 2021, doi: 10.3390/su13052915.

[189] F. Ueberschär, ‘AI for experience: Designing with Generative Adversarial Networks to evoke climate fascination’, Master thesis, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands, 2021.

[190] A. Kluczkovski et al., ‘Interacting with members of the public to discuss the impact of food choices on climate change-experiences from two UK public engagement events’, Sustain. Switz., vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 1–21, 2020, doi: 10.3390/su12062323.

[191] S. Syropoulos et al., ‘Changing community climate change attitudes: Evidence from a community exhibit intervention’, J. Environ. Psychol., vol. 98, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102369.

[192] B. Hedin, L. Grönborg, and G. Johansson, ‘Food carbon literacy: A definition and framework exemplified by designing and evaluating a digital grocery list for increasing food carbon literacy and changing behavior’, Sustain. Switz., vol. 14, no. 19, 2022, doi: 10.3390/su141912442.

[193] H. Obracht-Prondzyńska, E. Duda, H. Anacka, and J. Kowal, ‘Greencoin as an AI-based solution shaping climate awareness’, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health, vol. 19, no. 18, 2022, doi: 10.3390/ijerph191811183.

[194] B. Obuobi, D. Tang, F. Awuah, E. Nketiah, and G. Adu-Gyamfi, ‘Utilizing Ant Forest technology to foster sustainable behaviors: A novel approach towards environmental conservation’, J. Environ. Manage., vol. 359, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121038.

[195] A. Workman et al., ‘Evaluating user preferences, comprehension, and trust in apps for environmental health hazards: Qualitative case study’, JMIR Form. Res., vol. 6, no. 12, 2022, doi: 10.2196/38471.

[196] C. Hurrell, A. Chai, H. Green, and G. Bradley, ‘Virtual reality facilitates pro-environmental behavioural intentions’, Environ. Educ. Res., 2024, doi: 10.1080/13504622.2024.2342942.

[197] V. Berger and D. Koch, ‘The climate wins! – How a gamification approach can foster sustainable consumption on university campuses and beyond’, Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ., 2024, doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-08-2022-0269.

[198] I. Thacker, ‘Supporting secondary students’ climate change learning and motivation using novel data and data visualizations’, Contemp. Educ. Psychol., vol. 78, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2024.102285.

[199] Ș. Boncu, O.-S. Candel, and N. L. Popa, ‘Gameful green: A systematic review on the use of serious computer games and gamified mobile apps to foster pro-environmental information, attitudes and behaviors’, Sustain. Switz., vol. 14, no. 16, 2022, doi: 10.3390/su141610400.

[200] D. Carrillo-Nieves, E. Clarke-Crespo, P. Cervantes-Avilés, M. Cuevas-Cancino, and A. Y. Vanoye-García, ‘Designing learning experiences on climate change for undergraduate students of different majors’, Front. Educ., vol. 9, 2024, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1284593.

[201] I. De Sena, C. Cocco, V. Brůža, P. Lenicolais, S. Crowley, and F. Pilla, ‘EbAcraft: Engaging local communities in learning about ecosystem-based adaptation for coastal cities in Europe’, presented at the Proceedings 2023 IEEE 19th International Conference on e-Science, e-Science 2023, 2023. doi: 10.1109/e-Science58273.2023.10254941.

[202] D. Fernández Galeote, N.-Z. Legaki, and J. Hamari, ‘From traditional to game-based learning of climate change: A media comparison experiment’, Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., vol. 7, pp. 503–525, 2023, doi: 10.1145/3611039.

[203] N. Mohammadpourlima, M. Nygård, and M. P. Heris, ‘Gamification: A catalyst to achieve carbon-neutral cities’, presented at the Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 2024, pp. 226–243. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-65285-1_15.

[204] G. Mylonas, J. Hofstaetter, A. Friedl, and M. Giannakos, ‘Designing effective playful experiences for sustainability awareness in schools and makerspaces’, presented at the ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 2021. doi: 10.1145/3466725.3466755.

[205] G. Mylonas, J. Hofstaetter, M. Giannakos, A. Friedl, and P. Koulouris, ‘Playful interventions for sustainability awareness in educational environments: A longitudinal, large-scale study in three countries’, Int. J. Child-Comput. Interact., vol. 35, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ijcci.2022.100562.

[206] G. Mylonas, F. Paganelli, G. Cuffaro, I. Nesi, and D. Karantzis, ‘Using gamification and IoT-based educational tools towards energy savings – some experiences from two schools in Italy and Greece’, J. Ambient Intell. Humaniz. Comput., vol. 14, no. 12, pp. 15725–15744, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s12652-020-02838-7.

[207] J. Nguyen, A. Mittal, Z. Kapelan, and L. Scholten, ‘SuDSbury: A serious game to support the adoption of sustainable drainage solutions’, Urban Water J., vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 204–218, 2024, doi: 10.1080/1573062X.2023.2284958.

[208] J. N. Rooney-Varga, F. Kapmeier, J. D. Sterman, A. P. Jones, M. Putko, and K. Rath, ‘The Climate Action Simulation’, Simul. Gaming, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 114–140, 2020, doi: 10.1177/1046878119890643.

[209] F. van Schaik, ‘In-game uncertainties and climate change challenges as identified by pre-service teachers’, Simul. Gaming, vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 680–707, 2023, doi: 10.1177/10468781231199262.

[210] M. Daiiani, P. Sweetser, S. Stanley, S. Caldwell, and D. Van Rooy, ‘Evaluating the impact of gameful design on pro-environmental attitudes: Beyond Blue as intervention’, presented at the ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 2024. doi: 10.1145/3649921.3649933.

[211] B. Orlove et al., ‘FutureCoast: A playful way to assess public perceptions for better climate change communication’, Environ. Commun., 2024, doi: 10.1080/17524032.2024.2341926.

[212] D. Fernández Galeote et al., ‘The good, the bad, and the divergent in game-based learning: Player experiences of a serious game for climate change engagement’, presented at the ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 2022, pp. 256–267. doi: 10.1145/3569219.3569414.

[213] D. Fernández Galeote, M. Rajanen, D. Rajanen, N.-Z. Legaki, D. J. Langley, and J. Hamari, ‘Gamification for climate change engagement: A user-centered design agenda’, presented at the ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 2023, pp. 45–56. doi: 10.1145/3616961.3616968.

[214] Z. Song, Y. Sun, V. Ruijters, and R. Lc, ‘Climate influence: Implicit game-based interactive storytelling for climate action purpose’, in Interactive Storytelling, A. Mitchell and M. Vosmeer, Eds., Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021, pp. 425–429. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-92300-6_42.

[215] V. Aksel Stenberdt and G. Makransky, ‘Mastery experiences in immersive virtual reality promote pro-environmental waste-sorting behavior’, Comput. Educ., vol. 198, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104760.

[216] G. Fauville, C. C. M. Queiroz, and J. N. Bailenson, ‘Virtual reality as a promising tool to promote climate change awareness’, in Technology and Health: Promoting attitude and behaviour change, Elsevier, 2020, pp. 91–108. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-816958-2.00005-8.

[217] G. B. Petersen, S. Klingenberg, R. E. Mayer, and G. Makransky, ‘The virtual field trip: Investigating how to optimize immersive virtual learning in climate change education’, Br. J. Educ. Technol., vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 2099–2115, 2020, doi: 10.1111/bjet.12991.

[218] A. Plechatá, M. H. Hielkema, L.-M. Merkl, G. Makransky, and M. B. Frøst, ‘Shifting from information- to experience-based climate change communication increases pro-environmental behavior via efficacy beliefs’, Environ. Commun., vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 589–609, 2024, doi: 10.1080/17524032.2024.2334727.

[219] C. Wienrich, S. Vogt, N. Döllinger, and D. Obremski, ‘Promoting eco-friendly behavior through virtual reality – Implementation and evaluation of immersive feedback conditions of a virtual CO2 calculator’, presented at the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – Proceedings, 2024. doi: 10.1145/3613904.3642957.

[220] D. Davidson, ‘“Can we talk?” Forum theatre as rehearsal for climate change interventions’, in Theatre Pedagogy in the Era of Climate Crisis, 2021, pp. 115–129. doi: 10.4324/9781003087823-11.

[221] C. Martínez-Mirambell, S. Boned-Gómez, M. Urrea-Solano, and S. Baena-Morales, ‘Step by step towards a greener future: The role of plogging in educating tomorrow’s citizens’, Sustain. Switz., vol. 15, no. 18, 2023, doi: 10.3390/su151813558.

[222] M. Reamer, G. Maranto, T. Harrison, and A. Clement, ‘Photovoice in the interdisciplinary climate classroom: A case study in climate adaptation pedagogy from a hybrid university course’, Appl. Environ. Educ. Commun., vol. 23, no. 1–2, pp. 1–23, 2024, doi: 10.1080/1533015X.2023.2275252.

[223] R. Orr and D. Powell, ‘Towards a UK public engagement strategy on climate change’, Climate Outreach, Oxford, Sep. 2023.

Sources that informed the evidence review but are not cited in the report

E. Prusaczyk, M. Earle, and G. Hodson, ‘A brief nudge or education intervention delivered online can increase willingness to order a beef-mushroom burger’, Food Quality and Preference, vol. 87, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85089218475&doi=10.1016%2fj.foodqual.2020.104045&partnerID=40&md5=e6a21f04b87b06e3ee39b0c6eb8adde1.

P. Saha, A. Ashraf, J. T. Oyshi, R. Khanum, and A. Nishat, ‘A community-based approach to sustainable transboundary water resources management and governance in the South-West Coastal region of Bangladesh’, Sustainable Water Resources Management, vol. 7, no. 5, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85115256613&doi=10.1007%2fs40899-021-00562-4&partnerID=40&md5=d5132ab0a7024cb49ff0784c1b2b9048.

L. S. Awah, J. A. Belle, Y. S. Nyam, and I. R. Orimoloye, ‘A participatory systems dynamic modelling approach to understanding flood systems in a coastal community in Cameroon’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 101, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85182413301&doi=10.1016%2fj.ijdrr.2023.104236&partnerID=40&md5=8449736fe3e60fa52b0b078c9510b3c3.

D. Rousell and A. Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles, ‘A systematic review of climate change education: Giving children and young people a “voice” and a “hand” in redressing climate change’, Children’s Geographies, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 191–208, Mar. 2020.

E. André, P. E. Colombo, L. Schäfer Elinder, J. Larsson, and M. Hunsberger, ‘Acceptance of low-carbon school meals with and without information — A controlled intervention study’, Journal of Consumer Policy, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 109–125, 2024.

H. Gehlbach et al., ‘Addressing the vexing educational challenges of biodiversity loss: A photo-based intervention’, Contemporary Educational Psychology, vol. 71, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85137666318&doi=10.1016%2fj.cedpsych.2022.102096&partnerID=40&md5=b177b3266f287a6ef5e303f892b374d3.

S. Zhong, Q. Cheng, S. Zhang, C. Huang, and Z. Wang, ‘An impact assessment of disaster education on children’s flood risk perceptions in China: Policy implications for adaptation to climate extremes’, Science of the Total Environment, vol. 757, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85097097011&doi=10.1016%2fj.scitotenv.2020.143761&partnerID=40&md5=37dd5d6b0ca23cedc2ae7c40447484c2.

J. Spiteri, ‘Approaches to foster young children’s engagement with climate action: A scoping review’, Sustainability (Switzerland), vol. 15, no. 19, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85174198300&doi=10.3390%2fsu151914604&partnerID=40&md5=7ffcdafbf112a338627445169d295c25.

A. Simic, ‘C-change project in the “Juraj Sizgoric” Sibenik public library: Arts and culture activities for raising awareness on climate change’, Vjesnik Bibliotekara Hrvatske, vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 469–494, 2021.

C. Y. Okyere and L. Kornher, ‘Carbon farming training and welfare: Evidence from Northern Ghana’, Land Use Policy, vol. 134, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85173882299&doi=10.1016%2fj.landusepol.2023.106932&partnerID=40&md5=ea09cc416ea7434126c5672b441fbd3b.

S. Kretschmer, ‘Carbon literacy – Can simple interventions help? Effect of information provision on emissions knowledge of private households’, Energy Policy, vol. 188, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85187688157&doi=10.1016%2fj.enpol.2024.114060&partnerID=40&md5=3885cc0f57b77dbfa9d428da29004f3d.

D. Munshi, P. Kurian, S. Morrison, L. Kathlene, and R. Cretney, ‘Centring culture in public engagement on climate change adaptation: Re-shaping the future of the NZ tourism sector project team’, University of Waikato and the Deep South National Science Challenge, 2020. [Online]. Available: http://rgdoi.net/10.13140/RG.2.2.29922.35527.

C. Sorensen et al., ‘Climate and health capacity building for health professionals in the Caribbean: A pilot course’, Frontiers in Public Health, vol. 11, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85147771974&doi=10.3389%2ffpubh.2023.1077306&partnerID=40&md5=89a2c4f081d54ff4f71ff2ad22c0a6f0.

G. Smith, ‘Climate assemblies: Emerging trends, challenges and opportunities’, Knowledge Network on Climate Assemblies, Jun. 2024.

M. A. Ranney and L. Velautham, ‘Climate change cognition and education: Given no silver bullet for denial, diverse information-hunks increase global warming acceptance’, Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, vol. 42, pp. 139–146, 2021.

L. Muradova, H. Walker, and F. Colli, ‘Climate change communication and public engagement in interpersonal deliberative settings: Evidence from the Irish citizens’ assembly’, Climate Policy, vol. 20, no. 10, pp. 1322–1335, 2020.

F. Galeotti, A. Hopfensitz, and C. Mantilla, ‘Climate change education through the lens of behavioral economics: A systematic review of studies on observed behavior and social norms’, Ecological Economics, vol. 226, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85202151354&doi=10.1016%2fj.ecolecon.2024.108338&partnerID=40&md5=b8a8306c4e1b5883f11bbb2b9bfcdb97.

R. Wilson, K. Keddie, D. Arya, and M. Henn, ‘Climate policy, youth voice and intergenerational justice: Learning from Nottingham Youth Climate Assembly’, Children’s Geographies, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85193337487&doi=10.1080%2f14733285.2024.2352368&partnerID=40&md5=388a73a377f9e29f7d6aebb25004637e.

A. Berditchevskaia, K. Peach, G. Lucarelli, and M. Ebelshaeuser, ‘Collective intelligence for sustainable development: 13 stories from the UNDP Accelerator Labs’, Nesta’s Centre for Collective Intelligence Design, 2021.

H. Al-Amin, R. Webster, D. Kaoukji, and A. Sawas, ‘Communicating climate justice with young adults in Europe: A messaging guide’, Oxford: Climate Outreach, 2023.

D. Ismael et al., ‘Community-centric approaches to coastal hazard assessment and management in Southside Norfolk, Virginia, USA’, Atmosphere, vol. 15, no. 3, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85188839370&doi=10.3390%2fatmos15030372&partnerID=40&md5=522043e8cbece14dd41e16995ee62d8e.

P. Alarcón, J. L. Fernández-Martínez, and J. Font, ‘Comparing environmental advisory councils: How they work and why it matters’, Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 10, p. 4286, Jan. 2020.

G. Sparkman et al., ‘Connecting introductory psychology to climate change can empower students’, Teaching of Psychology, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85162971017&doi=10.1177%2f00986283231177949&partnerID=40&md5=f1dff08386642ee4ed6156fe99cbfd02.

L. Ramadani, S. Khanal, and M. Boeckmann, ‘Content focus and effectiveness of climate change and human health education in schools: A scoping review’, Sustainability (Switzerland), vol. 15, no. 13, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85165041380&doi=10.3390%2fsu151310373&partnerID=40&md5=7a7da53a4acbf101b1f124ed40eec578.

Y. Tao, C. Wang, T. C. Zhang, L. Zhai, Y. Gao, and J. Liu, ‘CSR communication in hospitality: Fostering hotel guests’ climate (change) engagement’, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, vol. 60, pp. 264–276, 2024.

T. Dölker et al., ‘Easy-to-implement educational interventions to bring climate-smart actions to daily anesthesiologic practice: A cross-sectional before and after study’, Minerva Anestesiologica, vol. 90, no. 3, pp. 126–134, 2024.

Y. Abrham et al., ‘Effect of a single one-hour teaching session about environmental pollutants and climate change on the understanding and behavioral choices of adolescents: The BREATHE pilot randomized controlled trial’, PLoS ONE, vol. 18, no. 11, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85178497525&doi=10.1371%2fjournal.pone.0291199&partnerID=40&md5=1a28f4d847aaae060ce8f7cb42e1a871.

L. Mu, Y. Liu, C. Wang, X. Qu, and Y. Yu, ‘Enhancing capacity building to climate adaptation and water conservation among Chinese young people’, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 28, no. 22, pp. 27614–27628, 2021.

E. Griffin, S. Duncan, and P. Manners, ‘Enhancing place-based public engagement: Lessons learned’, National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement, 2022.

R. E. Rosenberg Goldstein et al., ‘Evaluating the impact of water reuse educational videos on water reuse perceptions using EEG/event related potential’, Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 349, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85177980366&doi=10.1016%2fj.jenvman.2023.119560&partnerID=40&md5=5b18bc8753ced2ea997705586f35162c.

C. G. Staub and G. Clarkson, ‘Farmer-led participatory extension leads Haitian farmers to anticipate climate-related risks and adjust livelihood strategies’, Journal of Rural Studies, vol. 81, pp. 235–245, 2021.

M. Maurer and F. X. Bogner, ‘Green awareness in action of saving energy in school life: Modeling environmental literacy in theory and practice experience’, in Handbook of Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation: Third Edition, 2022, pp. 3531–3556. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85160734144&doi=10.1007%2f978-3-030-72579-2_157&partnerID=40&md5=43f3f3acb98d83a64d5d04f33b91b8ab.

R. Patrick, N. Bruges, H. Gunasiri, Y. Wang, and C. Henderson-Wilson, ‘Healthy me, healthy planet: Evaluation of a pilot planetary health library program’, Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85195558960&doi=10.1002%2fhpja.882&partnerID=40&md5=f6913997807f5dc95ebefb8f3f24481f.

E. Feldbacher, M. Waberer, L. Campostrini, and G. Weigelhofer, ‘Identifying gaps in climate change education – a case study in Austrian schools’, International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 109–124, Apr. 2024.

K. Vidou and D. Latinopoulos, ‘Implementation of a Place Game tool in the city of Rotterdam to enhance urban resilience to climate change through placemaking’, Journal of Urbanism, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 286–309, 2023.

L. Wu, T. Ma, Y. Bian, S. Li, and Z. Yi, ‘Improvement of regional environmental quality: Government environmental governance and public participation’, Science of The Total Environment, vol. 717, p. 137265, May 2020.

J. B. Rode, A. L. Dent, C. N. Benedict, D. B. Brosnahan, R. L. Martinez, and P. H. Ditto, ‘Influencing climate change attitudes in the United States: A systematic review and meta-analysis’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 76, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85110396553&doi=10.1016%2fj.jenvp.2021.101623&partnerID=40&md5=de25f44442cb0c09b24402273032c02f

J. Boswell, R. Dean, and G. Smith, ‘Integrating citizen deliberation into climate governance: Lessons on robust design from six climate assemblies’, Public Administration, vol. 101, no. 1, pp. 182–200, 2023.

V. Dany and L. Lebel, ‘Integrating concerns with climate change into local development planning in Cambodia’, Review of Policy Research, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 221–243, 2020.

M. S. Moustafa Saleh and H. E. S. Elsabahy, ‘Integrating sustainability development education program in nursing to challenge practice among nursing interns in health care’, Journal of Nursing Management, vol. 30, no. 8, pp. 4419–4429, 2022.

D. Rajanen, ‘Interactive and participatory media for public engagement with climate change: A systematic literature review and an integrative model’, INTERACT Research Unit, University of Oulu, 2021.

N. M. Wadi, K. Cheikh, Y. W. Keung, and R. Green, ‘Investigating intervention components and their effectiveness in promoting environmentally sustainable diets: A systematic review’, The Lancet Planetary Health, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. e410–e422, 2024.

M. Zandlová, H. Skokanová, and M. Trnka, ‘Landscape change scenarios: Developing participatory tools for enhancing resilience to climate change’, Environmental Management, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 631–656, 2023.

P. Newell, R. Price, and F. Daley, ‘Landscapes of (in)justice: Reflecting on voices, spaces and alliances for just transitions’, Energy Research and Social Science, vol. 116, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85200539503&doi=10.1016%2fj.erss.2024.103701&partnerID=40&md5=eb6575cf56008e506226793804a80b04

A. J. Jalil, J. Tasoff, and A. V. Bustamante, ‘Low-cost climate-change informational intervention reduces meat consumption among students for 3 years’, Nature Food, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 218–222, 2023.

J. F. Davies et al., ‘Operation clean up: A model for eco-leadership and sustainability implementation’, Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 88–95, 2023.

L. Liu, G. Perlaviciute, and L. Squintani, ‘Opposing out loud versus supporting in silence: Who wants to participate in decision-making about energy projects?’, Environmental Research Letters, vol. 17, no. 11, p. 114053, 2022.

S. Theminimulle et al., ‘Our journey to net zero: Understanding household and community participation in the UK’s transition to a greener future’, Nuffield Foundation and the Institute for Community Studies, 2024.

M. A. Alattar and J. L. Morse, ‘Poised for change: University students are positively disposed toward food waste diversion and decrease individual food waste after programming’, Foods, vol. 10, no. 3, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85102859111&doi=10.3390%2ffoods10030510&partnerID=40&md5=d833eb4e29cf08ba0774bdaeb8d3673b

S. Sereenonchai and N. Arunrat, ‘Practical agricultural communication: Incorporating scientific and indigenous knowledge for climate mitigation’, Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 60–67, 2020.

E. M. Schwienhorst-Stich et al., ‘Pre-post evaluation of the emotions and motivations for transformative action of medical students in Germany after two different planetary health educational interventions’, The Lancet Planetary Health, vol. 8, p. S9, 2024.

K. McBride, ‘Preparing for a climate assembly’, Knowledge Network on Climate Assemblies, 2022.

D. Bidwell and P. J. Schweizer, ‘Public values and goals for public participation’, Environmental Policy and Governance, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 257–269, 2021.

A. Thaller et al., ‘Pushing low-carbon mobility: A survey experiment on the public acceptance of disruptive policy packages’, Climate Policy, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 949–962, 2024.

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

B. M. Doheny et al., ‘Short animated video increases knowledge and perceived comfort in clinical counseling on inequitable health impacts of air pollution among interprofessional health learners and clinicians’, BMC Medical Education, vol. 23, no. 1, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85176365816&doi=10.1186%2fs12909-023-04785-1&partnerID=40&md5=c28ace00ed43548565ada76e979f4302

S. J. Mostacedo-Marasovic, A. A. Olsen, and C. T. Forbes, ‘Supporting secondary students’ understanding of Earth’s climate system and global climate change using EzGCM: A cross-sectional study’, Journal of Science Education and Technology, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 178–94, 2024.

C. Álvarez-Nieto, L. Parra-Anguita, C. Álvarez-García, E. M. Montoro Ramirez, M. D. López-Franco, S. Sanz-Martos, et al., ‘Sustainability education in nursing degree for climate-smart healthcare: A quasi-experimental study’, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 278–92, 2024.

R. B. Zandavalli, A. T. Stein, and T. S. de Camargo, ‘Systems approach in planetary health education for medical students: A mixed methods study’, BMC Medical Education, vol. 24, no. 1, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85189536127&doi=10.1186%2fs12909-024-05341-1&partnerID=40&md5=75ffc63964feb85c11dbd2ea73f4aa28

M. Shoina, I. Voukkali, A. Anagnostopoulos, I. Papamichael, M. Stylianou, and A. A. Zorpas, ‘The 15-minute city concept: The case study within a neighbourhood of Thessaloniki’, Waste Management and Research, vol. 42, no. 8, pp. 694–710, 2024.

N. Mariam, L. Nina, B. Fabian, Z. Florence, A. Simone, S. Ulf, et al., ‘The Food Waste Lab: Improving food waste reduction behavior through education’, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 370, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85136025767&doi=10.1016%2fj.jclepro.2022.133447&partnerID=40&md5=e6d9ccc8e43f0bbd758b65b611bb0eb9

J. B. da Silva, D. Silva, M. Barbosa, and M. Rodrigues, ‘The Healthy Waters science-based educational intervention programme: The potential of participatory approaches for developing and promoting students’ environmental citizenship’, Journal of Social Science Education, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 1–24, 2024.

K. Mitev, L. Player, C. Verfuerth, S. Westlake, and L. Whitmarsh, ‘The implications of behavioural science for effective climate policy: Output 2: Policy recommendations’, Bath, England: The Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations (CAST), Sep. 2023.

R. D. Wikstrøm, ‘The potential of combining qualitative GIS and map elicitation in daily mobility studies’, Journal of Transport Geography, vol. 108, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85151475147&doi=10.1016%2fj.jtrangeo.2023.103573&partnerID=40&md5=2521a71e764f42fdff410efe626c0331

A. Eyers and C. Howarth, ‘The role and effectiveness of climate commissions in engaging the public on climate change in the UK’, Environmental Science and Policy, vol. 157, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85190756876&doi=10.1016%2fj.envsci.2024.103760&partnerID=40&md5=59a4dd1380ede88d7f00160e178198f2

M. E. Wilhelmsen, R. O’Born, A. Heimdal, and A. Ruser, ‘Understanding and challenging climate skeptic attitudes among engineering students through interactive pedagogy’, in Proceedings of the 2023 Conference, 2023, pp. 283–88. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85185705841&partnerID=40&md5=946183ae9c8b12e23421145e317e3ce3

A. Singer, C. Kirby, and E. Rappolee, ‘Using fiction and nonfiction readings in climate change education’, Journal of College Science Teaching, vol. 52, no. 7, pp. 103–10, 2023.

M. Murunga, E. Ogier, C. Macleod, and G. Pecl, ‘What drives public engagement by scientists? An Australian perspective’, Global Environmental Change, vol. 87, p. 102889, Jul. 2024.

I. Ojuok and T. Ndayizigiye, ‘Women participation in farmer managed natural regeneration for climate resilience: Laisamis, Marsabit County, Kenya’, in African Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation, 2021, pp. 2755–73. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85151172506&doi=10.1007%2f978-3-030-45106-6_152&partnerID=40&md5=ac8abbc9927b56b545b6acf7781c4f8e

How to cite this publication:

Millar, C., Mulholland, C., Zanin, B., Whitmarsh, L., Gibson, R., Meyer J., Demski, C. (2024) A review of effective public engagement on climate and implications for Scotland, ClimateXChange.

http://dx.doi.org/10.7488/era/5742

© The University of Edinburgh, 2024
Prepared by Ipsos and CAST 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. 
   

   Based on the Scottish Government’s 2020 urban rural classification https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-government-urban-rural-classification-2020/ ↑

   
   

Research completed: January 2025

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7488/era/5650

Executive summary

Background

The planning system in Scotland is used to make decisions about future developments and use of land in towns, cities and countryside. Planning authorities are required to prepare evidence reports as part of the local development plan (LDP) process. These provide a summary of the baseline data used and explain the implications of the LDP.

Supported by National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4), planning LDPs should account for and address current and future climate risks, and enable places to adapt accordingly. Accurate, sub-national spatial data, which identifies geographic features such as rivers and utilities, is vital to create effective plans with a sound evidence base to evaluate climate risks. Fully evidencing climate risk requires an understanding of hazards, but also exposure and vulnerability, typically requiring interpretation of multiple datasets at once.

This report explores the geospatial resources that are available to support the evidence gathering stage with a view to improving access to geospatial data on climate risk. It identifies existing data, data gaps, barriers, and resources needed for evidence-based planning and delivery.

Key findings

Through engagement with a selection of Scottish Planning Authorities, we found:

Data for evidence reports

• A wide range of data is required to assess climate vulnerabilities and impacts, some of which require substantial climate and data expertise to interpret.
• Most required data is free for planning authorities.
• Planning authorities tend to rely on datasets familiar to them – such as Flood Maps (SEPA), Dynamic Coast, Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD), and OS MasterMap to assess climate risks like flooding, coastal erosion, and social vulnerability. These datasets are highly usable, with consistent coverage and quality across Scotland, but sometimes require geospatial expertise for analysis.
• There are additional datasets and tools which would benefit from further adoption by Planning Authorities, especially the Local Authority Climate Service. Additional datasets related to wildfire risk, air quality and land use may offer value, but would require some transformation, processing and interpretation to the climate context.
• Significant data gaps exist for urban heat islands, storm damage, health, water, infrastructure and landslides. Proxies (e.g. combining urban form, green space, and housing quality data) are suggested for urban heat island assessments. However, these must be approached in a considered way, which balances the potential effort to develop the interpretation against the likely risk.

Planning authorities’ approach

• There is a knowledge gap on how climate risk impacts planning. Some planning authorities have limited prior experience on climate risk, fewer technical data skills within their teams and no dedicated climate change professional. This leads to planning authorities mainly focusing on flood risk, where they have more familiarity.
• Planning authority use of spatial data is limited, despite support for it in the Local Development Planning Guidance. This underuse may result from limited awareness of the guidance and expectations of evidence reports, and a lack of capacity and skills to interpret geospatial data.
• Planners expressed a wish for a simplified approach to incorporate climate adaptation considerations into their plans.
• Planning authorities find it challenging and time-consuming to gather data from multiple providers.
• There is value in carrying out Climate Risk and Vulnerability Assessments (CRVAs) to better direct the use of data but there is no consistent approach or simple tool available for planning authorities to use.
• Collaboration across planning authorities allows knowledge and resources sharing, which leads to more consistent and effective outcomes.
• Given the wide range of potential data and analysis, planning authorities benefit from instances where work had been undertaken ahead of the LDP process to provide a view of which risks are most impactful, allowing a more focused approach to data.

Briefing note for planning authorities

• Many planning authorities lack clarity on which data should be used for assessing climate risks and vulnerabilities, and how to interpret it. We have created an accompanying briefing note (Section 9.5), which should help by providing guidance on more usable and interpretable data.

Glossary / Abbreviations table

Context and approach

Context

The reduction of emissions and adaptation to current and future risks of climate change is a challenge which is vital to be addressed via the planning system. The planning system provides opportunities to adapt to both current and future risks of climate change, as well as the potential to promote nature recovery and restoration in the area.

As part of the effort to modernise and update the planning system, the Scottish Government aims to align land-use planning with an outcomes-based approach to deliver sustainable development. This approach supports the National Performance Framework National Outcomes (Scottish Government, 2015) and supports the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2015).

Development planning, which outlines how places should change and where development should and should not happen, requires planning authorities to prepare and publish a local development plan (LDP)^[1], updating on a 5 yearly basis.

The National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) (Scottish Government, 2023c),puts climate change adaptation and resilience front and centre. A clear understanding of the impact of hazards and risks related to climate is required for an effective plan, and this must be underpinned by the effective use of climate risk data.

Defining climate risk

In this report, we refer climate risk in line with existing climate literature. Risk is defined as a combination of hazard, exposure and vulnerability (IPCC 2014).

Hazards are physical events which may have adverse effects, such as sea level rise & increased heat.

Exposure indicates the presence of people, resources, infrastructure which could be impacted by the hazard, and the extent to which they can be reached by the hazard. Physical proximity is one key consideration in understanding degree of exposure.

Vulnerability indicates to which extent people, resources or infrastructure could be more or less impacted by a hazard

Crucially, data can indicate hazard, exposure, vulnerability, or potentially a combination of the factors if indicating risk. However, if a dataset was not designed with the above in mind, it would need to be reinterpreted to a climate risk context. As an example, Ordnance Survey provides extensive data on the location of buildings, infrastructure and natural features, but geospatial analysis would be required to derive metrics such location to flood zones to indicate risk of flooding.

There is a substantial range of potential hazards associated with climate change in Scotland (Grace et. Al 2025). For this report, our engagement with the planning authorities focussed on the applicability of data, therefore a simplified grouping of hazards and risks was used (Table 1). In instances where datasets were particularly applicable to vulnerability and exposure, this is discussed in detail in Section 4.

Table 1 – Hazards and risks, as summarised in this report

Local development plan evidence reports

Evidence reports are an early, statutory step in the development of a local plan. It provides a summary of the baseline data and other information which will form the basis of the plan.

This research focuses on the evidence gathering stage for climate risk – specifically, the tasks of early engagement and data collection, preparation of the evidence reports and a gate check by the Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA).

Evidence reports should be proportionate, with planning authorities having the discretion to tailor them to local characteristics and conditions. The Local Development Planning Guidance (Scottish Government, 2023b) provides guidance to support planning authorities in preparing evidence reports, including potential datasets relevant to NPF4 policies for climate change adaptation planning.

In addition to data access, there is a need to draw out implications of the data for the plan. It is not just about accessing the geospatial climate risk dataset but also ensuring its usability to accurately inform local development plans.

Rationale for this research

The lack of easily accessible spatial data on climate risk at a sub-national resolution has been identified as a key barrier to localised understanding of climate change adaptation by local authority planning officers.

Data gaps and accessibility issues create barriers to planning authorities producing proportionate, evidence-based plans. The aim of this research is to establish options for improved, simplified access by Scottish planning authorities to geospatial data that enables consistent, collaborative climate adaptation in local planning.

The intended audience for this research includes the Scottish Government and planning authorities. The work was commissioned on behalf of the Scottish Government, with particular interest for colleagues from the Climate Change Division and Planning, Architecture and Regeneration Directorate. A standalone briefing note and data catalogue (see Section 9.5) has also been produced specifically for planning authorities to showcase the available datasets.

Research methodology

The research involved an evidence review including a review of relevant literature, planning requirements and an in-depth data analysis of available risk data and its characteristics. Stakeholder engagement was conducted with planning authorities which were at various stages of evidence report development (see Figure 1) from early planning to successful completion. The engagement included interviews, as well as a wider workshop (See 9.3). Findings from these activities were the analysed to understand current needs, challenges and possible solutions to improve the process.

Figure 1 – Planning authorities engaged with in this study included Western Isles, Moray, West Dumbarton, Glasgow City, the Lothians, the Borders and Fife

Climate risk data

Effective data is central to the local development plan, and it is key that the right data is used and referenced for the evidence report. Additionally, the evidence report is expected to rely on spatial data, for which baseline evidence sources should be accessible.

There is a large range of data potentially available for use in evidence reports. This section provides a consolidated assessment of key datasets.

Our engagement with planning authorities identified:

• Five climate-related datasets that were familiar to planning authorities and were – or were intended to be – used to produce the evidence report.
• Eight datasets which would be valuable if used more extensively by planning authorities in the preparation of evidence reports.
• Five areas of concern to planning authorities in relation to the evidence report which did not have a dataset available, or a clear methodology, documented below as data gaps.

In this section, key aspects of the data are provided, such as name, the organisation providing the data. The data license under which the data is made available is provided, the full implications of the license to usage by planning authorities is detailed in Section 9.1.2.

The majority of datasets reviewed are updated and published at a rate sufficient for their purpose, though we have noted instances where there may not be a clear long term plan for the maintenance of the data.

Several other datasets were identified as having potential value. For the full list of all data sources reviewed please see the accompanying data catalogue (Section 9.5)., which catalogue includes details of the metadata and access links.

Key datasets already in use

Through the interviews and workshop, there were multiple datasets already in use by planning authorities in the production of the evidence reports, though not consistently in all cases. The most popular datasets are discussed in this section, along with a narrative of how the datasets were applied and if any issues were faced.

Table 4.1 – Key datasets already in use by planning authorities

Flood Maps

The consensus among most participants was that the Flood Maps from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) were a useful source for assessing increased flooding risks, which could be an outcome of both increased magnitude and frequency of rainfall, storms and sea level rise. The SEPA data is presented using a simple index (high, medium and low risk) down to ‘street’ level, which lends to easy interpretation by all stakeholders. The SEPA data also distinguishes between current flood risk, and future flood risk up to the 2080s, in the ‘Future Flood Maps’ layer. One participant also commented that the support provided by SEPA is also incredibly useful. Given the flood data also overlaps with other planning use cases out with the evidence report, there is a lot of familiarity with the data.

Dynamic Coast

Data from Dynamic Coast is used by multiple planning authorities. This project undertook a wide range of analyses, from coastal change due to sea level rise to the social disadvantage of the population exposed to coastal erosion. The output is a series of datasets on coastal erosion, intended as a broad planning tool for ‘street’ to ‘regional scale’ mitigation. The data also includes social vulnerability as an indicator. For coastal planning authorities, the data was seen as valuable and usable, though may not be as accurate or applicable in estuarine areas. The outputs include a mixture of OGL and PSGA data, so while most of the data is fully open, not all layers can be supplied to all stakeholders.

Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation

The Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) dataset provides a range of indices which can be used to highlight areas of high deprivation that may face a higher impact from climate risks. The data is presented at Lower Layer Super Output Area (LSOA) level (e.g. ‘neighbourhood’ level) and summarises social issues in simple to interpret indices. The housing index specifically accounts for houses which are overcrowded, and those which do not have central heating – key factors to consider when assessing risks related to several climate hazards.

OS MasterMap

There is a large range of data available from the Ordnance Survey (OS), which can cover a range of topics from housing, infrastructure to green space and biodiversity. OS also provides products which can be used as backdrop maps to improve the accessibility of data when shared with stakeholders. The OS MasterMap range of datasets has been used in local government for various purposes since its launch in 2001, so there is likely to be organisational familiarity, especially in GIS teams. OS has been in the process of refreshing its key products with the introduction of the National Geographic Database (NGD). This is intended to add additional data to OS’s products to serve further analytical use cases and adds data such as the presence of green roofs and solar panels on buildings (coming in future release), habitat classifications and building ages. OS data is largely licensed under PSGA or OGL, and access is provided via the OS Datahub. OS also has products which identify areas of greenspace, namely MasterMap Greenspace and OS Open Greenspace. OS data is all high resolution, ‘street’ level data.

OS data is of high quality and coverage, providing street level data across Great Britain, which is updated frequently. Indicators for climate hazards, however would need to be derived through analysis. This would generally require geospatial skills and tools, but additionally, OS datasets tend to be large and complex. OS has made some efforts to address the complexity of accessing large data, including ‘Select+Build’ features, and API access. All planning authorities, as PSGA members, can access direct technical support from OS.

Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR)

LiDAR data from the Scottish Remote Sensing portal is valuable for assessing risks related to flooding. Digital Surface Model (DSM)/Digital Terrain Model (DTM) data from LiDAR can be easily interpreted and integrated with other steps in the analysis. The Scottish Remote Sensing portal has OGL licensed LiDAR data in a relatively easily accessible form – however, the coverage of the data is mostly focussed on the Central Belt, limiting the ability for some planning authorities to use. Additional coverage for the data was announced as part of the Future Farming Investment Scheme^[5], which should improve the usability of this data in the future. The data is high resolution, supporting analysis at ‘street’ level.

Suggested datasets for future wider use

The following datasets were discussed in interviews and workshops, but we found that not all planning authorities sampled were using them. For some datasets, the low uptake by planning authorities was due to difficulty in the use, or accessing of the dataset, whereas for others low uptake was down to a lack of familiarity.

In this section we have provided a narrative for these datasets to indicate where they may be of value for planning authorities to use going forward.

Table 4.2 – Suggested datasets which could be used by Planning authorities for further value

Local Authority Climate Service

The newly launched Local Authority Climate Service (LACS) from the Met Office aims to provide planning authorities across the UK with crucial information on climate change to support decision-making. The LACS provides a simple interface for analysing changes related to key hazards and includes climate averages and climate indicators. A Climate Report can be generated through the Climate Explorer. Planning authorities can add data and then use it in other applications such as Excel and Power BI. It is built using geospatial technology from Esri UK and is part of the Climate Data Portal (Met Office, 2024b) which hosts the information within the Local Authority Climate Projections Explorer. The LACS also includes guidance on the process of assessing climate risk with ‘regional’ level data. The Met Office launched the new beta service on 9 October, so as a new service has not yet seen widespread adoption in planning authorities. The Met Office are inviting feedback to help drive improvements of the LACS – the conclusions of which could be used as the basis to feed into this improvement process. Additionally, it could increase the number of Scottish planning authorities involved, increasing their awareness and knowledge of the system, and also make sure the LACS delivers the service that Scottish planners need. The LACS is not currently configured to provide reports for National Park planning authorities, but does cover all Scottish local authorities.

Habitat Map of Scotland

The Habitat Map of Scotland (HabMoS) is a composite dataset including different layers of detailed habitat data. All have been given a common Habitat Coding from the European Nature Information System (EUNIS). Using this data, a mapping of the existing habitats in a planning authority can be created. High value, or at risk habitats can then be identified, and habitat loss due to hazards such as sea level rise can be accounted for . The data is OGL licensed, with ‘street’ level resolution. HabMoS brings together habitat and land use data from multiple sources into one map, but the data is not interpreted in the context of climate hazards, so further interpretation and combination with additional datasets would be required to draw conclusions.

European Local Climate Zones

The European Local Climate Zone (LCZ) data creates a simple typology for the built environment and landcover which is intended to support decision-making around climate risks. The data aims to characterise the urban landscape into broad categories (such as low-rise and high-rise housing) so that interactions between urban form and risks such as poor air quality, flooding and heatwaves can be modelled. Data is provided at ‘neighbourhood’ level resolution. One workshop participant reported that they had undertaken a ground truthing exercise in their local authority and confirmed that the data was broadly valid. As the data was recently, in 2022 and was aimed at the climate academic community, this dataset has not yet found widespread use in planning authorities. There are not currently any regular updates or revisions published for the LCZ data. Given the data is at ‘neighbourhood’ resolution, there is less need for it to be updated frequently, as only large changes to the urban landscape would be detected. As well as the detailed methodology being public, an LCZ Generator tool is provided by Ruhr University Bochum^[9] which provides potential opportunities for updated datasets to be created for Scotland in the future.

UK Climate Risk Indicators (UK-CRI)

UK-CRI data simplifies analysis of many risks into indices. For temperature related risks, the data includes an estimation of days (or events) per year of events including heat waves, amber heat-health alerts, tropical nights (nights with a minimum temp of 20 °C). This extends to heat related impacts on infrastructure, such as road melting and high temperatures on rail. The impact of hazards on agriculture such as growing season and heat stress are also reported. Rather than creating new climate data, the UK-CRI is an interface on existing datasets (primarily Met Office) which simplifies complex data into more easily interpreted indices. The Met Office publishes annual updates to its climate data, though the UK-CRI tool does not receive updates as frequently. At ‘regional’ scale, it is less critical that the data is frequently updated, though after 5-10 years if the tool does not receive data updates, it may become far less appropriate to use.

River Basin Management Plans

River basin management plans set out actions to address current issues affecting water quality, water resources and fish. The management plans can be used in context with other data sources to understand risks which impact river health. River basin management plans are not explicitly geospatial datasets but relate to river basins which can be represented geospatially. The issues faced using this data mainly lie in the river basin boundaries not aligning with local authority boundaries, so requires some analysis. In addition, the key use case of the dataset is not climate risk or hazard related, so will require reinterpreting to the climate context.

Neighbourhood Flood Vulnerability Index (NFVI) and Social Flood Risk Index (SFRI)

A national flood vulnerability dataset was created by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and is publicly available via the ClimateJust Maps tool. This dataset provides and easily to use, ready-made index describing flood vulnerability by combing physical flood risk with several factors which represent socio-economic vulnerability to flooding. However, it is based on ‘street level’ data published in 2011, which at this scale becomes quickly outdated. England and Wales had their index updated in 2022. An updated Scottish equivalent would be a useful tool for planning authorities to explore the vulnerability to this specific and pressing hazard.

UK Climate Projections 2018 (UKCP18)

The Met Office is the authoritative source for key climate projection data for the UK. UKCP18 products are commonly used for temperature and precipitation projections, but it can also provide data on humidity, wind and sea level rise. The climate projections generally support analysis at a ‘neighbourhood’ to ‘regional’ level, dependent on the specific data UKCP18 product.

The Met Office provides a UKCP18 User Interface for querying and extracting the data, graphs and pre-paired maps (plus access to the full data catalogue for those experienced in handling large datasets), but this does require some expertise in the underlying data to navigate, limiting its usability to planning authorities that have GIS teams or capability. This was reflected in the workshops, as some participants expressed concern that the climate data accessed from the UKCP18 portal was sometimes difficult to use. In addition, there is further interpretation work required to convert a numerical value from the data into a clear indicator which can be used to influence a decision. This interpretation of the climate data and translation into implications for the LDP was also found challenging , with some planning authorities being unable to fully explore what the data means for their plan.

The UKCP18 data is a crucial underpinning to climate analysis and has been used by some planning authorities. More recently the data has been made more usable with a set of pre-prepared indicators by tools such as the Met Office Local Authority Climate Service (where GIS users can also visualise the mapped data and also add their own geospatial data), and UK Climate Risk Indicators.

GeoSure, GeoCoast and GeoClimate

Participants expressed an interest in data from the British Geological Survey, which has the potential to address risks such as coastal erosion and landslides. The BGS GeoSure, GeoCoast and GeoClimate datasets indicate risks arising from multiple hazards, with a range of open and licensed datasets. The use of BGS data was not widespread among participants, partly due to the licensing cost associated with the premium datasets.

There may be more value to be gained from these datasets, but it would likely require the supporting geotechnical knowledge and interpretation, unless a simpler way of indicating future risks is provided.

Perceived gaps and ways to address gaps

When discussing risks, participants expressed several areas where they felt there was insufficient data available to meet their needs. This was due more to the limited understanding of what data was required to support the analysis, rather than specific datasets lacking appropriate spatial and temporal resolution or having gaps in coverage.

It should also be considered that if these data gaps were closed, what value would they provide to the evidence reports in each planning authority, and to what extent would the planning process be able to take useful action on the data. Urban heat islands serve as a useful example – while it would be possible to carry out a detailed analysis in each planning authority, for rural, or northerly authorities, the risk could be understood to be minimal by using an understanding of the local context and long term heat risk from tools like the Local Authority Climate Data Service (see 4.2.1).

In this section, we list the key gaps and explore some datasets and approaches which could be used to address those gaps.

Urban heat islands

Participants generally expressed a lack of data to understand the risks associated with the urban heat island (UHI) effect. The overheating risk methodology can be derived from both UKCCRA3 (Built Environment chapter) and the previous Environmental Audit Committee evidence reviews (e.g. 2018). Determining the extent of the effect of UHIs in urban areas can be done using a temperature sensor network (at high spatial resolution), modelling (e.g. using dedicated products such as Envi-MET, adapting more commonly used modelling approaches, e.g. atmospheric dispersion modelling systems (ADMS) (Zhong et al., 2024), or analysis of high-resolution satellite data products. However, these approaches may not be suitable for all planning authorities due to resource or lack of specialist knowledge. Overheating risk is likely to be greater in areas where urban form is compact, where there is less green and open space, and where the housing quality is poor. As such, combining datasets on Local Climate Zones (to give urban form), green space, and Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation may act as a proxy for estimating urban heat island magnitude (e.g. Ferranti et al., 2023). Housing quality can also be indicated in further detail by Home Analytics data from the Energy Savings Trust which provides specific attributes on building fabric. This is a simpler approach using GIS datasets that planning authorities may be able to use for their evidence reports.

Storm and wind damage

While there are multiple datasets for inundation and coastal erosion, we did not find much work done to understand wind damage to buildings, or from trees. Tree fall risk is a statutory responsibility so it may be that planning authorities have some of this data held within parks or urban forestry teams. There are datasets which use remote sensing techniques to identify trees. One such dataset is National Tree Map from BlueSky – however, as this is a proprietary, licensed dataset it is unclear if the cost of this dataset outweighs the value which can be gained.

Landslides

While participants did discuss landslide risk, there was no broad consensus on the approach, nor most appropriate data. The open data published by the BGS could serve as a potential baseline assessment of current risk which, if found to be sufficiently high, further research could be carried out incorporating premium data, or input from specialists.

Health infrastructure

Data on the locations of key health infrastructure are available from NHS Scotland and accessible via the Spatial Hub. However, the use of these datasets in the context of the evidence reports would require further interpretation in order to drive decision making in the climate context. Whilst it would be possible to interpret which areas could be exposed to hazards such flooding and coastal erosion, understanding the magnitude of the risk on health infrastructure from hazards such as heating would require additional data to determine vulnerability such as building age and fabric. In the workshops, these aspects were not raised by participants, suggesting that this has not been a focus for planning authorities thus far.

Water infrastructure

Relevant data on water infrastructure, from Scottish Water for example, for the climate context is either available piecemeal, or not published. To understand which data would be required, planning authorities would need more knowledge as to which risks are likely to require water infrastructure data to assess.

Further observations

Wildfire risk was one aspect investigated by some planning authorities. Seasonal risk forecasts, as well as real-time monitoring is published by the European Forest Fire Information System^[10] (EFFIS). This is a valuable resource for assessing the current risk landscape for fires, but additional context would be required for evaluating future risk (see UK-CRI in Section 4.3 above).

Datasets such as the Scottish Air Quality Database^[11] provide information on air quality monitoring, analysis and interpretation of data, and pollutant trends at national and local levels. Historical data can also be accessed via the Met Office. Since these are observational datasets, they can be used for assessing current risk, but additional context would be required for evaluating future risk.

For more rural or agricultural planning authorities, there was also value in land use and land cover data from NatureScot, which allows risk to peatlands and croplands to be assessed. For coastal areas this data could also be analysed alongside Dynamic Coast data.

Based on the interviews and workshop discussions, participants expressed several areas where they had difficulty using data for specific outcomes or were not sure what to use.

Most of the datasets which were found to be of value for the evidence report were not hosted by a single source such as the Improvement Service Spatial Hub. The overhead effort of data acquisition for the planning authorities could be improved by more of the data providers providing a copy of their data to the Spatial Hub. However, this approach would not be straightforward with all datasets, such as those which are licensed (e.g. BGS), or those were the provider includes an analytical interface for extracting key indicators (Met Office LACS or UK-CRI).

Analytical tools

We reviewed several different analytical tools, such as CLIMADA^[12] and OpenCLIM^[13] which are designed to support users in analysing climate datasets and produce new data outputs indicating risk. These tools are open source, adaptable and suitable for academic use cases. In our interviews and workshops, we did not receive any feedback from planning authorities on these tools, suggesting they do not use them. As they require a high degree of specific technical proficiency (e.g. running python code), they may not be particularly suited to the planning authority teams who are producing evidence reports.

Current Approach

Climate Risk and Vulnerability Assessments

Climate Risk and Vulnerability Assessments (CRVAs) or Climate Change Risk Assessments (CCRAs) are available for some planning authorities and some regions of Scotland. These include the Clyde area, and one in preparation for south east Scotland.

Nationally, there is the UK CCRA Independent Assessment (Climate Change Committee, 2021a) and the National Summary for Scotland (Sniffer, 2021). These documents are long, difficult to navigate, and have a comprehensive list of wide-ranging risks. For anyone with limited familiarity with climate science and/or individual sectors, it is hard to understand which risks are most relevant to their planning authority or which risks are most important to planning. Risks in these documents are categorised with urgency and magnitude scores, and there is no scoring of impact or likelihood (apart from flooding likelihood) at a national, regional or local scale. Planning authorities need this information for their evidence report requirements, but it is not provided in the national CCRA3.

National documentation on adaptation (i.e. Scottish Climate Change Adaptation Programme: progress report 2023 to 2024) does not directly relate to local planning process and/or is difficult for the untrained person to see the links. The wider list of literature reviewed is given in Section 9.4.1.

Local climate risk assessment barriers and challenges – findings from the academic literature

Research related to mapping climate risk has increased rapidly in recent years. Studies are usually area- and problem-specific, which means that there is no standardised approach. Some maps focus on the local level, such as a city scale, but some have also looked nationally. Some also consider both spatial scales. Similarly, maps that assess climate risk can vary in perspective, such as focusing on one climate hazard because it disproportionately affects the study area the map is produced for. While many do take a multi-hazard approach, some focus on specific challenges such as heat, flooding, and drought.

Methodological process can also vary greatly across such assessments which may affect results so, for decision-makers, it can be challenging to decide which method is most appropriate to use. One key feature of many CRVA maps is the weighting of variables, which affects the extent of which specific variables may influence overall scoring. The SIMD dataset from the Scottish Government, as an example, weights income and employment indicators more heavily than housing in its determination of the deprivation index. However, in a climate risk context, a different weighting may be more appropriate. From a local perspective, weighting variables may be beneficial as they can provide more accurate results for decision-makers. However, in some cases it is difficult to achieve and an unweighted approach is preferred. Reasons can include

• a lack of data or local studies
• the risk of politicisation that may underpin the decisions upon weighting which links to subjectivity and
• complexities around how different climate hazards may weight other variables differently.

Ultimately, adaptation to climate change should be a process that is iterative and embedded into organisational practices. Knowledge underpinning decisions may be imperfect, incomplete, or comprise other challenges such as those outlined above. It is important nevertheless that the process is started with the best knowledge and data available at the time. In repeating the process, more experience is gained, and the challenges can begin to be addressed (Greenham et al., 2024b).

Approach to the evidence report

Current position

In both the interviews and workshop, the planning authorities were at different stages of preparing their evidence reports. This ranged from those at very early stages of preparation through to authorities who have drafted their evidence report and received feedback from the Gate Check^[14]. It is important to note that the small number of authorities having received the Gate Check at the point of the interviews and workshop, meaning a small sample may have impacted some of the feedback, alongside the relatively small sample of planning authorities that could be engaged during this short project.

The participants’ attitudes towards producing the evidence report were slightly more positive than their understanding of climate risks in general, with a generally positive sentiment (Figure 2)

Figure 2 – Sentiment captured during the workshop from the participants

Different approaches

The approaches used by planning authorities varied significantly, with different methods to identify data including policy review, evidence audits and workshops.

The teams undertaking evidence reports ranged in number of staff from 1-2 to 4-5 people. The use of specialist data or climate specialist colleagues in other departments within the planning authorities varied.

There appears to be a disparity on the anticipated timescales and resources required to undertake the evidence report. This depends on the extent to which planning authorities have already undertaken a climate change risk or vulnerability assessment and could be more reflective of local authority capabilities to conduct and deliver the output.

Some authorities have access to pre-prepared local or regional climate risk assessments or are part of existing climate ready projects (see Section 5.6). Others have access to climate change profiles, which provided an overview of expected future climate change. We also found some authorities had not explored climate risk and therefore had little existing evidence or experience to work from.

However, it was noted that even those planning authorities which had undertaken previous assessments found it difficult to access primary data. They were mainly using the conclusions of the past risk assessments to inform their evidence reports.

The implications of interpreting the data in a climate context and what the evidence actual means for informing or changing the local development plans was not always clear.

Using data to produce the reports

Concerns were raised by participants over the dynamic nature of the data, new data being published, and old data being updated. Not only did this make it hard to identify the latest datasets, but it also gave rise to concerns about evidence becoming out of date soon after reports were developed^[15].

Concerns were also raised about the complex array of caveats and limitations that are inherent in much of the data. This included concerns about their own understanding and interpretation, and how these limitations should be portrayed in the reports in a non-technical manner.

Another issue raised was an inability to find locally specific data at a sub-local authority resolution; one local authority wanted to take a ‘neighbourhood’-level approach but felt that data did not exist to support this.

Data accessibility challenges

Challenges in accessing and fully utilising data exist at several points, and in ways which varied across planning authorities.

Firstly, a very broad set of potential datasets which could be used exists. The planning authorities had to locate many different data sources to compile the data they needed.

Next, the data needed to be downloaded and formatted from the different data sources and while most of the data required is licensable freely to planning authorities, we found a subset where the licensing implications and restrictions were unclear. In the case where the work was being carried out by organisations external to the planning authorities (e.g. Sniffer), additional barriers were faced as access to PSGA licensed data is not immediately granted, and additional contractor licenses need to be provided. PSGA contractor licenses are free, and they limit the scope of external use of the data to specifically the contracted work.

Once the data is obtained, its application to understanding climate risks and hazards is not always straightforward. Some information is in a readily usable format, while others require expert input before analysis is possible. In the case of datasets such as Dynamic Coast, or data presented via the Met Office Local Authority Climate Service, data is pre-transformed and interpreted in a climate context. As an example, the Met Office LACS provides simple indices such as “Average Number of Extreme Summer Days”. This contrasts with datasets such as UKCP18, where a user will need to download the dataset, isolate the area of interest, extract the climate values, and determine what metric to rate them against. This is a time-consuming process, requiring both geospatial and climate expertise.

Understanding how to link the data back to the guidance and the requirements of the evidence report is a key required outcome, and the extent to which accessing this insight from the data can be achieved varies widely across the datasets used.

Understanding climate risks

Concerns were expressed in the workshop by participants from smaller planning and development teams about resourcing, where there was little or no dedicated resource within the team, or even access to a dedicated individual with climate change knowledge. This makes the process more difficult and time consuming for these planning authorities.

Risks vary from area to area, but additionally will vary over time as the climate changes. We found that many workshop participants were focused on a current view of risk, rather than being informed on how risks might change based on future projections. Risks across different hazard areas discussed, and whether they seemed well represented or potentially underrepresented in the workshops are outlined in Table 1. Additionally, not all planning authorities had fully defined which hazards were most appropriate for their region.

Given many planning authorities already have a track record in modelling flood risk, and have a greater understanding of flood risks specifically, there is a heavy focus on flooding. There is less awareness of other climate risks, specifically future climate risks, and how they may relate to development planning. In some cases, there is confusion between climate mitigation (through reduction of greenhouse gas emissions) and adaption to reduce climate risk.

The value of pre-existing work

In some instances, planning authorities were (or will be) able to build upon pre-existing work. Of particular value is work focused on climate risk, and the production of data layers specifically to allow easy interpretation from a wide range of users.

The data and findings from examples like Climate Ready Clyde and Climate Ready South East Scotland can be re-used and built upon for consistency, as well as reducing the effort required for an evidence report specifically. However, planning authorities who have not benefited from these will be at a relative disadvantage.

Climate Ready Clyde

Climate Ready Clyde (CRC)^[16] is a leading cross-sector initiative funded by 12 member organisations and supported by Scottish Government to create and deliver a shared vision, strategy and action plan for an adapting Glasgow City Region. CRC have produced Glasgow City Region’s Adaptation Strategy and Action Plan (Sniffer, 2024a) which includes a webmap (created by Clydeplan) that shows the location of postcodes most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change (Clydeplan, 2022). This includes heat risk (derived from the 4EI Heat Hazard Index^[17]) and a layer highlighting postcodes within the top two heat risk bands. The work from CRC on the Climate Risk and Opportunity Assessment and data layers in the vulnerability map directly informed Glasgow City Council’s Evidence report.

Figure 3 – Glasgow City Region Climate Vulnerability Map

Climate Ready South East Scotland

A new project to support collaborative climate action in the Edinburgh and south east Scotland City Region. Climate Ready South East Scotland^[18] is led by Sniffer, working in partnership with the region’s six local authorities: City of Edinburgh, East Lothian, Fife, Midlothian, Scottish Borders and West Lothian.

Climate Ready South East Scotland plans to:

• Identify and prioritise the risks and opportunities from climate change to Edinburgh and south east Scotland’s society, economy and environment between now and 2080.
• Lay the foundation for a transformational approach to climate adaptation and resilience for the city region.
• Support a just transition to a net zero and climate resilient economy, in a way that delivers fairness and tackles inequality and injustice.

A detailed assessment of the climate risks and opportunities faced by the Edinburgh and south east Scotland City Region will be carried out, and is intended to be published by March 2025. This assessment will both draw on the best available scientific evidence, and work with communities across the region to gather and share their experiences of climate change. It will inform decision-making across the region, laying the foundation for collaborative climate adaptation action (Sniffer, 2024b).

Overall observations planning authorities’ approaches

We collated six overall observations, looking across the literature review, interviews and workshop.

A focus on flooding and a lack of awareness of available non-flood data

Knowledge and understanding of flood risk and applicable datasets is much more established with planning authorities. While this experience is valuable, it does lead to a focus on flooding to the detriment of the consideration of other risks.

In general, the participants revealed a lack of awareness around climate change projection data, including where to source it and how to use it. As an example, whilst some participants with backgrounds and expertise in climate had knowledge of the data, planners in general were far less familiar with UKCP18 data, when asked about data they used. Most questions on data were directed back to flood information. In one interview, when questioned more on UKCP18 there appeared to be no knowledge of where this data can be located and how to access it. Some statements suggested a lack of understanding of what climate projections are and different scenarios used, however this was not fully probed in the interviews. This data is key in understanding the risks that planning authorities will face in the future and the degree of potential impact.

Spatial data not always used

The use of spatial data appears limited even though the use of it in evidence reports is supported by the Local Development Planning Guidance (Scottish Government, 2023b). Whilst some spatial datasets are well known by planning authorities (e.g. SEPA flood maps) the use of further datasets is not extensive due to poor understanding of the geospatial data required and/or ability and access to staff with the right skills to use and interpret geospatial data.

Simple indices support interpretation

Interviewees generally favoured datasets which provide simple indices tailored to the climate risk context, such as SEPA flood maps and Dynamic Coast. These datasets allow interpretation by users without specific climate or data expertise. This contrasts with the UKCP18 data, as an example, which provides users with hazard data like temperature and rainfall values over time. Considerable interpretation would need to be done to translate this data into a measure of risk which can be interpreted. Users without climate or geospatial data experience can be supported in understanding the implications if the data is pre-prepared, and presented with relatively simple indicators.

Section 9.2 provides examples of tools and datasets which have been developed outwith Scotland, used to support users without climate expertise in understanding risks.

Simplification of the approach is needed

There is a need to simplify the approach that planners adopt, to enable them to incorporate climate adaptation into their plans. The evidence report is an important part of this process to help development of a baseline and support understanding of the climate risks faced by planning authorities now and in the future. To do this, a Climate Risk and Vulnerability Assessment (CRVA), which considers key hazard, vulnerability and exposure data, is a valuable prerequisite to identify those risks which can be mitigated by planning. Spatial data is key to undertaking an accurate and specific assessment, although there is currently no simple tool to support it. An example of this would be the methods and approach taken by the University of Birmingham for work done for one local authority (Birmingham) and one regional authority (West Midlands) in England (see Section 9.2). Aside from a tool, authorities would benefit from greater understanding of the key datasets which provide the best outcomes. This mirrors findings from the evidence report gate checks completed to date.

Prior work and climate data skills are advantageous

There was a general observation (which was also identified by several stakeholders) that some planning authorities faced greater challenges in the evidence report process. This is because they have little prior work on climate risk, less technical data skills within the team and no dedicated climate change professional within the Council.

Planning support and guidance is not specific on the application of data

The literature review illustrates that there is little information on climate risks and resilience that is written to support either local authority planners or the evidence report process. There is a wide range of data available, which could be used in many different approaches to be applied to understanding climate risk and appropriate adaptations. Furthermore, there is a gap in knowledge on how climate risk impacts planning and how planners can enhance climate resilience through planning requirements and the local development plan. Such information contextualised for Scottish planners would be invaluable to support the evidence report process and would allow adaptation to become business as usual within planning processes.

Conclusions

The following conclusions drawn from this research project to improve the evidence base for climate resilient planning policy are:

Accessibility and usability of data

• There are numerous and varied datasets required to consider the range of vulnerabilities to, and impacts from, climate risks. There are several key datasets which are underutilised by planning authorities currently.
• Many planning authorities do not have a clear and specific understanding of what data is needed to assess climate risk and vulnerabilities. The accompanying Briefing Note for Scottish Planning authorities to this research report (see Section 9.5) should provide support in providing signposted usable data.
• Significant data gaps exist for urban heat islands, storm damage, health, water infrastructure and landslides. Proxies can be used, e.g. combining urban form, green space, and housing quality to assess urban heat island risk. However, consideration should be taken to ensure a consistent methodology, and a proportional amount of effort given potential risk.
• The most useable and accessible data sources, such SEPA, Dynamic Coast, and Met Office LACS provide pre-determined, simple indices which provide a clear indication of climate risk. These allow planners to make clear decisions, without having to apply climate or data expertise to determine risk themselves.
• Not all datasets provide simple indices, however, there are several datasets which could be used by planning authorities in the evidence reports which are not widely used currently. A consistent methodology for planners on how the indicators can be derived and used to incorporate adaptation and resilience into local planning would be advantageous.
• Longer term, a single entry-point to these datasets would make this process easier for the planners and ensure that all Planning authorities have similar data to undertake the assessments
• The data required is also mostly free for planning authorities, however, there are some licensing differences to be aware of when publishing to the public. See 9.1.2 – Data Licensing for further detail.
• Accessibility could also be improved with further guidance on certain requirements mean and how they can be achieved. For example, the requirements ask planning authorities to assess the likelihood of risks occurring. This is a complex task, requiring knowledge of the climate hazards, how they will change, uncertainties, the ranges of climate outcomes depending on scenarios. Guidance on how to define likelihood and how to use data to evaluate likelihood is important, and can be paired with a specific indication of which dataset can be used for that purpose.

Understanding and capacity

• Planning authorities find it time-consuming and difficult to get the required data from all the different providers.
• Undertaking climate change risk assessments prior to the evidence report would provide a better understanding of which risks and hazards are most impactful.
• However, planning authorities may need help doing this (especially the smaller planning authorities and/or those without climate and GIS and data experts), including:
• Direct funding to outsource.
• Support to identify partners and apply for funding.
• Sharing or secondment of staff with climate resilience/climate science and GIS and data skills.
• Collaboration and co-funding with neighbouring/regional planning authorities, like the ‘Climate Ready’ regional projects.
• As an example, Sniffer is an independent charity that supports and coordinates the climate ready programmes in Scotland, including work such as webinars which discuss the use of different datasets. Sniffer currently hold a Scottish Government funded contract (Adaptation Scotland) to provide some capacity building support to planning authorities. This could be expanded to provide wider support for the climate change risk assessment process and support planners in translating the findings into the evidence report and the local development plans.
• It should also be noted that the assessment of likelihood of risks occurring, beyond flood risk, is not undertaken in the UKCCRA3 or Scotland’s national summary.
• It is useful to understand and address vulnerability at the evidence report stage, although stakeholders did not seem familiar with this as a concept or how it might be assessed.

Potential for action

Based on the findings from this research, the following actions could be explored in the short term to enhance and improve the coverage and usefulness of evidence reports:

• Engage with the Met Office for a review of planner-specific user experience when accessing the latest UK Climate Projections (UKCP18)
• The impression from most stakeholders was that UKCP18 projections are daunting and avoided by planners. The Met Office Local Authority Climate Service (LACS) (Met Office, 2024a) is still in beta, and feedback should be provided on how it could further meet the needs of Scottish planners.
• Explore whether non-flood related climate data could be sourced directly via an existing data service for the creation of bespoke Climate Risk and Vulnerability Assessment indices and geospatial data portal relevant to planning in Scotland.
• Explore the inclusion of features to support the National Park planning authorities in the LACS.
• Engage with the British Geological Survey (BGS) to explore expansion of access for the assessment of landslide risk – and potential inclusion of licensed data.
• Provide planners with further detail on which aspects of various datasets are valuable for their local plans, including the climate risks which planning should address (e.g. overheating, surface water flooding).
• Encourage cross-authority engagement and collaboration. Given the inconsistent availability of knowledge, skills and capacity, peer learning and support can potentially provide a valuable approach to improving quality and consistency.
• Share and promote the list of data (from this research) as a standalone resource, cross referenced with the relevant climate risks. See accompanying data catalogue (Section 9.5).
• This research also clarifies which data licences may be required to support evidence report production, and further guidance on the impacts of the different license types.
• Investigate funding options for regional Climate Risk and Vulnerability Assessments. As a first step, a CRVA provides a clear steer on what the key risks are, therefore allowing a more targeted approach to the Evidence reports.
• Scope out the requirements for a Climate Risk and Vulnerability Assessment data platform for centralising the hosting of key datasets. In addition, this should include the development of new datasets and indicators which allow interpretation to non-climate, or non-geospatial users more easily. This could be delivered as a new tool or an extension to an existing one.

There is potential in the longer term to make the key national datasets available, with pre-interpreted indices available in one location. The data could have simple (e.g. high, medium, low) indices with user friendly guidance on what the data is, what it means and caveats (this could be 4-5 key hazards, with a climate vulnerability index). It could link directly to the datasets that have been identified in this report and could also potentially use some of the data from the analytics tools. This would require further research and dialogue with potential providers.

References

Birmingham City Council (2024) Climate Risk and Vulnerability Assessment map. Available online: https://maps.birmingham.gov.uk/webapps/CRVA/ [last accessed October 2024]

Clydeplan (2022) Glasgow City Region Climate Vulnerability Map. Available online: https://climatereadyclyde.org.uk/climate-vulnerability-map/ [last accessed October 2024]

Environmental Audit Committee (2018) Heatwaves: Adapting to Climate Change. UK Parliament Commons Select Committee. Environmental Audit. 2018. Available online: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmenvaud/826/82604.htm [last accessed October 2024].

Ferranti, E., Cook, S., Greenham, S.V., Grayson, N., Futcher, J. and Salter, K., (2023) Incorporating Heat Vulnerability into Local Authority Decision Making: An Open Access Approach. Sustainability, 15(18), p.13501. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813501

Grace, E., Marcinko, C., Paterson, C., & Stobbs, W. (2025). Using future climate scenarios to support today’s decision making. CXC/Government Actuary’s Department.

Greenham, SV., Jones, SA., Ferranti, EJS., Zhong, J., Acton, WJF., MacKenzie, AR., Grayson, N., (2023) Mapping climate risk and vulnerability with publicly available data. A guidance document produced by the WM-Air project, University of Birmingham. Available online: https://doi.org/10.25500/epapers.bham.00004259 [last accessed October 2024]

Greenham, S, Ferranti, E, Jones, S, Zhong, J, Grayson, N, Needle, S, Acton, J, MacKenzie, AR & Bloss, W. (2024a) An open access approach to mapping climate risk and vulnerability for decision-making: A case study of Birmingham, United Kingdom, Climate Services, vol. 36, 100521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2024.100521

Greenham, SV., Ferranti, EJS., Cork, NA., Jones, SA., Zhong, J., Haskins, B., Grayson, N., Needle, S., Acton, WJF., MacKenzie, AR., Bloss, WJ. (2024b). Mapping climate risk and vulnerability in the West Midlands. A guidance document produced by the WM-Air project, University of Birmingham. https://doi.org/10.25500/epapers.bham.00004371

IPCC (2014a). Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1-32. Available at https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/.

Met Office (2024a) Local Authority Climate Service. Available online at: https://climatedataportal.metoffice.gov.uk/pages/lacs [last accessed September 2024]

Met Office (2024b) Met Office Climate Data Portal. Available online at: https://climatedataportal.metoffice.gov.uk/ [last accessed September 2024]

Scottish Government (2015) National Performance Framework National Outcomes. Available online at: https://nationalperformance.gov.scot/national-outcomes [last accessed October 2024].

Scottish Government (2019) Planning (Scotland) Act 2019. Available online at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2019/13/contents/enacted [last accessed October 2024].

Scottish Government (2023a) The Town and Country Planning (Development Planning) (Scotland) Regulations 2023. Available online at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/8/contents [last accessed October 2024].

Scottish Government (2023b) Local development planning Guidance, May 2023. Available online at: https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/advice-and-guidance/2023/05/local-development-planning-guidance/documents/local-development-planning-guidance/local-development-planning-guidance/govscot%3Adocument/local-development-planning-guidance.pdf [last accessed September 2024].

Scottish Government (2023c) National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4). Available online at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/national-planning-framework-4/ [last accessed October 2024].

Scottish Government (2024a) Research to Inform National Planning Framework 4: Planning and Climate Change Guidance Report Issue 3. Available online at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/research-inform-national-planning-framework-4-planning-climate-change-guidance-report-issue-3/ [last accessed November 2024].

Scottish Government (2024b) Scottish National Adaptation Plan 2024 – 2029. Available online at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-national-adaptation-plan-2024-2029-2/ [last accessed November 2024].

Sniffer (2021) Third UK Climate Change Risk Assessment Technical Report: Summary for Scotland. Available online at: https://www.ukclimaterisk.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CCRA-Evidence-Report-Scotland-Summary-Final-1.pdf [last accessed September 2024].

Sniffer (2024a) Climate Ready Clyde, Building a more resilient, prosperous and fairer Glasgow City Region. Available online: https://climatereadyclyde.org.uk/ [last accessed October 2024].

Sniffer (2024b) Climate Ready South East Scotland, Supporting regional climate action in the Edinburgh and South East Scotland City Region. Available online: https://climatereadyses.org.uk/about/ [last accessed October 2024]

UK Climate Change Committee (2021a) Independent Assessment of UK Climate Risk

Advice to Government For The UK’s Third Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA3), June 2021. Available online at: https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Independent-Assessment-of-UK-Climate-Risk-Advice-to-Govt-for-CCRA3-CCC.pdf [last accessed September 2024].

United Nations (2015) The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Available online at: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda [last access October 2024].

WMCA (2022) West Midlands Levelling Up Growth Prospectus. Available at: https://www.wmca.org.uk/documents/levelling-up/west-midlands-levelling-up-prospectus/ [last accessed October 2024]

WMCA (2024) West Midlands Climate Risk and Vulnerability Assessment (WM-CRVA) Map. Available online: https://west-midlands-combined-authority.github.io/crva/ [last accessed October 2024]

Zhong, J, Lu, Y, Stocker, J, Hamilton, V & Johnson, K. (2024) Modelling the urban heat island in Birmingham, UK at the neighbourhood scale. In EGU General Assembly 2024., EGU24-19930, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14/04/24. https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-19930

Appendices

Definition of Terms

Usability

Usability is summarised as follows:

• ‘High’ – a dataset which provides simple indices in a climate hazard and risk context and access and can be interpreted easily. Users will not need specific GIS or climate expertise to understand planning outcomes from these datasets.
• ‘Medium’ – data is relatively accessible but requires expertise to interpret or transform. To understand the data in a climate hazard and risk context, as well as planning outcomes, specific expertise in either climate, or GIS will be required.
• ‘Low’ – a dataset which requires specialist knowledge, expertise or skills. Extensive expertise, as well as time and effort will need to be applied to this data in order to arrive at indicators that can be used to make planning decisions.

Data Licensing

The information is provided as guidance on the description and general consequences of the common license types encountered for data. However, care should always be taken to ensure that if any data is used, the license and its limits should be validated before use or distribution.

Table 9.1 – Relevant data licences and their impact on planning authorities

Data Scale and Resolution

Table 9.2 – Description of the shorthand terms used to describe spatial resolution as used in this report. Inset maps © OpenStreetMap contributors

Scale	Spatial Resolution	Example
‘street’	<50cm
‘neighbourhood’	50cm – 1km
‘town’	1km – 15km
‘regional’	15km+
‘national’	100km+

Example Tools to support Interpretation

Climate Risk Vulnerability Assessment methods – the University of Birmingham

A Climate Risk and Vulnerability Assessment (CRVA) map is a method co-developed by the WM-Air project team at the University of Birmingham with local and regional stakeholders across Birmingham and the West Midlands. A CRVA map shows how geospatial climate risk data may be used by local planning authorities. It is pulled together using different environmental, physical, and socio-economic datasets to understand how climate risk varies across an area. The mapping approach prioritises using publicly accessible data and can be replicated by other planning authorities to improve climate resilience (Greenham et al., 2023).

Figure 4 – Birmingham City Council Climate Risk and Vulnerability Assessment map

Birmingham City Council recently published their CRVA (Greenham et al., 2023) on the city’s website (Birmingham City Council, 2024). The CRVA map scores areas of Birmingham based on compiling the presence and extent of 11 different factors that may influence the impact of climate change, where the higher the score, the more at-risk and vulnerable an area and its citizens are likely to be to climate change. The approach is considered a Minimum Viable Product (MVP), i.e. it works, and refinements can be made through use.

West Midlands Climate Risk and Vulnerability Assessment (WM-CRVA) Map

Figure 5 – West Midlands Combined Authority Climate Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Map

The University of Birmingham also collaborated with the West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA); co-developing a CRVA map for the wider West Midlands (Greenham et al., 2024a). It takes forward the Birmingham MVP approach by including greater consideration of vulnerability. The overall CRVA map scores are based on 24 different factors, each of which is considered one of either a hazard, vulnerability, or exposure factor influencing climate risk.

Methodology

Our approach included two key phases the Discovery phase and the Analysis phase. The discovery phase involved a continuation of planning and refining the scope, and identifying the key tasks needed to ensure we had the full background and context to successfully undertake the research. The Analysis phase involved the main research tasks, including stakeholder engagement and a deep dive analysis of currently available climate risk and hazard data. Both are described in more detail below.

Discovery Phase

• A desktop literature review was conducted (August 2024). The literature included covered information on climate change methods, past climate risk or vulnerability studies (where spatial data was used), and information relevant to climate risk in Scotland as well as the latest policy documents around climate adaptation for Scotland. Here we identified which risks were commonly highlighted within Scotland and what data has been used by others to represent those risks. As well as summarising the key policies relevant to the topic climate change risk and adaptation for the Evidence reports. The literature review findings were summarised in an excel spreadsheet. The full references to the literature are included in Appendix Literature review (Section 9.4.1).
• Three of the currently available evidence reports were also reviewed, this allowed us to understand the current work by planning authorities and what approaches they took. We also began to identify gaps between the produced Evidence reports and the requirements.
• A long list of potential workshop invitees was developed, this was to be refined within the analysis phase.
• Identified a proposed list of relevant data with key search parameters for deep dive assessment. Research partners the University of Birmingham shared the data lists for both their CRVA mapping projects for Birmingham City Council and the West Midlands Combined Authority for review in the context of identifying the same UK wide datasets of their Scottish equivalents.
• Set out an initial stakeholder engagement plan for the approach to both the interviews and a workshop, which was reviewed by and agreed with CXC.

Analysis Phase

• Undertook the dataset deep dive and identified key practical characteristics including cost, availability, and accessibility
• In the stakeholder engagement plan the approach for both the interviews and workshops were also set out. For the interviews we identified a list of stakeholders, this included three planning authorities that had or were in the process of undertaking the Evidence reports. We asked to speak to relevant individuals who had written the reports or who would be or were significantly involved in gathering climate evidence. Here, knowledge gained from the literature review was used to develop appropriate questions to help us better understand the local authority’s approach to gathering evidence, their understanding of the requirements and any difficulties they had faced or anticipated facing, and confidence with the topic (a full list of the interview questions can be found in Appendix Interview responses, Section 9.4.2).
• When selecting stakeholders for both interviews and workshops we aimed to get a mix of stages within the development report process. We also ensured we had a good geographic spread of participants representing the wide range of planning authorities in Scotland. This included, coastal, city based, and Island based planning authorities.
• During this analysis phase we held three interviews with representatives of Fife Council (21^st August 2024), Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar (28^th August 2024) and Glasgow City Council (3^rd September 2024). Interviews included multiple members of the Arup team representing planning, Climate and data expertise as well as a note taker. All interviews were recorded with the permission of the participants. Interview findings were summarised in Appendix Interview responses (Section 9.4.2).
• After the initial interviews a virtual ‘Prioritisation Workshop’ (17^th September 2024) which included representatives from the planning authorities we interviewed, other planning authorities (across a geographic spread and at differing stages in their LDP) and other relevant wider stakeholders (such as representative from Sniffer). The workshop was developed using the findings of the interviews, so that the activities probed at areas of interest and or areas not fully covered by the interviews. The aim of this workshop was to further discuss how planning authorities can improve their access to geospatial data for climate adaptation.

Underlying assumptions

CXC facilitated introductions to key stakeholders for engagement. Engagements were virtual, via Microsoft Teams.

The sample of planning authorities involved was not aiming to be extensive or include all Scottish LPAs, given the scope, size and duration of this research project, but aimed to have good representation across geography, size and stage of progress with the Evidence report.

Literature review and stakeholder engagement

Literature review

A desktop literature review was conducted during the discovery phase, and a full list of references is provided here.

Table 9.3: Full list of references for literature review

Interview responses

This section provides the interview questions and a summary of the answer given by all three planning authorities interviewed.

Q1: What is your role in preparing the Evidence report?

• Most stakeholders interviewed were planning officers based in planning services or equivalent.
• Teams working on this topic of the Evidence report ranged from 1-2 to 4-5 members of staff as the core team. Though generally one or two key individuals took responsibility or a key co-ordination role.
• Use of expertise outside of teams also varied including some drawing on data individuals or climate and sustainability officers.

Q2: What is the status of your Evidence report? And what are the next steps?

• Ranged from early stages of prep to just complete and complete and addressing feedback.

Q3: How clear to you were the requirements / guidance for assessing climate risk through the Evidence report?

• Responses to this question were mixed, some stated the guidance “left a lot open to interpretation”, feeling it was hard to understand what they actually needed to do.
• One Local Authority said the guidance was clear in answer to this question but after further probing it appeared they were not sure on several of the elements within the requirements.
• One response stated that requirements were easier to interpret due to knowledge of other resources.

Q4: How did you assess climate risk/climate change within your Evidence report?

• In one interview the approach had not been developed and it was too early to discuss.
• The other two planning authorities relied heavily on information that had been previously produced for the area, such as past climate profiles or regional risk assessments. Using this information and interpreting it rather than new information or raw data designed specifically for the Evidence report.
• One Local Authority took a place-based approach but struggled with assessing climate risk on this level.

Q5: How have you assessed vulnerability to climate change and inequalities?

• This question was generally not well answered indicating that there was a lack of understanding on the requirements around assessing vulnerability.
• One Local Authority alluded to have a copy of a vulnerability index, but not sure where it was sourced from (potentially from SEPA).

Q6: Do you know what datasets were required to undertake climate risk assessment? 

• One Council in the early stages indicated that they did not yet know what datasets would be required to complete assessments but were aware of the recommended data sets.
• Another realised on using report summarising previous regional risk assessments and interpreted screenshots from these reports. They had tried to get the data but had difficulty locating/accessing it.
• Generally, when talking about data the focus was flood data. No participant mentioned raw climate projection data. Heat hazard data was mentioned by a single Local Authority but in the context of difficulties getting the data.

Q7: Do you know how to/have the ability to access them (within the team)?

• Answers for this question were mixed some had dedicated contacts they could reach out too for data others stated they struggled knowing which data was relevant.
• When probed there generally seemed to be a lack of knowledge on what data was out there, without even thinking about how to access, use and interpret the data.
• General staff resources were flagged as an issue and time needed to use datasets.
• One Local Authority had external GIS support for these kind of tasks from a cross local authority collaboration to share resource, with a 2-year secondment, though this was a resource with a limited timescale.

Q8: Is there anything else you would like to share about the process?

• One set of interviews mentioned that they were beginning to realise the size and scope of the task of gathering and analysing climate risk data as they begin process of evidence gathering.
• One Local Authority mentioned concern about understanding how all of this actually linked into to planning and how in general the evidence would be used to influence planning.
• One also mentioned they had a lot of support from their climate team and could sense check and problem solve with their guidance. This was an invaluable resource.

Workshop

Arup and the University of Birmingham undertook a stakeholder workshop on 17 September 2024 for ClimateXChange Scotland and the Scottish Government on Improving access to geospatial climate risk data. The purpose of this workshop was to discuss together how planning authorities can improve their access to geospatial data for climate adaptation in the context of development planning.

The online workshop brought together planning authorities (across a geographic spread and at differing stages in their LDP) to better understand their needs as a local planning authority and/or climate policy team:

• to prepare Evidence reports, 
• as users of this geospatial climate risk data and;
• understand any current challenges or gaps that need addressing

The workshop provided information on key hazards and risks the planning authorities had been or anticipated focussing on and what data would or had been used. The workshop built on the interviews by delving deeper into the data and methods of analysis. Providing further insight on data gaps, ease of use and challenges faced by the planning authorities.

Additional Resources

Data catalogue

The data catalogue spreadsheet is available online:

Improving access to geospatial climate risk data – Data catalogue

Briefing note for planning authorities

The briefing note for planning authorities is available online:

Geospatial climate data for evidence reports briefing note

How to cite this publication:

Corrigan, J., McNeill, C., Kent, N., Keane, M., Brown, C., Hanson, D., Halliday, C., Ferranti, E., Greenham, S., Horrocks, L., Doherty, J. (2025) ‘Improving access to geospatial climate risk data’, ClimateXChange. http://dx.doi.org/10.7488/era/5650

© The University of Edinburgh, 2025
Prepared by Arup and the University of Birmingham 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

1. 
   

   The LDP is required under The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (Scottish Government, 1997), as amended by the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 (Scottish Government, 2019). Relevant secondary legislation and published guidance includes The Town and Country Planning (Development Planning) (Scotland) Regulations 2023 (Scottish Government, 2023a) as well as Local Development Planning Guidance (Scottish Government, 2023b). ↑

   
   
2. 
   

   A detailed description of licensing terms and their implication, such as OGL, PSGA, BSD and CC-BY are provided in 9.1.2 – Data Licensing ↑

   
   
3. 
   

   The relevance of the dataset to the hazard groups as discussed with participants. Definitions are shown in Table 1 ↑

   
   
4. 
   

   Captures ease of use by local authority officials. See 9.1.1 – Usability for more detail ↑

   
   
5. 
   

   New deal for agriculture – gov.scot ↑

   
   
6. 
   

   A detailed description of licensing terms and their implication, such as OGL, PSGA, BSD and CC-BY are provided in 9.1.2 – Data Licensing ↑

   
   
7. 
   

   The relevance of the dataset to the hazard groups as discussed with participants. Definitions are shown in Table 1 ↑

   
   
8. 
   

   Captures ease of use by local authority officials. See 9.1.1 – Usability for more detail ↑

   
   
9. 
   

   LCZ Generator ↑

   
   
10. 
    

    https://forest-fire.emergency.copernicus.eu/apps/effis_current_situation/index.html ↑

    
    
11. 
    

    https://www.scottishairquality.scot/ ↑

    
    
12. 
    

    https://wcr.ethz.ch/research/climada.html ↑

    
    
13. 
    

    https://tyndall.ac.uk/projects/openclim/ ↑

    
    
14. 
    

    Administered by the Planning and Environmental Appeals Division, the Gate Check is a process through which the sufficiency of the evidence report is assessed, to confirm there is a sound evidence base on which to prepare a Local Development Plan ↑

    
    
15. 
    

    From an LDP guidance perspective the evidence available at the time of writing the report is proportionate and sufficient. ↑

    
    
16. 
    

    https://climatereadyclyde.org.uk/ ↑

    
    
17. 
    

    https://www.4earthintelligence.com/capabilities/heat/ ↑

    
    
18. 
    

    https://climatereadyses.org.uk/ ↑

    
    
19. 
    

    https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/customers/public-sector/public-sector-licensing/publish-share-data ↑

    
    

Research completed: July 2024

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7488/era/5342

Executive Summary

Heat loss from domestic buildings has been identified as a major source of carbon emissions. Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) present energy efficiency ratings for buildings. They will become an increasingly important tool in quantifying energy loss for individual properties in Scotland, as outlined in the proposed Heat in Buildings Bill.

This study reviews the approaches taken in European Union (EU) member states on operational governance of EPCs, through a desk-based literature review, expert interviews and in-depth case studies of three countries of interest.

We identify opportunities for Scotland to learn from examples of best practice in other countries. We also present a series of options that could be implemented as part of a potential reform of the operational framework for EPC governance in Scotland.

Key findings

Governance models

Member states allocate responsibility for EPC implementation and quality assurance of their EPC regimes in different ways. Some member states utilise a central government body, and others use a publicly funded arms-length body. A few member states use an external private organisation or allocate this responsibility at a regional level.

Minimum qualifications, training and accreditation for EPC assessors

Member states must ensure that EPC assessors are suitably qualified and certified. They do this by setting requirements for assessors, such as a higher education degree, and/or professional experience in a related field. Most member states also have approved training courses and/or examinations, which might be voluntary or mandatory. Some countries also require mandatory recertification or retraining after a set period of time or require programmes of continuous professional development.

Auditing and quality assurance in the production of EPCs

Member states must ensure that quality standards are upheld in the production of EPCs. They are required to carry out random sampling of EPCs, although some member states conduct random sampling of total EPCs issues, and others sample a percentage of EPCs per assessor. Some member states also choose to conduct additional targeted audits, which can be desk-based or on-site and are triggered by specific risk factors. Some member states also use digital screening systems, which automatically screen input data to identify incorrect or inconsistent data.

All member states implement some sort of penalty system for assessor errors to uphold quality standards. These usually depend on the severity of the infraction, but include reissuing the EPC, additional targeted training, or monetary fines. For severe or repeat offences, assessors in some member states can also have their assessor license suspended or withdrawn.

Enforcement mechanisms

Most member states can issue fines for failing to present a valid EPC at the point of sale or rental. However, many do not enforce this requirement or issue fines in practice and there are data gaps in how well the requirement is enforced. Analysis by the European Commission found that only a small number of member states have a robust system for enforcing the requirement to present an EPCs at the point of sale. Those that do require legal professionals to check that an EPC is present as part of the sale. However, rental agreements often do not involve a legal professional in the process, so they cannot be targeted in the same way as sales are more difficult to enforce.

Options for Scotland

We have established a list of potential options which could improve the operational governance of EPCs in Scotland.

Option 1 – Including standard training requirements for EPC assessors in the Operational framework

This could include introducing standard education and qualification requirements into the operational framework, approving a standardised mandatory training programme for EPC assessors, and/or requirements for assessors to attend mandatory annual re-training.

Option 2 – Develop standardised quality assurance procedures for approved organisations in the operational framework

This could include developing a digital quality assurance system to screen EPC input data, establishing a ‘Helpdesk’ function to receive complaints about EPCs, implementing targeted audits of EPCs based on specific risk factors and/or outlining a clear penalty system for assessor infractions.

Option 3 – Engage wider stakeholders in the rental/sales process to support enforcement of the requirement to present an EPC

Formalising the requirement for solicitors to check EPC documentation at the point of sale could help enforce this requirement in practice. Engaging stakeholders involved in the rental market, such as estate agents, could help encourage checking of EPC documentation for lettings.

Glossary and abbreviations table

Introduction

Context

Energy Performance Certificates in Scotland

The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) is the primary legislative instrument used to promote energy efficiency in buildings in the European Union (EU). First published in 2002, it was recast in 2010, 2018 and most recently in May 2024 to align with the higher energy efficiency ambition in the European Green Deal (European Union, 2024).

The Energy Performance of Buildings (Scotland) Regulations 2008 transposed the original EU’s EPBD into Scottish statute. The Regulations dictate how Energy Performance Certificates (EPC) are implemented in Scotland, and outline that an EPC must be produced when a new building is constructed and when a building is sold or rented. This applies both to homes and to non-domestic buildings. EPCs contain an energy efficiency rating, as well as recommendations on how to improve a building’s energy efficiency. Therefore, they are widely considered to be useful tools for helping to drive emission reductions from buildings.

However, using EPCs as a basis upon which to set standards can be problematic, as a result of issues including:

• Poor quality or low robustness of assessments
• Infrequently updated assessments
• Use of modelled data rather than actual energy performance data
• A lack of incentives for decarbonising heat

To ensure that EPCs are fit for purpose in the context of Scotland’s leading net zero objectives, the Scottish Government is planning to revise the role of EPCs in line with the proposed Heat in Buildings Bill. There could be a more prominent role for EPCs, particularly as a tool for demonstrating compliance.

Operational governance of EPCs in Scotland and reform

In Scotland, an EPC must be produced by members of six “Approved Organisations” (AOs). Regulation 8(3) of the Energy Performance of Buildings Regulations (Scotland) 2008 requires that AOs “ensure that members are fit and proper persons who are qualified by their education, training and experience to carry out the preparation and issuing of energy performance certificates”. AOs therefore hold primary responsibility for training and accrediting EPC assessors in Scotland. An operational framework outlines key processes that ensure EPCs are prepared and issued by sufficiently qualified persons, including (Scottish Government, 2012):

• Ensuring integrity and operational resilience
• Accreditation of energy assessor members
• Administering the operation of energy assessor members
• Maintaining records to facilitate effective operation of the scheme and periodic audit by the Scottish Government

A report by Alembic Research Ltd et al, (2019) and commissioned by the Scottish Government, made recommendations on minimum standard qualifications for EPC assessors, auditors, and AOs. It also suggested an independent redress avenue for EPC consumers. In line with this, the Scottish Government are looking to assess and potentially review the Operating Framework and its role in upholding the quality and robustness of EPCs. This will ensure EPCs are fit for purpose in their potentially enhanced role in the upcoming Heat and Buildings Bill.

Objectives and scope

In this study, we investigate how the operational governance provisions of the EPBD have been implemented in the EU member states. This will enable us to identify opportunities for Scotland to learn from examples of best practice in other countries. The key objectives of this study are therefore to:

• Review the approaches taken to operational governance of EPCs in EU member states
• Identify different methods of implementation and areas of interest for Scotland
• Develop options for potential reform of the operational framework for EPC governance in Scotland.

We only consider approaches taken in EU member states in this review. In addition, we do not consider aspects related to EPC methodologies. The focus is on the operational aspects of EPC governance. These include:

• Governance model – whether central government or arms-length bodies hold responsibility for EPC governance, or if this is delegated to external organisations.
• Training for EPC assessors – including coverage of any education prerequisites to apply for certification, training courses or examinations that assessors must complete, and any requirements for re-certification or retraining after a set period.
• Auditing, verification and quality assurance (QA) procedures – the systems and processes in place to guarantee the quality of EPC production, how the requirement for an independent control system (ICS) is met, including who holds QA responsibilities and any penalties issued for assessor infractions.
• Enforcement mechanisms – how member states enforce the requirement to present an EPC at the point of construction, sale or rental of a property, and any associated penalties
• Affordability – any information identified on how member states ensure the affordability of EPCs, in line with Article 16 of the EPBD.

Methodology

We collected data for this study primarily through a desk-based literature review. This was supplemented with a series of interviews with EPC experts,^[1] which we used to triangulate findings from the literature review and to fill any identified gaps in the evidence. We then selected three countries of interest for Scotland (Belgium, Croatia and Ireland) and developed an in-depth case study for each. The collected data was used to derive policy options for improving the operational governance of EPCs in Scotland. Full methodological detail, including relevant limitations, is presented in Appendix A.

Operational governance of EPCs in the EU member states

Governance models

This section explores the governance models that member states use to implement Energy Performance Certificate regimes, including how they delegate the responsibility for the Independent Control System required in the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive.

EPBD requirements

member states can delegate the responsibility for implementing the ICS for EPCs as they deem fit under Annex VI of the EPBD. This system aims to ensure the quality of EPCs and their associated QA procedures. (European Commission, 2021a). Amongst other requirements, the ICS should:

• Provide a clear definition of a valid EPC, which should include requirements to check the validity of input data and calculations used to generate the EPC
• Clearly outline the quality objectives and level of statistical confidence that the EPC framework should achieve (these are further explained in Section 4.3.1)
• Ensure that EPCs are available to prospective buyers and tenants so that informed decisions can be made on their decision to buy or rent a property
• Account for different building typologies, such as single residential, multi-residential, offices or retail
• Regularly publish information on the ICS, through the national database of EPCs.

Member state approaches

Scottish approach

Scotland follows the approach agreed in the UK when the EPBD was transposed into domestic regulation in 2008, when the UK was an EU Member State.

The Scottish Government implements EPCs, including the ICS, through six external private organisations, called Approved Organisations. The Scottish Government has an agreement with these AOs, who are governed by an operational framework, which was published in 2012. Members of AOs are often self-employed energy assessors, whom the AOs contract to produce EPCs in line with government-approved methodologies and tools (Delorme and Hughes, 2016). However, the role of the AOs is to ensure that their members have the skills and expertise necessary to prepare and issue EPCs. They are also responsible for upholding QA protocols and for issuing penalties for incorrect EPCs.

A similar approach is adopted in England and Wales, where six independent accreditation schemes are responsible for managing energy assessors and for ensuring they possess the appropriate skills for the role.

Table 1 gives an overview of the governance models adopted in the member states. The majority place the responsibility of implementing the ICS for EPCs on a Central Government body. This approach is adopted in Greece for example, where the Department of Energy Inspection hold QA responsibilities (CRES, 2020). Some member states have allocated the responsibility of implementing the ICS on government-funded, arms-length bodies. For example, this is the approach adopted in Ireland, where the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI) is responsible, and in Slovakia, where this falls to the Slovak Trade Inspection. Both bodies are publicly funded, non-profit organisations separate to the central government Ministries and Departments responsible for overall EPC policy (SEAI, 2017b) (Slovak Trade Inspection, n.d.).

Portugal has allocated the responsibility of implementing the EPBD and the ICS to an external body. The Portuguese Energy Agency (ADENE) oversees the central register and assessor accreditation. An EU-level EPC expert interviewed for this project perceived that this approach was adopted to separate EPC governance from changing political governments, instilling stability and allowing for a long-term vision for the system to be implemented.

Five member states implement the ICS at regional level. Each of the Belgian regions govern EPCs independently. In Austria, some regions have allocated responsibility of conducting QA on EPC data to the municipalities (OIB, 2020), whereas energy agencies oversee the QA in others (TU Wien, 2021). Italian regions and autonomous provinces had autonomy over energy topics until 2015, resulting in a complex regulatory framework. Guidelines for regulating EPCs were released in 2015 that implemented a new standardised EPC system at national level (Azzolini et al., 2020).

Minimum qualifications, training and accreditation for EPC assessors

This section outlines the training and certification schemes member states have adopted to ensure that EPC assessors are suitably qualified independent experts.

EPBD requirements

Article 25 of the EPBD sets out a requirement for member states to ensure that EPCs are carried out by ‘independent experts’. It outlines that:

• Experts must be suitably qualified and certified, but can be self-employed, employed by public bodies or by private enterprises
• Information on the training and certification process should be made available to the public
• A list of certified experts or companies that offer the services of experts must be regularly updated and made available to the public.

Member state approaches

Scottish approach

The Operating Framework mandates that AOs reference the UK National Occupational Standards for Energy Assessors. These have been developed to ensure energy assessors are competent and possess the right skills to conduct energy assessments. A Level 3 NVQ qualification for assessors exists in Scotland, as well and in England and Wales. However, AOs are ultimately responsible for ensuring EPC assessors are suitably qualified in Scotland. Although some assessors obtain this NVQ, it is not mandatory and AOs use Approved Prior Experiential Learning (APEL), which considers relevant experience, skills, and training of a potential assessor.

EPC experts must complete a 3-5 day training course, designed and delivered by AOs. These can cost between £700 and £1250 (Kanzyl, 2020a). The type of accreditation depends on the building type to be assessed – with separate accreditations for:

• Domestic EPCs (existing buildings).
• Domestic EPCs (new buildings).
• Non-domestic EPCs (existing buildings).
• Non-domestic EPCs (new buildings).

Continuous professional development (CPD) is required, although the minimum level of CPD is specified by each AO (Delorme and Hughes, 2016).
As AOs in Scotland are responsible for ensuring assessors are suitably qualified, and there are no minimum national standards for qualifications, training, or continuous professional development. Therefore, there may be a variation in standards across the country.
The approach taken in England and Wales is similar, where accreditation schemes have discretion over whether assessors hold the necessary skills to become an assessor. However, energy assessors can satisfy requirements through training and examinations, or by demonstrating suitable qualifications and experience (Delorme & Higley, 2020).

Pre-Requisites for independent experts

Table 2 outlines the approaches member states have taken to setting pre-requisites for independent experts. Thirteen member states have set subject-specific educational requirements. These are all higher education requirements (either Bachelors or Masters) in subjects such as engineering and architecture. Sweden, Romania and the Netherlands are the only member states only requiring professional experience as a pre-requisite for accreditation. In Sweden for example, applicants must first have 5 years of professional experience to undergo the training for assessor accreditation (Hjorth et al., 2020).

Some member states have more flexible requirements and recognise either professional or educational experience. Others, however, require both specific higher education degrees and professional experience. For example, in Lithuania applicants must have an engineering degree and three years’ experience in the construction sector (Kranzl, 2020a).

Training courses for independent experts

Table 3 outlines the approaches to training independent experts adopted by member states for assessor accreditation.

Most member states have implemented a mandatory training programme for EPC assessor accreditation. The majority of member states (including Bulgaria, Denmark, Greece and Ireland) have also implemented a mandatory written examination as a requirement for accreditation. Malta requires both written and oral examinations (BPIE, 2014). Six member states (Austria, Germany, Estonia, Croatia, Luxembourg and Slovenia) do not have a mandatory exam for prospective assessors.

Some member states have only introduced a voluntary training scheme for assessor accreditation. In these member states (Austria and Germany), the authority responsible for assessor accreditation certifies experts based on professional experience or education achievements, without the adoption of mandatory training (Kranzl, 2020a) (BPIE, 2014). In Cyprus and Hungary, despite the adoption of voluntary training, completion of a mandatory exam is required for accreditation (BPIE, 2014). The training requirements for member states do not appear to be linked to the stringency of pre-requisites, for example, the countries who implement a voluntary training programme only do not necessarily have more stringent pre-requisites (and vice versa).

Training course administration

In most cases, training is administered by external, private organisations that have been approved by the Government. In Ireland for example, the national agency for qualifications, ‘Quality and Qualifications Ireland’ oversees the accreditation of training course providers. Only courses administered by these organisations are accepted (SEAI, 2017a). Similarly, in member states such as Denmark and Greece, a singular accreditation body has been appointed (National Energy Agency in Sweden and the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change in Denmark) (Ruggieri et al., 2023). An interview with an EPC expert in the Belgium (Flanders) highlighted that whilst the Flemish Government had outsourced the delivery of training and examinations to external providers, they are now in the process of re-instating the administration of the accreditation internally. No further clarification on why this was the case was provided.

Recertification or retraining for independent experts

Table 4 outlines the approaches to recertification and retraining adopted in EU member states.

Some member states require independent experts to recertify or retrain after a set period of time. This is achieved either by re-sitting the accreditation examination, taking refresher training or through proof of experience. Eight member states have a requirement that independent experts complete programmes of CPD. In Belgium (Flanders), for example, all independent experts must undergo training and sit an examination annually. This training is used to either introduce new concepts or developments (ensuring continuous improvement) or to provide targeted refresher training for specific areas where errors have been identified by a significant number of assessors. The annual training is administered by the Flemish Energy and Climate agency (VEKA) and is tailored each year.^[7] In Germany however, no official continuous development or recertification procedures have been adopted but experts are required to take personal responsibility for the quality of certification and ensure they are up to date with developments in the field (BPIE, 2014). ADENE in Portugal administers regular refresher training for experts in Portugal who wish to improve their skills (Kranzl, 2020a).

Auditing and quality assurance in the production of EPCs

This section discusses the various approaches that member states take to ensure that the quality of EPCs and their associated quality assurance procedures are upheld.

EPBD requirements

Annex VI of the recast EPBD (European Commission, 2024) outlines provisions related to QA of EPCs that the ICS should implement. These include requiring member states to:

• Provide a clear definition of quality objectives, including the level of statistical confidence that the EPC framework should achieve – at a minimum the ICS should ensure that at least 90% of all valid EPCs issued are evaluated with 95% statistical confidence over a period that cannot exceed one year.
• Carry out random sampling of EPCs to assess the level of quality and confidence in the ICS for EPCs.
• Use a third party to verify at least 25% of the random sample when the ICS has been delegated to non-governmental bodies.
• Ensure the validity of the input data through an on-site visit for at least 10% of EPCs that are part of the random sampling (this is a new requirement of the 2024 recast of the EPBD).
• Employ pre-emptive and reactive measures to ensure the quality of the overall EPC regime, including but not limited to:
• Additional training for independent experts.
• Targeted sampling (in addition to random sampling) to specifically detect and target poor-quality EPCs.
• Obligations to resubmit EPCs.
• Monetary fines.
• Temporary or permanent bans for independent experts.

Article 24 of the EPBD states that member states should implement penalties with regards to infringements of aspects of EPBD implementation, including EPCs. These penalties are not prescribed, however must be “effective, proportionate and dissuasive”.

Scottish approach

AOs hold responsibility for QA in Scotland. They must check a representative sample of EPCs, with a minimum of 2% of all EPCs produced being checked. In 2016, 260,206 EPCs were produced, and 6,604 (2.53%) were checked (Delorme and Hughes, 2016). The checks repeat the EPC calculations using data on the register, most checks are desk-based. Assessors’ outputs are checked every six months. Poor performance can lead to targeted auditing, retraining, suspension, or being struck off (Delorme and Hughes, 2016).

The Scottish Government audits AOs on a 3-yearly basis to ensure compliance with the Operating Framework. In addition, AOs are obliged to complete and return annual reports to the Scottish Government, which were recently reviewed to include more detailed QA information in an effort to better understand the nature of audit failures, complaints, and other important information. Organisations failing to meet the terms of the Framework are subject to corrective action and may have their agreement terminated (Delorme and Hughes, 2016).

A similar approach is taken in England and Wales, where Accreditation Schemes hold responsibility for assuring the outputs produced by their accredited energy assessors. The government then audits the Accreditation Schemes to ensure quality standards are upheld (Delorme & Higley, 2020).

Member state approaches

Digital quality assurance audits

Digital screening systems

Some member states have adopted a digital system that automatically screens EPC input data before an EPC is issued. The Portuguese EPC database does this, and flags inconsistencies detected to prevent the input of incorrect or inconsistent data. An EU-level interviewee stated that implementing a mechanism like this limits the amount of QA that is required at later stages of the process.

This study found that all member states are conducting a statistically significant number of random sampling audits as per the requirements of the EPBD. Some member states collate a random sample by sampling a percentage of the total number of EPCs, which is the approach taken in Scotland. Others collate a sample of EPCs by sampling a percentage of EPCs per assessor. France reported conducting a two-tiered random sampling QA approach, conducting audits on both a random sample of total EPCs issues and on a percentage of EPCs per assessor.

Several member states reported that a second phase of targeted audits forms part of their QA procedures. These audits are carried out on EPCs whereby inconsistencies are identified during the random sampling auditing phase. Moreover, targeted audits are conducted in some member states where instances of non-compliance are reported. An interview with an EPC expert in Belgium (Flanders) highlighted that a system has been implemented, whereby citizens can notify complaints of non-compliance which can also lead to targeted audits.

It is understood that Slovakia is also conducting random sampling audits, although the nature of these audits is unknown. Moreover, Italy has reported that the approach to QA is implemented at regional level, resulting in variation. The literature review did not identify QA approaches for Slovenia.

A compliance study published by the European Commission in 2015 conducted analysis on the strength of the compliance checking systems implemented in EU member states. The analysis found that Belgium (Wallonia), Cyprus, Denmark, France, Italy and Lithuania had very robust compliance checking systems. Estonia, Latvia, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Spain were found to have the lowest strength of EPC compliance checking systems (European Commission, 2015).

Public awareness and compliance

A Danish EPC expert we interviewed reported that the high strength and quality of EPCs in Denmark could be linked to high levels of public awareness and acceptance of EPCs and their benefits. It is believed that Danish homeowners have a strong understanding of EPCs and the benefits they can bring in raising property sale prices. This has resulted in higher levels of compliance and a desire to have high-rating EPC certificates.

On-site quality assurance audits

Mandatory on-site inspections were introduced in the 2024 recast version of the EPBD. Therefore, the data collected as part of this literature review may not reflect these most recent requirements and any subsequent changes to Member State QA regimes.

Approved organisations are responsible for carrying out QA checks in Scotland, and the majority of checks are desk-based. This is similar to the approach taken in England and Wales, where Accreditation Schemes are responsible for QA checks. However, Some member states (such as Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Hungary and Ireland) conduct on-site audits alongside digital audits. In the majority of member states, these are carried out where inconsistencies are identified during the digital random sampling audits (as in Denmark^[9]) or where specific citizen complaints or reports of non-compliance are received (as in Belgium (Flanders)⁹). Moreover, as in Ireland⁹, specific risk factors such as multiple infractions per assessor or an assessor publishing an abnormally high level of EPCs result in on-site audits being conducted. This is because on-site audits can provide a more detailed understanding of the accuracy of the data reported. Auditors can see the properties of the building in person, allowing for an extra level of QA^[10]. In a few cases however (as in Cyprus), experts do on-site sample checks to verify data (MECI, 2020).

Approach to assessor infractions

In Scotland, poor performance by assessors can lead to targeted auditing, retraining, suspension, or being struck off. However, this is at the discretion of Approved Organisations. Accreditation Schemes hold similar responsibilities in England and Wales. All member states implement some kind of penalty system for assessors to minimise the risk of producing incorrect or invalid EPCs. member states have different levels of penalties for assessors, which are dependent on the severity of their infraction. For some, including Ireland and Latvia, this is quantified using a penalty points system (BPIE, 2014). In both member states, the penalties range from requiring the assessor to undertake corrective training to a temporarily or permanently suspended licence (BPIE, 2014). In Ireland, points on an assessor’s portfolio last for 2 years before they are removed from the record (SEAI, 2016). In other member states, the level of penalty appears to be linked to the severity or number of errors. Common approaches to assessor infractions are detailed below.

• Reissue of an EPC – Assessors may be required to reissue a correct EPC at their own cost, usually within a certain timeframe. This is one of the most common practices amongst member states. This occurs in member states including Austria, Belgium (Wallonia), Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Spain, Finland, Croatia, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal and Slovenia. In Finland, the penalty sometimes requires the original assessor to pay for a different assessor to carry out the re-certification (TU Wien, 2021).
• Training – Assessors may be required to undergo corrective training. For example, this approach is used in Belgium (Wallonia), Ireland, and Latvia. In the case of Belgium (Wallonia), the assessor must also pass an exam in order to continue carrying out EPC assessments (Fourez et al., 2020).
• Monetary fines – The majority of member states have monetary fines in place, the value of which is usually dependent on the perceived severity of the error. The value of monetary fines can vary greatly within and between member states. Examples of values are shown in Table 6.

In some member states, monetary fines are technically possible but not imposed in practice. This includes Bulgaria (SEDA, 2020), Czechia (BPIE, 2014), and Estonia (Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications et al., 2020). Monetary fines are very rarely used in Germany (BfEE, 2020). In Cyprus and Portugal, monetary fines are only possible if the EPC assessor does not reissue the EPC in the required period (MECI, 2020; Fragoso and Baptista, 2016). In other member states, monetary fines are only imposed if the errors surpass a certain threshold. For example, in Croatia an assessor must have produced more than three incorrect EPCs to face a monetary fine (MCPP, 2020), and in Hungary the energy class must be wrong by at least two classes for the assessor to face a monetary fine (Jenei et al., 2020). In Poland, assessors only face monetary fines if the error is quantified at more than 10%, or if they use incorrect technical assumptions in their methodology (Kranzl, 2020a; Bekierski et al., 2016).

No evidence was found that Austria, Denmark (Energistyrelsen et al., 2020), Ireland (BPIE, 2014), Lithuania (Encius, 2016), Luxembourg (Worré et al., 2020), Latvia (BPIE, 2014), Malta (Degiorgio and Barbara 2016), Sweden, and Slovakia impose monetary fines on assessors.

• Suspension or withdrawal of accreditation – In Scotland, poor performance by assessors can lead to penalties including suspension or withdrawal of accreditation at the discretion of Approved Organisations. Accreditation Schemes in England and Wales also have discretion over applying such penalties to assessors. In many member states, assessors can face temporary or permanent loss of accreditation to carry out EPC assessments as a result of infractions. This is the case in Belgium (Flanders) (TU, Wien, 2020; Kranzl, 2020a), Belgium (Wallonia) (Fourez et al., 2020), Cyprus (BPIE, 2014), Czechia (BPIE, 2014), Finland (TU Wien, 2021), France (BPIE, 2014), Greece (TU Wien, 2021), Croatia (Mardetko-Škoro, 2015), Hungary (Jenei et al., 2020), Ireland (BPIE, 2014), Lithuania (Encius, 2016), Luxembourg (Worré et al., 2020), Latvia (BPIE, 2014), and Poland (BPIE, 2014).

In a number of member states, the length of the suspension is dependent on the severity of the infraction. For example, in Greece assessors can face suspensions of between one and three years, depending on the severity of the mistake (TU Wien, 2021). In Croatia, assessors can lose their accreditation if they submit more than three invalid EPCs (Mardetko-Škoro, 2015). In Hungary, assessors can lose their license for three years if errors result in EPCs changing by more than 2 energy classes (Jenei et al., 2020).

In other member states, suspension or withdrawal of a license is only imposed if a threshold is passed. For example, in Ireland, if an assessor submits more than 10 incorrect EPCs in two years, they can be suspended for between 3-12 months (BPIE, 2014). In Latvia, if an assessor has more than seven points on their portfolio they face suspension of six months, and if they have more than 10 points on their portfolio, they face suspension of 12 months (BPIE, 2014). In Denmark, EPC assessors are employed by certified organisations, and the organisations can lose their accreditation in the case of repeated errors from their assessors (Energistyrelsen et al., 2020).

Use of administrative fees and levies

This section explores fees and levies implemented by Member States charged to assessors for the registration or lodgement of EPCs. It does not include fines implemented for assessor registration or fines associated with assessor infractions.

EPBD requirements

There is no requirement in the EPBD for what administrative fees or levies Member States can charge to assessors for EPC lodgement or registration. Therefore, Member States have taken different approaches in whether they choose to implement such a fee or its value.

Member state approaches

Scottish approach

Scotland has implemented a fee for the lodgement of EPCs of Existing Domestic Buildings and Non-Domestic Buildings in Scotland. The value of the fees varies based on the nature of the building. The Energy Performance of Buildings (Scotland) Regulations 2008 outline that the fee associated with a domestic EPC is £2.60, whereas the fee associated with a non-domestic EPC is £12.60. The revenue generated from these fees is ring-fenced to support the effective operation and maintenance of register systems. (Scottish Government, 2017).

Member state EPC regimes can be partly or fully financed through their lodgement or registration fees, in combination with other fees such as annual assessor registration fees. For example, the EPC system in Ireland was intentionally designed to be cost-neutral (BPIE, 2014). In countries that don’t charge specific administration costs, Borragán and Legon, (2021) report that this fee can also be indirectly covered by the overall EPC assessment price. However, in most cases, Member States rely partly or fully on public funds to support their EPC systems. The amount of public funds used to finance EPC systems can amount to as much as several million euros every year in some Member States (Loncour and Heijmans, 2018).

Lodgement fee value

Whilst the majority of Member States have not implemented fees or levies for issuing or publishing individual EPCs, Ireland, Malta, Lithuania, Portugal, Germany and Denmark have, as have England and Wales (BPIE, 2014). The value of these fees varies between the Member States. Although Malta has the highest fee for domestic EPCs at €75, it doesn’t appear for the other Member States that the size of the Member State or the number of EPCs they issue directly correlates with the value of the fee.

Germany, Lithuania and Malta charge one fee for all EPCs, whereas Denmark, England and Wales, Ireland and Portugal outline different fees for domestic and non-domestic EPCs. In all cases where a different fee is charged, the fee associated with a non-domestic EPC is higher than the fee for a domestic EPC. In England and Wales, the difference is very small, but in Denmark, Ireland and Portugal, the fee associated with a non-domestic EPC is at least double the value of the fee for a domestic EPC.

Use of revenue generated

In the following Member States that have adopted a fee for registering and publishing EPCs, the revenue generated is ring-fenced and used for EPC-related purposes.

• Ireland – the SEAI uses the revenue to make investments back into the EPC programme, such as by developing, upgrading or replacing the systems and increasing the resources to support assessors, industry, and the wider public through the EPC Helpdesk and quality assurance system^[15].
• Portugal – the revenue generated from the fees is used to support daily technical support to the experts, IT infrastructure and developments, quality assessment and enforcement, awareness and communication.^[16]
• Germany – the registry budget is supported through the fees for lodging EPCs (BPIE, 2014)
• Lithuania – part of the revenue raised from the EPC lodgement fee is used to finance quality assurance of EPCs (Encius and Baranauskas, 2016).
• Denmark – the fee charged by DEA in covers work carried out by DEA concerning the necessary supervision of the scheme. It involves taking EPCs out for quality control, handling complaints, but also answering general questions about the EPC scheme, developing and maintaining the IT systems (the EPC database, etc.), and the contact with the educational institutions for the training of EPC assessors^[17].
• England and Wales – the revenue generated from these fees is ring-fenced to pay for the technical team that run the register for the fees, as well as policy and operations salaries. Moreover, the revenue generated funds any technical running costs associated with the lodgement of EPCs as well as any opportunities identified for “register improvement”^[18].

In Malta however, the money generated from the lodgement fee is not ring-fenced for any specific purpose. It joins other sources of revenue and then funding is allocated where and as necessary^[19].

Enforcement mechanisms

This section investigates how member states ensure that the requirement to present an EPC for a building at the point of sale/rental is enforced.

EPBD requirements

Article 20 of the recast EPBD (European Commission, 2024) mandates that digital EPCs must be issued for buildings or building units when they are:

• Newly constructed or have undergone major renovation.
• Sold to a new owner.
• Rented to a tenant (or a rental contract is renewed).
• An existing building owned or occupied by public bodies.

It also requires that the EPC must be shown and handed over to prospective tenants or buyers at point of sale or rental. There are some exceptions to this, for example, when the building is only intended to be used for less than four months of the year or has an actual energy consumption of less than 25% of the expected annual energy consumption.

Member state approaches

Scottish approach

Failing to issue EPCs when marketing a property for sale or for rent can result in enforcement actions. Penalties, outlined in the Energy Performance of Buildings Regulations (Scotland) 2008, are £500 for residential dwellings and £1000 for other cases. Local Authorities are the nominated Enforcement Authorities and hold the duty to uphold EPC regulations within their jurisdictions, so are therefore responsible for issuing fines. Local Authorities can also consider criminal action (Delorme and Hughes, 2016).

The Scottish Government does not have a clear picture of the scale of enforcement activity undertaken by the Local Authorities and are currently engaging with all 32 local authorities to gain more detailed information on enforcement in practice.

In England and Wales, local authorities are responsible for enforcement and hold powers to request that copies of an EPC are produced for inspection. They also hold powers to decide the appropriate course of action to enforce compliance, which can include a range of actions from providing compliance advice to issuing a penalty (Delorme & Higley, 2020).

Only a small number of member states have a vigorous mechanism for ensuring EPCs are available at the point of rental or sale (European Commission, 2015) and availability of enforcement rate data is often low. In most of these member states, checks are made by notaries during the sale transaction, which is thought to be an effective system (European Commission, 2015). However, as rental agreements are often less formal, ensuring EPCs are made available here is more challenging. It is thought that ensuring the EPC is signed off by a lawyer in the rental agreement is a good way to address this problem (European Commission, 2015). However, rental agreements are often less formal and do not always involve a legal professional, meaning that the systems in place for enforcement can be less developed in the rental sector than they are for sales. This often results in lower compliance rates or poor data availability in the rental sector. However, in Hungary for example, it is a requirement that a legal professional signs off on rental agreements. They are then responsible for checking the presence of EPC documentation.

The member states found to have the highest level of compliance rates with requirements for new, sold and rented buildings, as well as the highest strength of EPC compliance checking systems, are Belgium (Wallonia), Cyprus, France, Italy, Lithuania and the UK (this study was conducted when the UK was an EU Member State). Latvia and Poland were found to have the lowest compliance rates, coupled with the lowest strength of EPC compliance checking system (European Commission, 2015).

Monetary fines

The majority of member states impose monetary fines on building owners if they fail to present a valid EPC at the point of sale or rental. The cost of fines vary within and between member states, as shown in Table 9.

In most member states, it is unclear what type of infraction results in a higher level of fine for building owners. However, in Spain there are clear guidelines: simple faults result in fines of €300 – €1000, while serious faults can result in fines of up to €6000 (TU Wien, 2021). Serious faults include knowingly falsifying data or having an EPC assessment performed by a non-accredited assessor (TU Wien, 2021). In Finland, the level of fine is dependent on the type of building for which an EPC was not presented, or for the size of the municipality in the case of public buildings (Ministry of the Environment of Finland & Motiva Oy, 2020).

Use of notaries in enforcement

In some member states, notaries or lawyers involved in the sale or rental process are liable for ensuring EPCs are presented when necessary and are also liable for monetary fines if EPCs are not presented. This is the case for lawyers in Hungary, who are required to sign-off the EPC included in a rental agreement (European Commission, 2015). Similarly, notaries in Portugal are required to notify the relevant authorities if an EPC is not presented at the point of sale and can be fined between €250 – €3500 for failing to do so (Kranzl, 2020a). Notaries may also be fined in Belgium (Wallonia), for failing to notify the authorities of an absent EPC at point of sale or rental (TU Wien, 2021).

Affordability of EPCs

This section discusses any action that member states take to ensure that EPCs are affordable.

EPBD requirements

Article 19 of the EPBD requires that member states “take measures to ensure that EPCs are affordable and shall consider whether to provide financial support for vulnerable households.” The EPBD does not require member states to provide any price caps or subsidies, although some member states have chosen to do so.

Little information was found on interventions taken by member states to provide financial support for households requiring EPCs, nor the ability of citizens in member states to pay for EPCs assessments. Therefore, the following discussion focuses on EPC pricing and price controls in member states.

Member state approaches

Scottish approach

The price of EPCs in Scotland is controlled by the market. Research in 2016 showed that indicative starting costs were £35 to £60 (€40 – €70) for residential EPCs and £129 to £150 (€150-€175) for non-residential EPCs. This includes the registration fee payable each time an EPC is recorded on the register (Delorme and Hughes, 2016). There is no cap on EPC prices, and affordability is not actively managed by the Scottish Government.

Price-caps

The majority of member states have not imposed any price limitations on the cost of EPCs and rely on the market to control the affordability of EPCs. However, three member states have imposed price regulations, as detailed in Table 10:

Greece and Croatia used to have price caps which have since been abolished (TU Wien, 2021). In Croatia, the price cap was introduced when there were few EPC assessors in the market which caused prices to increase. When more EPC assessors were accredited, the price cap was removed, and EPC prices are now effectively controlled by the market^[21].

While the price caps imposed generally have a positive impact on building owners who face the costs of EPCs, the price caps are commonly criticised for being too low and having resulting impacts on the quality of the certificate produced. For example, in Hungary, there are concerns that the price cap is set unrealistically low which results in lower quality EPCs (Jenei et al., 2020). Similarly, in Croatia, it is thought that the low price cap resulted in the recommendations of energy efficiency measures included in the certificate being of poor quality (Sayfikar & Jenkins, 2024). In Demark, it is thought that competition within the market keeps EPC prices much lower than the price cap, as average prices for single family houses is reported to be around €66720,suggesting the price cap is not necessary here.

Member states which have not imposed price caps have been criticised for average EPC costs being too high. For example, in Bulgaria the average price of an EPC is estimated at €0.2–€1/m², which is thought to be relatively high for the average EPC consumer in Bulgaria (Sayfikar & Jenkins, 2024). This, alongside low public awareness of EPCs, is thought to be a reason why only around 1% of residential buildings in Bulgaria have an EPC (BPIE, 2018). Appendix F shows a summary of estimated EPC costs across member states, however it is important to note that this data comes from a variety of sources with different publication dates. Some figures have also been subject to exchange rates from local currencies. As a result, price data between member states is not necessarily comparable.

Other measures to ensure affordability

Member states who have not imposed price caps have often not done so to reflect the true cost of an EPC calculation. The cost can vary greatly according to various factors, including the type and complexity of a building and the quality of existing data (TU Wien, 2021). For example, in Czechia the average cost of a standard EPC is thought to be between 3000 – 7000 CZK (€119 – €278). This is because many buildings in the country are old and do not have much existing documentation or data (Mečíccrová, 2021). These buildings require an on-site visit from a specialist assessor, which can increase the cost of an EPC to tens of thousands of CZK (Mečíccrová, 2021).

While no other member states actively control the price of their EPCs, some have introduced other methods of promoting affordability. For example, in Belgium (Wallonia) the EPC methodology is kept as efficient as possible to keep costs down (Fourez et al., 2020). In the Netherlands, the government imposed a system to minimise costs in which building owners first receive a temporary EPC, which is calculated using existing data on a property (e.g. building type, data of construction, insulation, and heating and energy systems). The building owner can then change or add information (alongside proof such as photographs), which is then approved by an assessor. The assessor then recalculates the EPC and uploads it to the national database (Kranzl, 2020a). This process is thought to minimise on-site visits and time spent by assessors, and minimise the final cost of an EPC.

Case studies

After we conducted our review of the approaches taken to operational governance of EPCs in the EU member states, we selected three countries of interest to the Scottish Government. These were countries with approaches which could have the potential to improve the current operational governance procedures in Scotland. The countries we selected were Belgium, Croatia and Ireland.

Full case studies are presented in Annexes B-D, however, an overview of the main findings from each case study is presented in Table 11 – Table 15.

Conclusions and options for Scotland

Our research has shown that a range of different approaches are applied in the EU member states to enable effective EPC governance. There is limited data available to evidence the effectiveness of the various approaches taken, making it difficult to determine the impact that each approach has on the overall quality of EPCs in each Member State.

To address this gap, we conducted interviews with EPC professionals in member states of interest to understand their opinions on the perceived effectiveness of the approaches they have adopted. We have established a list of potential options which could improve the operational governance of EPCs in Scotland based on evidence collected in the review of approaches taken in the EU member states, targeted interviews and case studies. The options are presented in Table 16.

Options have not been assessed for feasibility of implementation in Scotland, or for potential long-term impacts. There is an opportunity for additional research, if the Scottish Government wish to explore any of these options in further detail.

Each of these options are outlined below, with a series of sub-options which outline how each overarching option could be operationalised in practice. These options are not mutually exclusive and could be implemented in conjunction with each other.

Including standardised training requirements for independent experts in the operational framework

Sub-option 1a – Introduce standard education and qualification requirements into the operational framework

This could include requirements for higher education and/or relevant professional experience. However, the flexible approach adopted in Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia and Ireland ensures that independent experts can access via multiple routes. In Scotland, this could mean that experts must either:

1. Hold a National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) Level 3 or other similar (as required in England and Wales) or,
2. Demonstrate they hold an equivalent level of experience, which could be in the form of another qualification alongside proof of significant industry experience.

Requirements could also be tailored by assessor type. For example, higher education is only required for EPC assessors who conduct EPCs for new buildings in Belgium (Flanders).

Although AOs in Scotland may be using similar pre-requisites for independent experts, these are not standardised and may vary by AO. Ensuring that requirements are clearly defined in the operational framework will reduce ambiguity in requirements and ensure standardisation across the country.

Sub-option 1b – Approve a standardised mandatory training programme for independent experts

This can be delivered by AOs, but the content should be regularly updated and approved by the Scottish Government to ensure independent experts have skills which are aligned with the most recent developments in the sector.

This could be combined with an examination and, on passing, certification proving the independent expert has attended and taken on board the content of the training modules.

Sub-option 1c – Introduce requirements to attend mandatory annual re-training

In addition to a Scottish Government-approved training module for assessors, the Scottish Government could approve an annual retraining course for assessors. Mandatory retraining for assessors to keep their license would ensure assessors are up to date with the latest developments in the field and present an opportunity to learn from and correct mistakes. The approach taken in Belgium (Flanders) could be adopted, where retraining includes both mandatory modules (which cover common errors or new developments in the field) and optional modules, tailored to the assessor type and/or any infractions identified for that assessor in the previous year.

Develop standardised QA procedures for AOs in the operational framework

Sub-option 2a – Develop a digital QA system and screening of EPC input data

To streamline current QA procedures, a central digital system could be developed that screens and sense-checks EPC input data for errors. For example, when an independent expert conducts an assessment, they can input data into a digital system which will flag when they have input data which falls outside an expected range. An example of this approach is the digital ‘control web’ in Belgium (Wallonia), which screens all submitted EPCs to flag inconsistent values or data.

Sub-option 2b – Establish a ‘Helpdesk’ function to receive complaints about EPCs

Some member states, including Croatia and Belgium (Flanders) operate a helpdesk function, which customers can use to submit complaints or report suspected non-compliance. This could be introduced in Scotland and co-ordinated by central government at a national level, with complaints being redirected to the relevant AO for further investigation.

Sub-option 2c – Targeted audits of EPCs based on specific risk factors

In addition to the minimum random sampling required by the EPBD, best practice among member states is to combine this sampling with more targeted audits in a two-tiered QA approach. The approach taken in Ireland and Belgium (Flanders) is that certain risk factors, such as assessors issuing a large number of EPCs, or a complaint from a customer, trigger a targeted audit. These can be desk-based or on-site, but the Operating Framework could clearly outline what risk factors trigger a particular follow-up audit.

Sub-option 2d – Outline a clear penalty system for assessor infractions

A penalty points system, which clearly outlines what infractions result in what penalties, could be outlined in the operational framework to ensure that all assessors and AOs are clear about the penalties which will be issued in identified cases of non-compliance. Linking infractions to points and setting a maximum number of points would result in the suspension of their accreditation.

Penalties for assessors should be developed alongside a standardised and regular training schedule. Working with assessors, by providing regular and up-to-date training opportunities, gives them the opportunity to refresh their training. It also allows repeat issues to be targeted in dedicated training sessions and would ensure assessors remain engaged and interested in the process.

Engage wider stakeholders in the rental/sales process to support enforcement of the requirement to present an EPC

Sub-option 3a – Formalising the requirement for solicitors to check EPC documentation at the point of sale

The European Commission’s 2015 compliance study reported that member states generally struggle to enforce the requirement to make EPCs available at the point of sale or rent and data availability on compliance rates is often low. member states that are enforcing this in a robust manner rely on notaries to conduct checks during the sale transaction (European Commission, 2015).

Solicitors are responsible for checking documentation during a property sale in Scotland. Formalising the requirement to check the presence of an EPC at the point of sale as part of a legal checklist could result in greater enforcement of this requirement in Scotland.

Sub-option 3b – Requirements for stakeholders in the rental market to check EPC documentation

Rental agreements often do not involve a legal professional in the process, so they cannot be targeted in the same way as sales (European Commission, 2015). Hungary was the only country we identified that required a legal professional to sign-off on all rental agreements. Generally, this means that the systems in place to enforce these requirements are less developed in the rental sector, resulting in lower compliance or limited data availability on compliance rates.

Various options could be explored as to how this requirement could be enforced in the rental market. These could include:

• Requiring that a legal professional signs off on all rental agreements in Scotland
• Formalising the requirement to present an EPC when registering on the Scottish Landlord Register
• Introducing compliance measures for estate agents, such as legal obligations or linking compliance to incentives such as green financing
• Encouraging estate agents to use the Helpdesk function to report instances of non-compliance

References

Alembic Research, Energy Action Scotland and Dr Patrick Waterfield (2019) A review of domestic and non-domestic energy performance certificates in Scotland. Available at: A Review of Domestic and Non-Domestic Energy Performance Certificates in Scotland: Research report for the Scottish Government, Heat, Energy Efficiency and Consumers Unit – Final Report (www.gov.scot)

Arbeiterkammer Oberösterreich (2024). Energy certificate. Available at: https://ooe.arbeiterkammer.at/beratung/wohnen/mieten/Energieausweis.html#:~:text=Fehlt%20ein%20g%C3%BCltiger%20Energieausweis%2C%20muss,Geb%C3%A4udes%20entsprechende%20Gesamtenergieeffizienz%20als%20vereinbart.

Arroyo, C. (2024). How much does an energy efficiency certificate cost? cronoShare. Available at: https://www.cronoshare.com/cuanto-cuesta/certificado-eficiencia-energetica

Azzolini et al. (2020). Implementation of the EPBD Italy status in 2020. Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA) and Italian Thermo-technical Committee (CTI). Available at: https://epbd-ca.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Implementation-of-the-EPBD-in-Italy-2020.pdf

Bekierski et al. (2020). Implementation of the EPBD Poland status in 2016. Available at: https://epbd-ca.eu/ca-outcomes/outcomes-2015-2018/book-2018/countries/poland

Berard (2023). So, what is it and how does it affect you? Available at: https://blog.se.com/homes/2023/09/21/navigating-the-changing-property-scene-in-france-a-quick-guide-for-renters-and-property-owners/#:~:text=The%20DPE%2FEPC%20is%20payable,is%20valid%20for%20ten%20years.

Borragán, G. and Legon, C. (2021). Guidelines on how national Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) schemes and the Smart Readiness Indicator (SRI) could be linked. ePANACEA. Available at: https://www.construction21.org/articles/h/epanacea-how-can-national-epc-schemes-be-linked-with-the-smart-readiness-indicator.html

BPIE (2014). Energy performance certificates across the EU. Available at: https://www.bpie.eu/publication/energy-performance-certificates-across-the-eu/#:~:text=This%20report%20explores%20the%20national,of%20the%20European%20building%20stock.

BPIE (2018). Factsheet: Bulgaria current use of EPCs and potential links to iBRoad. Available at: http://bpie.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/iBROAD_CountryFactsheet_BULGARIA-2018.pdf

BRE (n.d.). Fee Factsheet. Available at: https://www.bre.co.uk/filelibrary/Scotland/Fees_Sheet_7_April__update_(2).pdf

Centre for Renewable Energy Sources and Saving [CRES] (2020). Implementation of the EPBD Greece status in 2020. Available at: https://www.ca-epbd.eu/Media/638373599786588364/Implementation-of-the-EPBD-in-Greece-2020.pdf

Certienergie (n.d.b). Prices of Energy Performance Certificates. Available at: https://www.certinergie.be/en/energy-performance-certificate/epc-prices/

Citizens Information (2024). Getting a building energy rating for your home. Available at: https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/owning-a-home/home-owners/getting-a-building-energy-rating-for-your-home/#:~:text=The%20price%20of%20a%20BER,on%20which%20one%20to%20choose

Degiorgio and Barbara (2016). Implementation of the EPBD Malta. Building Regulation Office. Available at: https://epbd-ca.eu/ca-outcomes/outcomes-2015-2018/book-2018/countries/malta

Delorme and Higley (2020) Implemetation of the EPBD in the United Kingdom – England. Status in 2020. AECOM and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Available at: https://www.ca-epbd.eu/Media/638373595508144645/Implementation-of-the-EPBD-in-the-United-Kingdom–England-2020.pdf

Delorme and Hughes (2016). EPBD implementation in the United Kingdom – Scotland. Status in December 2016. AECOM and Local Government and Communities Directorate. Available at: https://epbd-ca.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/CA-EPBD-IV-UK-Scotland-2018.pdf

Deslot et al. (2020). Implementation of the EPBD France status in 2020. General Directorate for Urban Development, Housing and Nature, General Directorate for Energy and Climate (DGEC). Available at: https://epbd-ca.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Implementation-of-the-EPBD-in-France-%E2%80%93-Status-in-2020.pdf

Encius (2016). EPBD implementation in Lithuania. Status in December 2016. Certification Centre of Building Products (SPSC). Available at: https://epbd-ca.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/CA-EPBD-IV-Lithuania-2018.pdf

Energistyrelsen, Aalborg University & Danish Housing and Planning Authority (2020). Implementation of the EPBD Denmark Status in 2020. Available at: https://epbd-ca.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Implementation-of-the-EPBD-in-Denmark-%E2%80%93-2020.pdf

European Commission (2021a). Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02010L0031-20210101

European Commission (2015). Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) compliance study. Available at: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/00e943a2-aa0a-11e5-b528-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-317980685

European Union (2024). Directive (EU) 2024/1275 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 April 2024 on the energy performance of buildings (recast). Official Journal of the European Union. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L_202401275&pk_keyword=Energy&pk_content=Directive

Federal Agency for Energy Efficiency [BfEE] (2020). Implementation of the EPBD Germany status in 2020. Available at: https://epbd-ca.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Implementation-of-the-EPBD-in-Germany-2020.pdf

Fourez et al. (2020). Implementation of the EPBD Belgium – Walloon Region Status in 2022. Available at: https://epbd-ca.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Implementation-of-the-EPBD-in-Belgium-2020-%E2%80%93-Walloon-Region.pdf

Fragoso and Baptista (2016). EPBD Implementation in Portugal. Status in December 2016. Available at: https://epbd-ca.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/CA-EPBD-IV-Portugal-2018.pdf

Hang.ee (2022). Energy label and energy efficient house. Available at: https://www.hange.ee/blogi/energiamargis-ja-energiatohus-maja/

Hjorth et al. (2021). Implementation of the EPBD Sweden status in 2021. Available at: https://epbd-ca.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Implementation-of-the-EPBD-in-Sweden.pdf

Jenei et al. (2020). Implementation of the EPBD Hungary status in 2020. Available at: https://epbd-ca.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Implementation-of-the-EPBD-in-Hungary-2020.pdf

Kranzl, L. (2020a). Energy Performance Certificates, assessing their status and potential. Available at: https://x-tendo.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/X-TENDO-REPORT_FINAL_pages.pdf

Loncour, X. and Heijmans, N. (2018). Certification, Control system and Quality – 2018. Concerted Action Energy Performance of Buildings. Available at: https://www.ca-epbd.eu/Media/638373594206410585/CA-EPBD-CT3-Certification_Control-system_Quality-2018.pdf

Marđetko-Škoro, N. (2015). Implementation of the EPBD in Croatia – Status December 2014. In 2016 Implementing the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) – Featuring country reports. ADENE. https://www.epbd-ca.eu/outcomes/2011-2015/CA3-2016-National-CROATIA-web.pdf

Mečíccrová, L. (2021). How much does a certificate of energy performance of buildings cost and when do you need it? Finance.cz. Available at: https://www.finance.cz/538646-energeticke-stitky-budov-platnost-cena-pokuta/#:~:text=Vydat%20platn%C3%BD%20pr%C5%AFkaz%20energetick%C3%A9%20n%C3%A1ro%C4%8Dnosti,3%20a%C5%BE%207%20tis%C3%ADc%20korun.

Ministry of Construction and Physical Planning [MCPP] (2020). Implementation of the EPBD Croatia, Status in 2020. Available at: http://bpes.ypeka.gr/?page_id=21

Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications, Tallinn University of Technology & Estonian Consumer Protection and Technical Regulatory Authority (2020). Implementation of the EPBD Estonia Status in 2020. Available at: https://epbd-ca.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Implementation-of-the-EPBD-in-Estonia.pdf

Ministry of Energy, Commerce and Industry [MECI] (2020). Implementation of the EPBD Cyprus status in 2020. Available at: https://epbd-ca.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Implementation-of-the-EPBD-in-Cyprus.pdf

Ministry of the Environment of Finland & Motiva Oy (2020). Implementation of the EPBD Finland status in 2020. Available at: https://epbd-ca.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Implementation-of-the-EPBD-in-Finland-%E2%80%93-2020.pdf

Motiva (2024). What does the energy certificate cost? Available at: https://www.motiva.fi/ratkaisut/energiatodistusneuvonta/mika_on_energiatodistus/mita_energiatodistus_maksaa

Netherlands Enterprise Agency (2021). Price survey and international comparison of the NTA 8800 Energy Performance Certificate. Available at: https://www.rvo.nl/sites/default/files/2022/02/price-survey-and-international-comparison-of-the-nta-8800-energy-perfermance-certificate-summary.pdf

Österreichisches Institut für Bautechnik [OIB] (2020). Implementation of EPBD in Austria, status in 2020. Available at: https://www.ca-epbd.eu/Media/638373591769297881/Implementation-of-the-EPBD-in-Austria–2020.pdf

Olschner, S (2024). Energy certificate for the house: when it is mandatory and what it costs. Available at: https://www.adac.de/rund-ums-haus/energie/spartipps/energieausweis/

RTL Today (2014). Understanding the energy passport. Available at: https://today.rtl.lu/life/real-estate/a/1240940.html

Sayfikar, M. & Jenkins, D. (2024). Cross-country comparison of format and nature of recommended improvements in different EPCs. Available at: https://www.crosscert.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/crossCert_D3.4_Cross-country_comparison_recommended_improvements_EPCs.pdf

Schoenherr (n.d.). Slovenia: Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) – Additional Burden on Real Properties’ Owners or Welcomed Measure? Available at: https://www.schoenherr.rs/uploads/tx_news/schoenherr_Slovenia_Energy_Performance_Certificate__EPC_.pdf

Scottish Government (2012). Energy Performance Certificate approved organisations: operational framework. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/energy-performance-certificate-approved-organisations-operational-framework/

Scottish Government (2017). Consultation on funding of the Scottish Energy Performance Certificate Register. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/consultation-paper/2017/05/consultation-funding-scottish-energy-performance-certificate-register-consultation-funding-scottish/documents/00517537-pdf/00517537-pdf/govscot%3Adocument/?inline=true

SEAI (2016). Quality Assurance System and Disciplinary Procedures (QADP) for Building Energy Rating (BER) and Display Energy Certificates (DEC). Available at: https://www.seai.ie/publications/Quality-Assurance-System-and-Disciplinary-Procedure-New.pdf

SEAI (2017a). Training courses – Step 2: Complete the BER training course. Available at: https://www.seai.ie/register-with-seai/ber-assessor/training-courses/

SEAI (2017b). About us. Available at: https://www.seai.ie/about/

Slovak Trade Inspection (n.d.). Slovak Trade Inspection. Available at: https://www.soi.sk/en/SOI.soi

StanGRAD (n.d.). Energy certification of real estate in Croatia. Available at https://nekretnine-stangrad.hr/about-us/topics/constructing-real-estates-for-sale/energy-certification-of-real-estate-in-croatia

Sustainable Energy Development Agency [SEDA] (2020). Implementation of the EPBD Bulgaria status in 2020. Available at: https://epbd-ca.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Implementation-of-the-EPBD-in-Bulgaria-2020.pdf

TU Wien (2021). Description of current Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) related policy framework in implementing countries. Available at: https://epanacea.eu/?smd_process_download=1&download_id=2670

Worré et al. (2020). Implementation of EPBD in Luxembourg, status in 2020. Ministry of Energy and Spatial Planning. Available at: https://epbd-ca.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Implementation-of-the-EPBD-in-Luxembourg-%E2%80%93-Status-in-2020.pdf

Appendix A Methodology

Literature review

Identifying and logging sources

We conducted a literature review using key search terms and Boolean operators where relevant, to maximise the search outputs and refine results. We used key search terms including: ‘Energy efficiency in buildings’, ‘EPC’, ‘Implementation’, ‘[Name of Member State], in combination with each of the following terms ‘Legislation’, ‘Governance’, ‘Independent Control System’, ‘Assessors’, ‘Accreditation’, ‘Audit’, ‘Verification’, ‘Assurance’, ‘Enforcement body’, ‘Enforcement mechanism’, ‘Affordability’.

We conducted searches in English and in the official language of the MS in question, using machine translation software DeepL. We used Google and Google Scholar to conduct searches.

Data extraction into summary database

When we identified relevant data sources, we reviewed them in full and extracted relevant information into a summary database (Annex A). The summary database was structured with a row for each MS and Scotland (28 total) and columns representing an area of interest for the research. These included:

• Key data sources used for the country in question.
• Governance model.
• Qualifications and training for EPC assessors.
• Auditing, verification and QA of EPCs.
• Enforcement of EPC requirements.
• How affordability of EPCs is ensured.

Case studies

Based on the outputs of the literature review, we selected three case studies of interest, which adopted different approaches to that currently taken in Scotland for the operational governance of EPCs. These were jointly selected with the Scottish Government. The three final case studies selected were:

• Belgium
• Croatia
• Ireland

We first drafted each case study from the outputs of the literature review, and the enhanced them with targeted consultation with experts from the MS in question.

Targeted interviews

We held eight interviews with key stakeholders to supplement this research, as well as an additional interview with a Scottish Government representative to better understand the operational governance. These consisted of:

• Two interviews with overarching EU-level EPC experts.
• One email-based interview with a Danish EPC expert.
• Two interviews with Irish EPC experts.
• One interview with a Belgian EPC expert from Belgium (Flanders), and one email-based interview with an expert from the Walloon region (representatives from Brussels were contacted, but either did not respond or were unavailable to participate in this research).
• One interview with a Croatian EPC expert (additional interviewees from Croatia were contacted, but either did not respond or were unavailable to participate in this research).
• One interview with a Scottish EPC expert.

In most cases, the country-level EPC experts worked on EPC regimes within national governments.

Case study limitations

We conducted this research on a relatively short timescale (between April and July 2024). The collected data was used to derive policy options for improving the operational governance of EPCs in Scotland. A detailed assessment of the long-term impacts of these policy options, including analysis of uncertainties associated with future scenarios and feasibility constraints, was not within scope of this project.

Appendix B Summary database

Submitted as a separate Excel document

Appendix C Case study – Belgium

Submitted as a separate standalone document

Appendix D Case study – Croatia

Submitted as a separate standalone document

Appendix E Case study – Ireland

Submitted as a separate standalone document

Appendix F Table of estimated EPC costs in member states

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

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

1. 
   

   In most cases, the EPC experts consulted work on EPC regimes within national governments. ↑

   
   
2. 
   

   The UK devolved governments follow the approach agreed in the UK when the EPBD was transposed into domestic regulation in 2008, when the UK was an EU Member State. ↑

   
   
3. 
   

   The literature review did not identify pre-requisite requirements for Spain, Latvia and Slovakia ↑

   
   
4. 
   

   The literature review did not identify training requirements for Czechia, Spain, Latvia and Slovakia. ↑

   
   
5. 
   

   Although Accreditation Schemes can ensure that energy assessors hold the right skills by requiring them to attend a training course and to sit an examination, it appears that assessors can also demonstrate suitable qualifications and experience in place of sitting this exam, so it may not be mandatory in all cases. ↑

   
   
6. 
   

   The literature review did not identify re-certification requirements for Cyprus, Spain, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Malta, The Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, Slovakia and Scotland ↑

   
   
7. 
   

   We did not identify approaches to QA of EPCs for Slovenia. Italy has adopted a region approach to QA and Slovakia has adopted random sampling, but we did not identify a sampling approach. ↑

   
   
8. 
   

   Information obtained during an interview with an EPC expert ↑

   
   
9. 
   

   Information obtained during an interview with an EPC expert ↑

   
   
10. 
    

    Information obtained during stakeholder consultation with a Danish EPC expert ↑

    
    
11. 
    

    Information obtained during stakeholder consultation with a German EPC expert ↑

    
    
12. 
    

    Information obtained during stakeholder consultation with a Maltese EPC expert ↑

    
    
13. 
    

    Information obtained during stakeholder consultation with a Portuguese EPC expert ↑

    
    
14. 
    

    Information obtained during stakeholder engagement with an Irish EPC expert ↑

    
    
15. 
    

    Information obtained during stakeholder consultation with a Portuguese EPC expert ↑

    
    
16. 
    

    Information obtained during stakeholder consultation with a Danish EPC expert ↑

    
    
17. 
    

    Information obtained during stakeholder consultation with an EPC expert in England and Wales ↑

    
    
18. 
    

    Information obtained during stakeholder consultation with a Maltese EPC expert ↑

    
    
19. 
    

    Information obtained during an interview with an EPC expert in Denmark ↑

    
    
20. 
    

    Information obtained during an interview with EPC experts from Croatia ↑

    
    
21. 
    

    Information obtained during interview with Danish EPC Expert ↑

    
    

Research completed: May 2024

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7488/era/5569

Executive summary

The agriculture policies outlined in the Update to the Climate Change Plan (CCP) provide a route map for agricultural transformation, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They take a co-development approach and work with stakeholders and farmer-led groups to secure increased uptake of low-emission farming measures through new schemes and approaches.

This project examined the potential reductions in livestock methane emissions through breeding, and the policy levers that could motivate these changes.

We began by exploring the technologies that detect and measure methane, manage data and are used in the breeding process. This included considering the availability of these technologies in Scotland in 2030 and 2045, with practical considerations for a Scottish context, and identifying the breeding traits that can lead to lower methane emissions.

We then identified the relevant policy levers and behaviour changes and considered what Government, the post-farm market, pre-farm gate actors and farmers can do differently to encourage methane reductions through breeding.

Key findings

• By 2045, breeding could reduce methane emissions from the digestive process in livestock, known as enteric methane, by up to 9.5% (382.2 kt CO₂ equivalent). This is under the “Policy changes” scenario, where legislation will require farmers to introduce methane reducing breeding techniques to their herds (with uptake rates of 100% in dairy, 80% in beef, and 60% in sheep).
  • This includes a 6.8% reduction in emissions from beef, 6% from dairy and 17.5% from sheep.
  • This reduction is achieved by selecting traits for methane efficiency (methane production, intensity and yield), feed efficiency, offspring carcass weight, milk yield and milk fat and protein when choosing breeding stock.
  • Our research highlighted selective breeding for feed efficiency as a promising option. This is because, despite its lower methane reduction potential, it builds on a practice that is already well understood by farmers.
• To achieve emission reductions, actions and behaviour changes will be required of Government policymakers, pre- and post-farm gate actors and farmers. We found key barriers were lack of knowledge and perceived cost.
• Scotland has a well-developed research base around breeding livestock for reduced emissions, placing it in good stead to develop further work in this area. Funding could be targeted towards building on this research, with more data points to support innovation and enhance the robustness of results. Further research could include the potential for a specific methane reduction target to increase clarity and focus action. Funding would be useful if targeted to better communication of the research findings to inform farm advisers, pre- and post-farm actors and supporting farmer peer-to-peer learning. Collaboration between stakeholder groups will achieve greater progress.
• Relevant technologies include methods to detect and measure enteric methane in animals, data management, reproductive technologies and genomics. Those that could be mainstream in Scotland by 2030 include a national breeding programme, sexed semen and the breeding potential of an animal for a specific trait, known as estimated breeding values. The interaction between technologies is key to success. For instance, the wide use of data management tools will depend on the wide use of genomics to collect data.
• We found very few instances of methane detection methods being used on farm in the UK. We therefore believe it is unlikely these will be used beyond research and innovators by 2045. As such, we recommend encouraging the use of proxies such as mid-infrared (MIR) spectra in milk to determine methane emissions.
• Many reproductive technologies are already in use, particularly in the dairy industry, so we estimate these to be mainstream across the cattle sector by 2045. We estimate lower uptake in the sheep sector due to artificial insemination being a complex procedure. However, as sheep start breeding at an early age and often have multiple births per animal, there is greater potential for emission reductions if low-emitting traits are introduced into the herd such as through a ram.

On this basis, we think there is a strong foundation for breeding for reduced methane emissions to contribute to Scottish Government’s methane and climate commitments and to support Scottish livestock farmers’ future resilience. 

Glossary / Abbreviations

Introduction

Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas (GHG), 28 times more potent than CO₂, produced as a by-product of the ruminant digestive process called enteric fermentation. During enteric fermentation, microbes digest feed in a specialised stomach, known as the rumen, subsequently releasing enteric methane. In 2021, enteric fermentation from ruminant livestock, such as cattle and sheep, was responsible for 48% of GHG emissions from agriculture in Scotland.

The UK signed the Paris Agreement, committing to limit global warming to 1.5°C and is a signatory of the Global Methane Pledge, aiming to reduce global methane emissions by at least 30% from 2020 levels by 2030. The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 outlines a net zero target for Scotland by 2045, with a 75% reduction in emissions by 2030. The strategy to meet these targets is laid out in Scotland’s Climate Change Plan (CCP) 2018-2032 and Climate Change Plan Update (CCPU).

One potential way to reduce emissions from the livestock sector is to select breeding traits in livestock that lead to lower methane emissions.

Traditional breeding programmes select cows or ewes producing offspring with desirable characteristics to either produce meat, milk or fibre, or to continue in the breeding herd. This method relies on waiting for the offspring to mature before the desired traits can be identified. The use of genetic technologies allows desired traits to be chosen at the point of breeding, giving a more assured outcome at an earlier stage.

Genetics are already used to facilitate precision breeding to improve livestock performance. As genetic changes are permanent and cumulative, it is an attractive option for targeting and reducing GHG emissions from ruminants (González-Recio et al., 2020; Manzanilla-Pech et al., 2021; Rowe et al., 2021).

Scottish research is at the forefront in breeding livestock for reduced methane. A recent project by the Roslin Institute highlighted the strong relationship between the rumen microbiome and methane emissions; SRUC has several relevant research studies (published and ongoing), with research facilities such as GreenCow measuring GHG emissions, and Moredun has researched the impact of livestock health and welfare on methane emissions. In 2023, Defra awarded £2.9 million to the sheep sector to launch ‘Breed for Ch4nge’ which aims to measure methane from 13,500 sheep to improve the efficiency of the UK flock; some of the research is taking place on Scottish farms.

The issue is of interest internationally. New Zealand research has shown that breeding for reduced emissions in sheep does not impact productivity and health; Canadian traders are marketing dairy semen with methane efficiency traits, and beef farmers in Ireland are being paid to take part in genomic programmes.

Please note, reducing methane through dietary amendments (such as feed additives) is out of scope for this project.

Project aims

This research project has two key aims:

1. To understand the methane emission reductions that could be achieved in Scotland through breeding. We do this by identifying technologies that detect and measure methane, manage data and are involved in the breeding process. We look at the likely availability of these technologies in Scotland in 2030 and 2045, with practical considerations. Finally, we identify the breeding traits that can lead to lower methane emissions and quantify these.
2. To identify what is needed to support this through policy levers and behaviour change. Using the findings of our literature review and stakeholder consultation, we suggest behaviour changes and discuss their impacts.

Identifying the evidence

To better understand where and how methane emissions could be reduced for project aim 1, we performed a Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) and a series of stakeholder interviews^[1] (now on referred to as our review) to understand:

• The technologies involved in reduced emission breeding;
• The important traits to select for reduced emissions;
• Emission reduction values;
• The benefits and challenges of breeding for reduced emissions;

The review also sought evidence on what is needed to support further uptake of these technologies in Scotland, for project aim 2.

The technologies involved in breeding for reduced emissions

We grouped the technologies used to identify livestock with low methane emissions into four categories: detection methods, data management, reproductive technologies and animal genomics.

We found little information regarding the timeline of availability for the technologies on farms in Scotland. In the stakeholder interviews, many were not aware of specific technologies being used unless they were directly involved in research. Our research did find international evidence, for example, portable accumulation chambers (PAC) in New Zealand support The Cool Sheep™ Programme. Due to this limited data on timing, we categorised the availability of the technology in Scotland in 2030 and 2045 under the following headings:

Experimental (E): used in research only, with no use on Scottish farms.

Innovative (I): used in trials on Scottish farms by a few innovators.

Mainstream (M): considered mainstream and being used on Scottish farms.

Future possibility (FP): unlikely the technology will be used by 2030 or 2045, however not ruling out its availability in the future.

Not applicable (NA): not relevant to the sector.

The rate of technology uptake will differ between and within sectors. For instance, dairy cattle are milked multiple times a day, providing an opportunity to closely assess individuals interacting with the technology. For the same assessment in the beef and sheep sectors, the grazing nature of the system may require cultural and habitual change for widespread uptake (Jones and Haresign, 2020). Farmers also have different interests, business structures, cash flow etc which impacts their decisions on changing farm practices.

Cost was excluded from our review due to the complexities in estimation. The cost of a technology is likely to depend on the individual farm situation, for example, the number of livestock or proximity to infrastructure or manufacturers. Technologies requiring installation may vary depending on whether adjustments are required to an existing building.

We understand the technologies presented below have the potential to be used in Scotland. The full list of technologies discovered in our research can be found in Appendix A, section 9.1.

Detection methods

Detection methods are used to detect and measure enteric methane to identify which animals emit less. Examples include a respiration chamber which measures the difference in methane emissions with and without the animal, while spot sampling uses head chamber systems or hand-held lasers to take short-term measurements from the animal’s breath (Tedeschi et al., 2022). Further examples can be seen in Table 1.

We found very few instances of detection methods being used in UK research, but we estimate that some will be available in 2030 and more by 2045 (see Table 1). However, as detection methods are primarily a research tool, it is unlikely they will be used beyond innovators by 2045. Practical constraints such as large technological components and measuring a few animals at a time make it challenging to introduce respiration chambers (which are considered the ‘gold standard’ of measurements) on a large scale (Manzanilla-Pech et al., 2021; Rowe et al., 2020). As such, we recommend encouraging use of proxies such as mid-infrared (MIR) spectra in milk to determine methane emissions.

Portable Accumulation Chambers (PACs) have been launched recently by scientists at Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC) for use across the UK. The two units (of 12 trailers) are currently only being used for research purposes. Each trailer holds 12 chambers and is capable of measuring between 60 – 80 sheep per day providing breeding values for methane emissions for representative samples of sheep within a breeding programme (Duthie et al., 2024)

New Zealand currently incorporates the use of PACs in breeding programmes through The Cool Sheep™ Programme, where breeders use PACs to measure and select for low-emitting rams available for breeding. Research trials are underway in countries such as Australia, Norway and Uruguay and now the UK. This technology provides a promising option for Scotland as it is transportable between farms and has a short measurement period which limits stress in livestock. However, current research trials on UK sheep systems need to be completed before PACs can be used widely (Duthie et al., 2024).

Data management

Data management technologies are essential to store, share and analyse data, while also tracking individuals and breeding lines with desired traits to improve target outcomes (including emissions reductions).

The dairy sector is advanced in this area compared to beef and sheep sectors, with established tools for monitoring and measuring production characteristics. Stakeholders discussed the possibility to enhance or repackage these tools and platforms, such as ScotEID, to incorporate methane traits. Using a tool that is familiar for farmers might reduce resistance for adoption.

1. Case study: New Zealand

N-Prove is a free website tool for New Zealand farmers to find the best rams for breeding. Using a series of button­­­­­s and slider scales, farmers can customise what traits they are looking for in a ram. NProve then generates a list of breeders with rams that best fit. Farmers can select terminal or maternal traits, as well as breeders based on location, breed and exclude certain flocks from results. Methane production is an option to select from the maternal traits. The tool is free to use and registration is not required. The tools anonymity means farmers can gather their options for the best breeder for their farm. NProve sources data from a central database and genetic evaluation service (SIL database) that holds information for more than 600 flocks, making it one of the largest genetic evaluations of sheep in the world. This tool could be used in a similar fashion for other species in other geographies as long as an appropriate database was available or was developed to source information.

Data technologies rely on wider infrastructure, such as website portals or cross-country collaboration, making it challenging to estimate the availability for 2030 and 2045. However, there is high potential. Stakeholders discussed that a risk for these technologies is the lack of interest and uptake from farmers, so it is important to inform and engage the industry regarding their benefits.

These technologies offer benefits for farmers by improving the understanding of the genetic qualities of their livestock and having a head-start on understanding the genetics and traits being brought into the herd. See Table 2 for the relevant data management technologies.

Table 1. Examples of the detection methods involved in breeding livestock for reduced methane emissions. Please see Appendix A, section 9.1 for the full list of the technologies found in our review.

Table 2. Examples of data management tools involved in the process of breeding livestock for reduced methane emissions. Please see Appendix A, section 9.1 for the full list of the technologies found in our review.

Reproductive technologies

Reproductive technologies are directly used for breeding. With many already in use on Scottish dairy farms, we estimate that it is likely most will be mainstream in the cattle sectors by 2045. We estimate lower progress in the sheep sector reflecting the current low uptake. Stakeholders discussed the reasons for low uptake in the sheep sector are due to the extensive nature of sheep farming in Scotland and less infrastructure for sheep in this area, such as semen collection and storage, the availability of which determines uptake. In addition to this, artificial insemination (AI) in sheep requires a vet to perform a surgical procedure (in cattle it can be done by a qualified farmer), adding a practical and financial hurdle.

Table 3. Examples of reproductive technologies involved in the process of breeding livestock for reduced methane emissions. Please see Appendix A, section 9.1 for the full list of the technologies found in our review.

Animal Genomics

Genomics is the study of the genome, a complete set of an organism’s DNA^[2]. Genomics provides the opportunity to better understand how well an animal will perform based on its DNA profile. DNA and management both determine performance qualities, such as milk yield. Precision breeding (which is not genetic modification) amends sections of DNA by adding or moving genetic material. This has been used in the cropping sector to improve yields and/or disease resistance. In the livestock sector, research focusses on increased resilience to bovine tuberculosis and mastitis. In 2023, England introduced The Precision Breeding Act, outlining classifications for using precision breeding on crops and livestock, including how the products from them should be regulated, “Neither the Scottish nor Welsh Parliaments have granted legislative consent to the Bill.”.

Table 4. Examples of animal genomic technologies involved in the process of breeding livestock for reduced methane emissions. Please see Appendix A, section 9.1 for the full list of the technologies found in our review.

Traits

Traits are specific characteristics of an individual (physical or behavioural) that are influenced by genes and environmental factors. Understanding the traits that lead to lower methane emissions is key to a successful breeding programme for methane emissions reduction.

It should be noted that the breeding focus, and therefore traits selected, depends on the farmer’s goals. For example, breeding for breeding stock would focus on selecting offspring traits, such as calving or lambing ease, while farms producing fat or store stock would focus on product traits, such as increased liveweight gain (Stakeholder comment, 2023). Currently, most traits are associated with productivity, such as increasing milk yield in the dairy sector. Progress in the beef and sheep sectors has been much slower, with fewer examples found of genetics used in breeding programmes.

The traits in Table 5 are used for breeding in global research to reduce methane emissions directly and indirectly. We have categorised these traits into the following groups:

Production – offspring: Traits associated with reproduction.

Production – product: Traits associated with products from the animal.

Functional: Traits that underpin the function of the animal and are not specific to production or emissions improvements.

Climate: Traits directly linked to reducing methane emissions.

Stakeholders and the literature emphasised that selection for methane reduction traits should ensure production traits, such as health, are not compromised (Stakeholder comment, 2023; Llonch et al., 2017). To look into this further, we examined performance and methane efficiency data from SEMEX. For their Holstein bulls with above average methane efficiency scores, we could not identify any clear relationship between this trait and the other traits. However, this is only for one breed of cattle from one company.

1. Case study: New Zealand
2. Research in New Zealand genotyped low emitting sheep which identified traits that lead to reduced methane emission. The research found no negative impacts on physiology, productivity and health when selecting for reduced emissions.

Our research highlighted the importance of selecting for feed efficiency. Despite this trait having a lower methane reduction potential than others, it will benefit farmers through more efficient use of feed through better feed conversion (Stakeholder comment, 2023).

Table 6 presents the traits that were selected for further analysis, including quantification and the technologies used to detect or select them. Only a few of the traits found in our review were taken forward because some of the traits did not have robust emission reduction values, so were therefore excluded from our calculations.

Table 5. Traits included in breeding indexes around the world, split by sector and type.

Table 6. The quantifiable traits in each sector, with the technologies which can be used to detect or select them.