ECOCO LIFE13 BIO/UK/000428

SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

January 2019

EcoCo LIFE13 BIO/UK/000428 Socio – Economic Impact Assessment

1

2

Acronyms CSGN Central Scotland Green Network EACEI East Ayrshire Coalfield Environment Initiative EcoCo Ecological Coherence NNRs Scotland’s National Nature Reserves ONS Office for National Statistics RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds SEPA Scottish Environment Protection Agency SNH Scottish Natural Heritage SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest SWT Scottish Wildlife Trust

Hyperlinks are contained within the electronic version of this document. References in this document of the form; “A2045115” are the SNH document retrieval code.

3

4

Table of contents Acronyms ..........................................................................................................................................2

1 Summary ........................................................................................................................................5

2 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................6

2.1 Project Area .............................................................................................................................7

3 Evaluation approach ........................................................................................................................9

3.1 Data collected...........................................................................................................................9

3.2 Methods ................................................................................................................................. 11

3.2.1 Qualitative valuation ........................................................................................................ 11

3.2.2 Quantitative valuation ..................................................................................................... 11

3.2.3 Monetary valuation .......................................................................................................... 11

3.3 Limitations ............................................................................................................................. 13

4 Theory of Change .......................................................................................................................... 14

4.1 Wider social benefits .............................................................................................................. 14

4.2 Wider economic and environmental benefits .......................................................................... 15

5 Main findings ................................................................................................................................ 16

5.1 Health .................................................................................................................................... 16

5.2 Community ............................................................................................................................. 16

5.3 Local Economy and employment ............................................................................................. 17

5.3.1 Local and national businesses ........................................................................................... 17

5.3.2 Employment .................................................................................................................... 17

5.3.4 Visitor spending ............................................................................................................... 17

5.3.5 Additionality .................................................................................................................... 18

5.3.6 Local employment ............................................................................................................ 18

5.4 Environment ........................................................................................................................... 18

6 Case studies .................................................................................................................................. 19

6.1 Peatlands ............................................................................................................................... 19

6.1.1 Airds Moss, Low Moss and Common Farms ....................................................................... 19

6.1.2 Slamannan Plateau .......................................................................................................... 23

6.1.3 Flanders Moss .................................................................................................................. 27

6.2 Wetlands ................................................................................................................................ 30

6.2.1 Black Devon Wetlands ...................................................................................................... 30

6.2.2 Baron’s Haugh .................................................................................................................. 31

6.3 Mosaic habitats ...................................................................................................................... 32

6.3.1 Inner Forth sites ............................................................................................................... 32

7 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 35

8 Table of figures ............................................................................................................................. 36

9 List of annexes .............................................................................................................................. 37

10 References .................................................................................................................................. 38

5

1 Summary This assessment report provides strong indicative evidence of the benefits that accrue to people from the EcoCoLife project. It has implications for impacts that might be expected from other similar projects that are designed and delivered predominantly for nature conservation. The need to demonstrate the benefit of nature to people and to try and quantify this in some meaningful way is becoming more important as pressures on our natural world increase and are becoming more tangible to everyone (note SNH’s current corporate strapline; “Connecting People and Nature”). This report goes some to doing that for actions carried out under the EcoCoLife project. Some key limitations have prevailed that have prevented a more robust and complete picture of the socio-economic benefits of the project’s interventions, and include a lack of baseline data from which to extrapolate, an intensity of randomised and systematic sampling that would have required much resource and the diversity and dispersed nature of the sites. Despite these, a picture has emerged to demonstrate some of the people benefits that nature conservation targeted activities can provide. It would have been too ambitious and resource intensive to cover every site and every aspect of socio-economic benefit, where each site could have been subject to baseline and longitudinal studies to reach more meaningful results. Instead, the report has drawn on data from roughly one third of the project sites. The available data was gathered from in-project monitoring and primary data was also collected with tools designed for the purpose, as well as dedicated project officers to complete the assessment. Key general indicative findings include project;

More than £32,000 salary equivalent provided by volunteer labour input from 5 sites

Employment secured over the project period to tens of full time equivalents.

Positive health and wellbeing benefits reported by visitors at improved sites

Almost 2,000 school children participated in outdoor learning activities across the project

Considerable contribution to the preservation of millions of tonnes of carbon sequestered in peatlands

A wide range of regulatory and cultural ecosystem services provision enhanced

More than £0.6M contribution to the local economy to suppliers of goods and services across the project

These figures are elaborated in the “Main findings” and “Case studies” sections of the report and therefore provide a strong clue to the overall benefit to people the EcoCoLife project has provided across the Central Scotland Green Network area – where the project has been operating for the past four years.

6

2 Introduction

EcoCo (short for ecological coherence) is a 3.1 million Euro project funded by the Life+ financial instrument of the European Community for habitat restoration and creation to improve ecological coherence within the Central Scotland Green Network area (CSGN) focusing on four main habitat types; peatlands, wetlands, freshwater and open mosaic habitat.

Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) is leading the project as the coordinating beneficiary. The associated beneficiaries are: Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), Scottish Wildlife Trust (SWT), Buglife Scotland, Butterfly Conservation Scotland, and the East Ayrshire Coalfield Environment Initiative (EACEI).

The purpose and general principles guiding this assessment are set out in Action D5 of the EcoCo Grant Agreement:

“In order for the project to be sustainable and achieve a lasting legacy, it needs to be delivering social and economic as well as environmental benefits. It is anticipated that socio-economic impacts will form part of the ecological coherence protocol (A3) (e.g. on flood prevention, diffuse pollution, habitat and greenspace improvements for health and well-being) and assessing those benefits is an important part of evaluating the overall success of the project and its aims.”

At the time of preparing this socio-economic assessment report, the project has already improved habitat connectivity and ecological coherence at a number of sites across Central Scotland through habitat creation and restoration. The project has also identified and positively affected the delivery of a wide range of ecosystem services from these sites.

Ecosystem services are the benefits that people can derive from the natural environment. These services are often grouped into four categories that include: provisioning services (such as the provision of water and food); regulating services (like climate regulation); supporting services (such as nutrient cycles and crop pollination) and cultural services (creating amenity value and offering opportunities for recreation). Ecosystem services are part of a wider theoretical framework adopted by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) called the Ecosystem Approach.1

The EcoCo project has restored and created habitats. These changes have affected the quantity and quality of the different natural capital assets present on the sites. As explained in Figure 1: What is natural capital? , changes in natural capital (Stocks) directly affects the ability of an ecosystem to function and provide services (Flows). Ecosystem services can ultimately translate into various benefits for people and society in general (Value). Or in project terms, - the site (land and water) is the natural capital, the ecosystem services accrue from the ecological functioning that the project seeks to enhance through practical site-based interventions and the benefits are the impacts from these interventions recognised and felt by people.

1 See Annex 1 (A19594559): Evaluation Framework for Applying the Ecosystem Approach – Simon Pepper – 2016.

7

Figure 1: What is natural capital? 2

This report details the results of the evaluation of socio-economic impacts (action D.5) that accrue from across a range of the project sites and from its broader and explicit communication and engagement activities. The objective of this evaluation is to record the benefits to biodiversity (through improved ecological coherence) and people, and to inform future management decisions.

2.1 Project Area

The project aims to improve ecological coherence across Central Scotland. 14 projects sites out of some 40 sites where the project is or has been working were included in this assessment. The habitats include raised bogs, industrial brownfield sites, river floodplains and freshwater wetlands. Sites have been selected individually considering multiple factors, which include: level of investments, number of visitors, and the availability of information. As a group, the 14 sites have been selected as representative of the project’s actions, showcasing both, small and large investments, popular and secluded natural sites, very degraded and partially restored habitats representing the diversity of habitats that the project has worked on. The methodology behind the site selection and the assumptions behind this assessment are explained in further detail in the methodology developed by the initial socioeconomic monitoring team.3 The sites selected are depicted in Figure 2 can be categorised as follows:

2 Extracted from NCC, (2018). What is natural Capital? Natural Capital Coalition website, consulted on 19/07/2018.

Online, available at: https://naturalcapitalcoalition.org/natural-capital/

3 Annex 2 (A2045115): Site- specific data for Socio-economic analysis – Scoping Viktoria Valenta and Paul

Watkinson – 2016.

8

Peatlands Wetlands Open Mosaic habitats Airds Moss; Braehead Moss; Common Farm; Flanders Moss; Low Moss; Fannyside Muir.

Baron’s Haugh; Black Devon Wetlands; Cambus Pools; Carron Dams; Garnock Floods; Lochwinnoch.

Avonglen Quarry Bo'ness; Bonnyfield; Garibaldi Bing; Green Roofs.

The 14 sites selected provided a good representative sample of the work done by EcoCo. Following the site visits and the interviews with the site managers, we summarised the main benefits observed and expected. Our observations can be found in the 5 Main findings.

We then narrowed down the scope of our analysis to develop six 6 Case studies. These case studies were selected based on the availability of information and the quality and consistency of the monitoring data collected. They provide both a comprehensive overviews of the benefits observed (see for example Airds Moss, Low Moss and Common Farm) and more specific analysis in regards to carbon storage (see Slamannan Plateau)

Figure 2: Sites selected for the EcoCo Socio-economic impact assessment

9

3 Evaluation approach

3.1 Data collected

Ten categories of benefits were identified, which led to the setting of indicators. Data was collected from a large range of sources, including interviews, surveys, written articles and monitoring records. “Figure 3: Table of indicators provides a summary. Work was completed prior to this report to identify the list of benefits, associated indicators and sits to include in the study in Annex 53 A2045115 of the Mid Term Report “Site Specific Data for Socio-Economic Analysis – Scoping – Viktoria Valenta and Paul Watkinson - 2016.”

10

“Figure 3: Table of indicators

Benefits Indicators Data collected

HEALTH

Increased amenity value and access for exercise Direct observation of new and improved visitor facilities. Amenity value perceived by site manager and visitors.

Increased attractiveness and access for mental stimulation and relaxation

Direct observation of new and improved visitor facilities.

Amenity value perceived by site manager and visitors.

VOLUNTEERING Increased number of people actively participating in nature conservation

Records of volunteering activities, feedbacks from volunteers and interviews with key volunteers.

COMMUNITY

Increased participation in nature related activities through community groups

First-hand observations during site visits, interviews with site managers and visitors.

Increased sense of community ownership Anecdotes and answers from visitors

Increased link between industrial heritage and natural heritage through working with local companies and land owners

Background research on the history of the site, interview with site managers and anecdotes from visitors.

SCIENCE Improved scientific knowledge about ecological coherence, habitat restoration

Review of the publications and awareness raising material produced, interview with site managers.

EDUCATION

Improved knowledge about species/habitats/ecological coherence due to implementing educational sessions (walks/talks/school visits)

Record of school visits, outdoor learning survey.

Improved understanding of nature due to the use of the new visitor structures

Direct observation of new visitor infrastructures, visitor surveys.

Increased the number of people with training in conservation work/survey techniques

Reported trainings provided to staff and volunteers

MEDIA Improved knowledge/understanding/participation in conservation

Mention of EcoCo activities in newspapers, social media platforms and websites

CARBON Carbon storage Peat depth survey

WATER

RETENTION

Water retention Water level recorded by dip wells, area of water.

Reduced costs of flood defence due to improved status

Site manager perception survey; Flood risk, water retention capacity.

Reduced costs of flood defence due to improved freshwater status

Site manager perception survey; Flood risk, water retention capacity.

OTHER

Improved building insulation and cooling Estimated benefits of green roofs.

Increased uptake of SRDP agri-environment schemes Reported agri-environmental schemes application supported.

Additional funding to deliver more actions on the ground

Verification of the principle of additionality through interviews and funding history.

Increased likelihood of pollinator visitation due to improved habitats

Ecological survey.

Decreased noise pollution Based on direct observation

11

3.2 Methods

This section summarises the methodology used to collect and analyse the 3.1 Data collected. This methodology was designed in March 2018.4

3.2.1 Qualitative valuation Interviews with site managers Nine semi-structured interviews with site managers were conducted on-site. The objective of conducting the interviews on-site was to be able to base the assessment on tangible physical outputs and provide the opportunity for site managers to elaborate on them. The interviews lasted one to two hours. We aimed at capturing their own perceptions and self-evaluation of the wider benefits of the project in their implementation area. The outcome of the interviews is presented in Annex 4. 5 Volunteer’s feedback Written feedback from volunteers using a pre-defined template was collected to understand the benefits of volunteering with EcoCo.

3.2.2 Quantitative valuation Outdoor learning survey A school survey was shared with all the teachers who participated in EcoCo awareness raising sessions and school visits. The aim of the survey was to measure the teacher’s familiarity and confidence in taking learning outdoors. Visitor perception survey A visitor survey has been shared online, by mail and in person, and received 70 answers within a three months period. Different survey data collection methods were used to maximise responses in each sites; Face-to-face surveys were conducted at Flanders Moss and Baron’s Haugh as these two sites experience higher visitor rates. A mail survey was distributed in the area of Low Moss as the site is more sparsely populated and has a low visitor rate. At Braehead Moss a mail survey was displayed in the community hall as the local community uses this space regularly.

3.2.3 Monetary valuation Whilst there is a multitude of ways to express values, monetary valuation can help compare benefits and help individuals and organisations make more informed economic decisions. The scope and validity of these calculations is limited. However, they reveal new insights for the project and for Scottish Natural Heritage and provide evidence of the benefits created and restored by EcoCo.

4 Annex 4 (A2562372): Methodology – Donatien von Rohland and Tom McKenna – 2018.

5 Annex 5 (A2614055): Valuation from site managers – Donatien von Rohland– 2018.

12

Travel cost The travel cost method aims to demonstrate the value of a site by illustrating that visitors have decided to spend time and resources travelling to and at the site. These are time and resources that could have been used for other purposes which visitors have decided are best spent visiting the site. Such resources include time, to travel to and spend time at the site; money for fuel and car park costs (if any) and physical effort (for example cycling to the site). Using the data provided by the visitors we were able to estimate the value of visits to the sites for these individuals. The amount of data collected though not sufficient to establish statistically significant estimates, though we were able to verify some assumptions. Monetary value of volunteer work The methodology developed by Volunteer Scotland, enabled us to account for the value of the considerable amount of work done by volunteers.6 This methodology multiplies the number of hours worked by volunteers by the equivalent salary. A £7.69 average hourly rate for elementary occupations has been extracted from the ONS’ 2017 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) survey.7 Tasks completed by volunteers includes scrub clearance and litter pick. In this case we found that according the national statistics, an hourly salary of £7.40 was representative for the type of work that the volunteer have been doing. An increment of 20% was added as a fair representation of holiday, pension and sick pay. Carbon storage Through an understanding of how much carbon is being stored in the soil and biomass we can calculate the ongoing value of this carbon storage – a value that is expected to rise as the social cost of carbon increases into the future. Monetary values for carbon storage can then be calculated using the social cost of carbon set out in the UK Government Green Book for appraisal and evaluation in central government. The central figure for 2018 based on the 2017 update is £4.19 per tonnes CO2 equivalent (tCO2e)8. This value is derived from the present market value of carbon found in the European Carbon Trading Scheme (ECTS). This a very conservative measure as most estimates rely on the expected future carbon prices which are expected to rise considerably, reaching £79.43 in 2030.

6 Volunteer Scotland (2018), Calculating the economic value of your Volunteers, online, retrieved from:

https://www.volunteerscotland.net/media/254583/guidance_-_calculating_the_economic_value_of_your_volunteers.pdf 7 ONS (2017), Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) survey available at:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/bulletins/annualsurveyofhoursandearnings/2017provisionaland2016revisedresults 8 Department for business energy and environmental strategy (2018), Updated short term traded carbon values

for appraisal purposes, available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/671194/Updated_short-term_traded_carbon_values_for_appraisal_purposes.pdf

13

3.3 Limitations

Due to the large and wide ranging nature of the project and the diversity of organisations involved there were ongoing issues with the constancy of data collected. The disaggregated nature of the project also meant that there were multiple start times; therefore a consistent monitoring technique was difficult to achieve. In order to assess change, ideally a reliable baseline should be sought and monitoring of expected benefits should begin at the same time, or even before, the project. This was often not the case. Routine monitoring of visitor numbers is not carried out at most of the EcoCo sites, although most are able to give a broad estimation of the numbers. This limitation is common to sites like those worked on by EcoCo that are free and open access and therefore often do not have visitor monitoring systems in place. Future monitoring would help to understand the ongoing changes in visits to these sites. . Schools and community groups were found to visit the sites freely and regularly but often reporting mechanisms were not in place making exact numbers hard to ascertain. Due to the end of school year and the summer holiday break the outdoor learning survey received only 9 responses from teachers. The survey had nevertheless some interesting results and we were able to collect qualitative data through individual feedbacks.

14

4 Theory of Change The following theories of change have been developed in consultation with the project partners to describe the expected wider outcomes of the project implementation and after a thorough review of the academic literature.9 This assessment will seek to verify the two theories of changes which were then developed.

4.1 Wider social benefits

The restoration and enhancement of natural sites also benefits visitors through the enhancement of recreational, scientific and volunteering opportunities. The experience of visitors is enhanced as the amenity value of habitats increase, making the sites more attractive and more stimulating.

9 See: Annex 3 (A1974485): Report Template - Viktoria Valenta and Paul Watkinson – 2016.

Figure 4: Theory of change in Health, Community and Learning & Behaviour benefits.

More people visit EcoCo sites for:

EcoCo project creates attractive natural habitats close to where people live

The creation and promotion of opportunities for recreation, volunteering and outdoor learning on EcoCo sites encourages

local people to visit Local awareness-raising generates interest in EcoCo sites as

places to visit Path networks, public transport links and parking provide local

access to EcoCo sites

Recreation Exercise

Relaxation

Volunteering Socialising

Family activities

More people visit EcoCo sites on a regular basis

Improved health and wellbeing More people caring for the environment

Improved social cohesion

Outdoor learning Teaching Research

15

4.2 Wider economic and environmental benefits

EcoCo contributes to wider economic and environmental benefits in addition to its commitment towards improving habitat connectivity and ecological coherence. The observed changes mainly occurred through the enhancement of regulating and supporting services.

Figure 5: Theory of change for economic and environmental benefits

EcoCo creates/restores habitat (peatland, wetland, freshwater, Open Mosaic)

Habitat connectivity and coherence improve

Improved presence of species of conservation importance

Improved habitat and species resilience contributes to wider ecosystem services

Improved ecological functionality

Improved patch size, connectivity and structure

Further increases in carbon sequestration, flood mitigation, water purification

Contributes to climate mitigation and adaptation targets

Increased provision of ecosystem services including; carbon sequestration, flood mitigation, water purification

16

I go to Airds Moss to enjoy the place for itself. Although I have taken part in volunteer activities in the past to help conserve the site I also go to be alone there and do not go to meet people. I think the opportunity to enjoy the space and openness and the birdlife whilst alone is important. Airds Moss visitor, July 2018.

5 Main findings This chapter reports on the general observations we made on the 14 sites covered in this assessment. It summarises our main findings into four main themes: Health, Community, Local economy & employment, and environment

5.1 Health

Health was reported as one of the main reasons for their visit by 66% of the respondents, making it the top response. The fact that it is closely followed by “to enjoy scenery or wildlife” shows that the ecological condition of EcoCo site is important to them.

The visitor survey has been reproduced with different SNH projects. These results observed in the EcoCo survey were different from the ones located in urban settings. Indeed, it appears that in urban settings, “fresh air” and “peace and quiet” are the top answers. In contrast, EcoCo sites are located either in rural or suburban settings.

Visitors reported both regular and long visits to the sites, with 72% of visitors spending more than an hour at the site. Half of the visitors visited the sites on their own. In the comment above, one visitor explains that they enjoy the serenity of being in nature.

5.2 Community

EcoCo relied extensively on volunteers. This had a tremendous impact on the ability of implementing partners to scale up the project, often exceeding restoration targets. The contribution of volunteers was extremely valuable, and yet it is difficult to express in monetary terms, due to its very definition. In order to express the value of volunteering in the same terms as any other EcoCo activities, we used the method developed by Volunteer Scotland.

Volunteer Scotland estimates that volunteers in Scotland generate more than £2 billion of value every year, based on the 2016 Scottish Household Survey.10 Following the same method, the value generated by EcoCo volunteers equates to more than £32,000 from the sites covered in this assessment.

10

Volunteer Scotland (2018), The economic value of volunteering, online, available at: https://www.volunteerscotland.net/for-organisations/research-and-evaluation/data-and-graphs/economic-value-of-volunteering/ 11

See Annex 12 (A2689768): Volunteering and awareness data for Braehead Moss - David Hill - 2018

6.1.1 Airds Moss, Low Moss and Common

Farms

6.3 Open Mosaic Habitats

6.3.1 Inner Forth sites

6.1.2

Slamannan Plateau

6.2.1 Black Devon

Wetlands

Braehead Moss 11

Total

£18,502 £6,536 £3,553 £2,399 £1,661 £32,651

17

Communicating on the importance of nature restoration and passing on the passion for wildlife is vital for the future of restored sites. This is particularly relevant for the new generation who will be responsible of preserving these sites. The East Ayrshire Coalfield Environment Initiative (EACEI) was particularly successful in this regard, with more than 1,000 children participating in outreach events and outdoor learning activities. According to Scotland's Census 2011, minority groups represent at least 4% the Scotland’s population. None of the respondents of the EcoCo survey identified as being part of a minority group, although the sample size of the survey was relatively small (70) and may not be representative. A wider survey is recommended to keep monitoring this aspect of demographics as it informs the inclusiveness of natural sites and activities around them.

5.3 Local Economy and employment

5.3.1 Local and national businesses The project employed local and national services to carry out work across all the project sites ranging from specialist ground works contractors, environmental and engineering consultants, venue and equipment hire and other services. These figures have not been disaggregated to account for economic benefit that can be attributed to locality, but the overall amount of £630,000 to 79 suppliers is a considerable contribution to the economy.

5.3.2 Employment The project has been a significant employer over its life. Thirty eight individual staff members have been either fully or part employed over the project life at a total payroll cost of £980,000. The length of working time per individual staff member breaks down as follows:

Length of time worked over project life No of staff*

Less than 6 months 19

Between 6 months and 2 years 8

Half time basis 3

Full time basis 2

*the apparent anomaly between the total number of staff and number of individuals is accounted by staff turnover in some of the posts.

5.3.4 Visitor spending 76% of visitors surveyed reported not spending any money during their visit. This is explained by the fact that for most EcoCo sites there are no businesses in immediate proximity and do not have picnic facilities. 62% of the respondents accessed EcoCo sites by car; therefore the main spending is fuel.

We found that the costs associated with distance and time varies significantly between visitors. The number of responses was quite low, so we only managed to obtain indications. . However, we have

18

indications that local visitors may spend for example as little as £4 on fuel in 6.1.3 Flanders Moss while some visitors travelled over long distances to visit the sites.

5.3.5 Additionality

In order to inform on the net additional impact of EcoCo, we asked the site managers if the works would have gone ahead without the support of EcoCo. We also inquired on previous funding history and attempts on obtaining funding in order to obtain a fuller picture and a more objective appreciation of additionality.

It appears EcoCo was a crucial contributor without which the scale of the nature restoration works would have been seriously downsized and their quality compromised. More specifically, two landmark visitor facilities, the viewing platform in Black Devon Wetland and the boardwalk in Braehead Moss, would not have been built without EcoCo.

5.3.6 Local employment The health benefits derived from the enjoyment of the sites and associated with volunteering will reduce the impacts of long-term health problems through increased physical activity and reduce the number of people out-of-work through learning and networking. One of the volunteers in Slamannan successfully obtained a permanent position with Buglife thanks to his experience with EcoCo. “Being out with Butterfly Conservation and Buglife definitely helped me develop the necessary skills to gain employment in the sector.”

5.4 Environment

EcoCo contributed to the national climate mitigation targets by reducing the emissions from damaged and drained peatlands. In doing so it has restored fragile ecosystems and brought back rare species into areas with an industrial heritage. Wetlands habitats have been enhanced and made more diverse by increasing water retention and clearing dominant species. An increase in aquatic plant species has for example been observed in Cambus Pools and herons and swans have also returned. Mosaic habitat restoration has created good conditions for pollinators and the preservation of insects. Green roofs contribute to climate change mitigation by reducing the energy demand and also filter rainwater. This aspect of monitoring is covered in more detail in the monitoring reports from project actions D1-D8.

Net Additional Impact: The extent to which a site is likely to be generating new value (e.g. physical activity), which, in the absence of the intervention at the site, would not otherwise have taken place.

19

6 Case studies

This chapter will present six case studies showcasing the benefits of EcoCo in three habitat types: 6.1 Peatlands (6.1.1 Airds Moss, Low Moss and Common Farms, and 6.1.3 Flanders Moss), 6.2 Wetlands (6.2.1 Black Devon Wetlands and Barons Haugh) and Open Mosaic Habitats

6.1 Peatlands

Peatland restoration in Scotland has been identified as the largest opportunity to use land management to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Degraded peatlands currently release about 25% of all emissions from the land use sector.12

The Green Network Partnership estimated the value of the carbon sequestration achievable through protection and enhancement of peatlands in the Central Belt. Based on non-traded carbon price projections, restoring peatlands in the CSGN area could create £246m worth of carbon sequestration by the year 2050.13 Operating in this area, EcoCo contributes to achieving this ambitious goal.

6.1.1 Airds Moss, Low Moss and Common Farms The restoration work conducted in Airds Moss, Low Moss and Common Farms were overseen by the East Ayrshire Coalfield Environment Initiative (EACEI). Openspace Cumbria Ltd was contracted for the main operations. Volunteers also played a major a role in successfully rewetting a large portion of the sites. As illustrated below, cotton grass and sphagnum grew and settled in the restored south-eastern part of Airds Moss. Figure 6: Airds Moss, October 2016. Photo; Daisy Whytock EACEI.

12

BONN et al. (2014), Investing in nature: Developing ecosystem service markets for peatland restoration” Ecosystem Services, Issue 9, pp. 54–65. 13

Hume, J. (2015) ‘CSGN Benefits Valuation Report’, Scottish Government, available at: http://www.centralscotlandgreennetwork.org/delivering/costing-valuing-and-resourcing-the-csgn

20

Summary statistics from the East Ayrshire peatland sites studied;

Visitor Survey The combined population of Lugar and Logan is around 1200. A post survey was distributed to 200 households in walking distance of Low Moss.15 The survey was also widely shared on social media site Twitter and by email to volunteers. We gathered 13 responses on Airds Moss, Low Moss and Common Farm. Local residents in proximity of Low Moss expressed that Low Moss is important to them and worth looking after. They also expressed that the site needs maintenance and that visitor information is lacking. Volunteers in Airds Moss highlighted that they enjoyed both, participating in EcoCo activities as well as enjoying wildlife on their own in their free time. Some sample Twitter posts are shown below;

14

Annex 7 (A2652954): Volunteering and Awareness data for EACEI sites – Daisy Whytock – 2018. 15

Annex 8 (A2655289): Visitor survey for Low Moss - Donatien von Rohland – 2018.

Site

Airds Moss Low Moss Common Farm

Des

crip

tio

n Airds Moss is the largest

unafforested blanket bog in the South Strathclyde region. It is located next to a disused

coal mine.

A raised bog near Lugar. Although Low Moss is not a

designated area, it is has exceptional features.

The site composed of three areas: West bog, Mid bog

and SSSI bog. It is currently not accessible to the public.

Key

ben

efit

s

168 ha peatland restored 25 ha peatland restored 46 ha peatland restored

£18’502 value (equivalent salary) created by the volunteers

1125 children engaged through both classroom and outdoor activities at Airds Moss

940 attendees at awareness raising events on peatlands

2 agri-environmental scheme applications were supported14

Twitter 19/04/2018 - New Cumnock Town Hall 40 people gathered to celebrate the successes of the Nature Network/ EcoCo LIFE project. Volunteers were presented with certificates for their contribution. The event was attended by members of the public, project volunteers and project partners as well as MP Bill Grant, Councillor Jacqui Todd and Councillor William Crawford. 19/01/2018 - Glasgow Daisy Whytock delivered a talk titled 'peatland restoration in the East Ayrshire Coalfields' to the Scottish Mineral Planners Forum. Attendees included planners, agency workers, soil scientists, industry representatives and consultants. Soil scientists from Wardell Armstrong tweeted: Inspiring talk by Daisy Whytock @EA_CEI about their impressive peat restoration work @HeadsofPlanning peat event"

21

The table below provides an overview of the various benefits observed in Airds Moss, as well as the long term impact. Figure 7: Benefits overview: Airds Moss

Airds Moss

Main benefits Short term impact Long term impacts

Mental health

Local residents and school pupils have been able to observe and appreciate a dramatic improvement in the sites’ ecological condition, offering more opportunities for relaxation and mental stimulation.

This impact is likely to be sustained as EACEI continues to engage school and local residents with local natural assets and develop local knowledge.

Volunteering

Volunteers contributed with more than 2,000 working hours to EcoCo activities. Most of them were existing EACEI volunteers but EcoCo activities also attracted some new volunteers.

This impact is also likely to be sustained as EACEI continues to attract and retain new volunteers. The post survey used from this assessment attracted one new volunteer.

Community groups EACEI engaged with a few community groups such as Catrine Community Trust, Drongan Rankinston Stair Regeneration group and Happy Hens.

Participation in nature conservation from community group is likely to be sustained as EACEI builds lasting relationships with them.

Community ownership CEI volunteers involved in surveying and monitoring the site are from the local area/communities in East Ayrshire.

Volunteers take ownership of their natural assets by preserving them over the long term.

Scientific knowledge Detailed habitat and wildlife surveys were conducted on the sites.

Current ecological surveys will be a reliable baseline for future research.

Learning Trainings, workshops and well-attended site visits were organised, for both school and local residents

Sustained interest in peatlands and nature from young learners as well as local residents.

Media Press releases, Facebook, Twitter, and website. EcoCo Life is featured on the EACEI website.

Sustained interest in nature conservation from media.

Carbon storage

The peat depth survey shows considerable amount of carbon stored and vegetation changes confirm a successful transition of Airds Moss into a healthier peat bog.

Healthy peat ecosystems maximise the sequestration of carbon. Long term monitoring of site is important to ensure efforts are not undermined by climate change effects.

Water retention Increased water retention creates habitats, but also reduces risk of flooding in the short term.

Provides more reliable downstream flow, especially in drought conditions. Mitigation of increases of extreme weather events which make flooding events less likely.

Pollination Tree saplings were removed, thus reducing on the short term the likelihood of pollinator visitation.

As water plants and other native species repopulate Airds Moss, a favourable habitat for pollinators is developing.

KEY No or little benefits observed in the short term/expected in the long term

Perceived as having a positive impact. Some indications available.

Perceived as tangible benefits, correlated by at least one source.

Perceived as the main benefits, correlated by different sources

22

Future prospects The social, ecological and economic benefits of EcoCo are likely to be sustained and reinforced in the future. EACEI have indeed secured funding until March 2020 to continue peatland restoration works and awareness raising sessions in the East Ayrshire Coalfields. EACEI expect to hold at least 10 volunteer events per year in 2018-19 and in 2019-20 and a further 10+ awareness events over the 2 years. Airds Moss is an RSPB reserve and future activities will most likely receive further support from this organisation. EACEI also has future funding prospects with other partners such as the Coalfield Communities Landscape Partnership (CCLP) and the Heritage Lottery Fund. See also: http://www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/projects/low-moss http://www.ea-cei.org.uk/current-projects/ecoco-life-project/ http://www.ea-cei.org.uk/biodiversity-on-the-bog-a-day-at-airds-moss/ EACEI is also on Facebook and Twitter.

23

6.1.2 Slamannan Plateau The peatland restoration works in Slamannan were overseen by Buglife. Openspace (Cumbria) Ltd and Conservefor Ltd were contracted to conduct the main operations. Despite previous damages from commercial extraction and planting, Slamannan is now engaged on a positive restoration pathway. Figure 8: Fannyside Muir, Slamannan Plateau, May 2016. Photo; Scott Shanks, Buglife

Site

Slamannan Plateau

De

scri

pti

on

Slamannan Plateau has been left undisturbed for the last 30 years. In 2014 however, vast areas of bare peat were still visible, as a result of the past peatland extraction which severely damaged this fragile habitat. The works done by EcoCo to rewet the area and encourage sphagnum growth were absolutely necessary to reverse this process of degradation. Taiga bean geese, a rare species, have recently been observed at Slamannan Plateau.

Key

ben

efit

s

232 ha of peatland restored (80 ha target) 17,914 m2 of pools created

Maintenance of 346.78 million tons of carbon stored Estimated avoided carbon emission of 806.9 tCO2e/year 16

£3’553 value created by volunteers 151 children engaged through both classroom and outdoor activities at Airds Moss

276 attendees at awareness raising events on peatlands17

16

See Annex 10 (A2711094): Peatland Code Emissions Calculator_v1.1 - Fannyside Data 2018 - Scott Shanks – 2018 and Annex 11 (A2711090): Carbon calculation for Slamannan Plateau - Scott Shanks – 2018. 17

See Annex 9 (A2711092): Volunteering and Awareness data for Slamannan Plateau – 2018

24

These benefits were made possible with extensive works to restore the hydrology of this site. For this purpose, 136 plastic pile dams were installed (4 target). These dams have the capacity to avoid large and rapid water run-off. This was complemented different techniques, with the creation of 3,566 new peat dams and 4,002 m of trench bundling. This has led to the successful rewetting of the site. Thanks to the volunteers, 58.5 ha scrub cleared (40 ha target) and finally 30 ha of tree were felled, allowing the peatland species to reclaim their habitat. Carbon sequestration Calculating the contribution of restored peatland to climate mitigation is not straightforward. This report has focused its calculation on Slamannan, the single peatland restoration site where EcoCo has done the greatest amount of restoration. Peatlands are both an opportunity and a threat to climate mitigation: “Covering only about 3% of Earth's land area, they hold the equivalent of half of the carbon that is in the atmosphere as CO2”.18 We estimate that 346.78 million tons of carbon is stored in the grounds of Slamannan Plateau, based on the peat depth surveys, an estimated 80% carbon content and a bulk density of 140 kg per cube meter.19 This is equivalent to the amount of carbon captured by 8 billion tree seedlings grown over 10 years.20 On the one hand, natural peatland habitats are an opportunity for carbon mitigation, acting as a carbon sink. Peatland accumulate layers of sphagnum in a very efficient way, as low levels of oxygen prevent the decomposing processes. These areas are highlighted in green in Figure 9: Slamannan Plateau in 2014. On the other hand, drained peatlands release carbon back into the atmosphere as the decomposition processes resume.21 Like many other damaged peatland, Slamannan is no longer acting as a carbon sink but is effectively emitting carbon. This is due to the considerable damages done by drainage for commercial extraction and successive planting, which are illustrated by the areas highlighted in red.

Four years after the project start, the rewetted areas have shown considerable growth and the bare peat land cover has reduced considerably, as illustrated in Figure 10: Slamannan Plateau in 2018. Restoring peatlands contributes to reversing the processes of decomposition and maintaining this stock of carbon in the grounds. At the current market price, preserving this amount of carbon into the ground of Slamannan Plateau as opposed to letting it being released in the atmosphere would be worth £1.45 billion.22

18

Dise, Nancy B. (2009), Peatland Response to Global Change Science, 06 Nov 2009: Vol. 326, Issue 5954, pp. 810-811, available at: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/326/5954/810 19 See Annex 11 (A2711090): Carbon calculation for Slamannan Plateau - Scott Shanks – 2018. 20

EPA (2018), Carbon Emission Calculator, US Environment Protection Agency, online, available at: https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator 21

Biello, David (2009), Peat and Repeat: Can Major Carbon Sinks Be Restored by Rewetting the World's Drained Bogs?, Scientific American, 8 December 2009, available at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/peat-and-repeat-rewetting-carbon-sinks/ 22

See 3.2.3 Monetary valuation

25

Figure 9: Slamannan Plateau in 2014

Figure 10: Slamannan Plateau in 2018

26

Before the restoration works in 2014, it was emitting at a rate of over 1,646.8 tCO2e/year.23 The rewetting of Slamannan successful started reverting this process. We estimate that the works done with EcoCo reduced the carbon emission by 806.9 tons of CO2 equivalent per year. This means that over the last four years EcoCo has already avoided £13’523 worth of emission. Peatland restoration has become a priority for the Scottish Government as part of its action on climate, setting targets to restore 50,000 hectares of degraded peatland by 2020, increasing to 250,000 hectares by 2030.24 If carbon emission reduction from peatland restoration were to be integrated in a carbon market, we would expect that the figures presented in this section would be strong incentives for the private sector to invest as well in peatland restoration. See also: https://scotlandsnature.blog/2018/01/29/practical-people-power/ https://www.conservefor.co.uk/portfolio-item/peatland-restoration-project-fannyside-muir/ https://www.buglife.org.uk/tags/slamannan-plateau https://www.buglife.org.uk/slamannan-bog-restoration https://www.ecocolife.scot/node/232

23

See Annex 10 (A2711094): Peatland Code Emissions Calculator_v1.1 - Fannyside Data 2018 - Scott Shanks – 2018 and Annex 11 (A2711090): Carbon calculation for Slamannan Plateau - Scott Shanks – 2018. 24 Scottish Government (2018), CLIMATE CHANGE PLAN, The Third Report on Proposals and Policies 2018-2032,

February 2018.

27

6.1.3 Flanders Moss Flanders Moss is partially owned and managed by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and Scottish Wildlife Trust (SWT). The site is managed as National Nature Reserve (NNR) by SNH. Figure 11: Flanders Moss, an accessible natural site advertised on Euan's Guide25

Site

Flanders Moss

De

scri

pti

on

“Flanders Moss is one of the largest and least damaged lowland raised bogs in Britain and is home to a complex of bog vegetation and sphagnum mosses”.26 Flanders Moss is 10 miles west of Stirling and close to Scotland’s most visited attractions. As one of Scotland’s National Natural Reserves, Flanders Moss benefits from remarkable maintenance efforts and publicity.

Key

ben

efit

s

30.5 hectares of peatland restored (180 ha target)

Maintenance of 240 million tons of carbon stored

Visitor rate The number of visitor recorded was only 200 back in 2003,27 but it reached 6,300 visits in 2010.28 The site had then been added a 900m long boardwalk and a viewing tower. This number has increased and is

25

Euan’s Guide (2018), Flanders Moss - A step back in time, Disabled Access reviews, online, available at: https://www.euansguide.com/venues/flanders-moss-stirling-7520/gallery 26

British Dragonflies Society (2018), Flanders Moss page, online, available at: https://british-dragonflies.org.uk/content/flanders-moss-page 27

Annex 13 (zA159336), Flanders Moss NNR Visitor Access Study: An investigation into trail surface decisions affecting social and bio-physical impacts on the largest raised peatland bog in the United Kingdom, Napier University, Edinburgh - Alan Jeffrey – 2003.

28

likely to have now reached 12,000 according to Site manager David Picket.29 Our observations confirmed that visitor usually spend approximately 1 hour on the site which is considerable in relation to the size of the site. Figure 12: Benefits overview: Flanders Moss30

Main benefits Short term impact Long term impact

Mental health

The rewetting of areas adjacent to the boardwalk offers a higher aesthetical

value for visitors, hence increasing the attractiveness of the site for mental

stimulation and relaxation.

Flanders Moss’s ecological condition has been steadily improving over the

years thanks to parallel and successive initiatives.

EcoCo is part of this continuity leading

to the rewilding of the site.

Learning One staff member completed softrak

low ground pressure machine training.

Media Flanders Moss is regularly featured in the blog “2 bogs a swamp and some

islands”

Carbon storage The rewetting of the sites creates

favourable conditions for sphagnum to capture carbon and store it in the soil.

Water retention Water retention has shown early

indications of improving following peat restoration at the site.

Water quality

Water quality is currently not measured in Flanders Moss.

Improvement in water quality is one of the key benefits associated with

peatland restoration.

Pollination In the short term, scrub clearance has a negative impact on pollinators relying on tree and shrubs.

The rewetting of the site has created favourable conditions for other species, such as water plants which will in the longer term outbalance the initial loss in flower.

KEY No or little benefits observed in the short term/expected in the long term

Perceived as having a positive impact. Some indications available.

Perceived as tangible benefits, correlated by at least one source.

Perceived as the main benefits, correlated by different sources

28

Annex 14 (zA161213): Visitor Perceptions at Flanders Moss NNR, Main Report, Scottish Natural Heritage - May Johnstone – 2010. 29

Annex 5 (A2614055): Valuation from site managers – Donatien von Rohland– 2018. 30

Colour code:

29

Visitor spending The local visitors interviewed at Flanders Moss spent no more than £4 on petrol. However we also have a record of a nature writer who travelled over 30 miles to find inspiration in Flanders Moss but also tourists traveling over 400 miles to walk alpacas on the moss, a popular local attraction. Additionality The additionality of this project has been confirmed by the site manager who stated that without the commitment of EcoCo, SNH wouldn’t have been able to match fund the work there. Carbon storage With an average of 6 meters depth, the amount of carbon stored in Flanders Moss can be estimated as 240 million tons of CO2 equivalents.31 This is equivalent to the amount of carbon produced over a year by 54 coal-fired power plants in the United States.32 EcoCo is contributing to the maintenance of this carbon sink, valued at more than £1 billion.33 Unfortunately we do not have the data in a form to represent this in the same way as for Slamannan. Carbon sequestration Due to the lack of data we were not able to reproduce the same calculation. However, we noted that the area of bare peat coverage has increased since the project started in 2014 due to ongoing grazing pressures from red deers. 34 In parallel, there have been increases in several Sphagnum spp. including the pioneering S. tenellum which colonises bare ground and will aid the long term restoration of the site. Many of the benefits from restoration from this site are still several years away. In the long term, EcoCo will contribute to the rewilding of the site as one of the major contributors. See also: https://www.nature.scot/enjoying-outdoors/scotlands-national-nature-reserves/flanders-moss-national-nature-reserve https://2bogsaswampandsomeislands.wordpress.com http://www.snh.org.uk/PeatforPeople/sites_scotland.asp https://www.visitscotland.com/info/see-do/flanders-moss-national-nature-reserve-p333961

31

Annex 16 (A2297401): EcoCo Life Flanders Moss Monitoring Peatland - Stephen Longster – 2018. 32

EPA (2018), Carbon Emission Calculator, US Environment Protection Agency, online, available at: https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator 33

See 3.2.3 Monetary valuation 34

Annex 16 (A2297401): EcoCo Life Flanders Moss Monitoring Peatland - Stephen Longster – 2018.

30

6.2 Wetlands

6.2.1 Black Devon Wetlands

Black Devon Wetlands is managed by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB). On the key perceived benefits of EcoCo is the viewing platform which allows visitors to observe birds without disturbing them. The viewing platform was entirely financed by EcoCo.

The RSPB conducted its own visitor survey and collected 85 answers between January and June 2018.36 26% of the respondents visit Black Devon Wetlands regularly (at least once a week). 92% reported using the boardwalk which leads to the EcoCo viewing platform.

35

Annex 18 (A2680704): School and awareness data for Black Devon Wetlands - Allison Leonard – 2018. 36

Annex 17(A2673965): Black Devon Wetlands Visitor Survey – RSPB – 2018.

Site

Black Devon Wetlands

De

scri

pti

on

The area known as Black Devon Wetlands lies to the south-east of Alloa, occupying 38 ha of wet and dry grassland behind the sea wall. According to the statistics collected by Google Maps, people spend on average 30 min in Black Devon Wetlands.

Ke

y b

en

efi

ts 1 specially designed viewing facility

43 ha of wet grassland into positive management (53 target)

Volunteers created an estimated £2399 value

117 pupils visited Black Devon Wetland as part of EcoCo class between March 2016 and February 2018.35

Figure 13: Viewing Platform at Black Devon Wetlands. Photo; David Palmar

31

The viewing platform is decorated with 12 cut-out metal panels depicting the most common bird species found at Black Devon Wetlands throughout the year, as well as aspects of the site's history, and industrial past. The viewing platform is regularly mentioned in the visitors’ comments The comments in the visitor survey are very positive: “We love the shelter and always enjoy sitting and watching the wildlife, it’s a fantastic setting.” Visitors also show concern about these new facilities: “Sad to see the hide vandalised.” The online reviews on Google Maps also notice improvement in the habitat: “RSPB have done a great job with the pathways and cleaning up the ponds for wildlife”. Learning In the outdoor learning survey, a biology teacher from Alloa Academy mentions the RSPB as an organisation which helped her bring her pupils to Black Devon Wetlands on an occasional basis (less than once a month).37 See also: https://www.rspb.org.uk/reserves-and-events/reserves-a-z/black-devon-wetlands http://www.innerforthlandscape.co.uk/eventscal/search-events/location/46-black-devon-wetlands https://www.rspb.org.uk/reserves-and-events/reserves-a-z/lochwinnoch/

6.2.2 Baron’s Haugh

Baron’s Haugh is managed since 1983 by the RSPB. According to the local RSPB group, over 25,000 people visit the reserve every year.38 This reserve is particularly important for bird watchers from the local RSPB group who reported seeing wintering Whooper swans, nuthatch and gadwall.

During our site visit we met walkers, cyclists, runners, mostly from the immediate surroundings of the reserve. We interviewed 22 visitors in Baron’s Haugh. More than half of the respondents were local residents visiting the site several times a week, showing that Barron’s Haugh is a community reserve.

37

Annex 19 (A2716650): EcoCo School Survey - Donatien von Rohland - 2018 38

RSPB Local Group to Baron’s Haugh, Reserve description, online, available at: http://baronshaugh.x10host.com/reserve%20description.htm 39

Annex 20 (A2636487): School Engagement stats for Baron’s Haugh

Site

Baron’s Haugh

De

scri

pti

on

Baron’s Haugh is an RSPB reserve on the edge of Motherwell. It comprises 107.3 hectares of mosaic habitat including wetland, marshland, woodland, and meadows. The main water body (20 hectares) is controlled by a sluice enabling waterfowl to nest in safety and also areas of mud to be exposed for passage waders.

Key

ben

efit

s 80 children engaged through both classroom and outdoor activities at Baron’s Haugh39

New viewing structure

Cattle-grazed meadows around wetland areas

32

80% of the respondents mentioned exercise as one of the main reason they visit Baron’s Haugh.40 Figure 14: Conducting visitor surveys at Baron’s Haugh, July 2018. Photo; Paul Sizeland, SNH.

See also: https://www.rspb.org.uk/reserves-and-events/reserves-a-z/barons-haugh/

6.3 Open Mosaic Habitats

6.3.1 Inner Forth sites The project is implemented at the Inner Forth sites by Buglife in partnership with the Falkirk Council. Inner Forth sites include green spaces and green roofs.

40

Annex 6 (A2701799): EcoCo Life Visitor Survey – Donatien von Rohland – 2018.

41 See Annex 21 (A2660892): Volunteering and awareness raising monitoring data for Inner Forth sites (incl.

Garibaldi Bing, Fallin Bing) – Suzanne Burges and 3.2.3 Monetary valuation

Site

Green spaces Green roofs

De

scri

pti

on

Bo’ness, Garibaldi Bing, Bonnyfield and

Avonglen Quarry are public green spaces

Carrongrange High School is a public establishment.

CalaChem is a private company.

Key

fac

ts

The volunteers generated £5447 of value.41

480 children were reached during 21 school visits.

1.2 ha wildflower meadow in Grangepans (1ha target)

2.6 ha scrub cleared in Garibaldi Bing and Bridgeness (2 ha target)

443 m2 green roofs (200 target)

33

Figure 15: Benefits Overview: Bo’ness (Grangepans and Bridgeness).

Bo'ness

Short term impacts Long term impacts

Mental health

Grangepans and Bridgeness are part of the John Muir Way. The ground preparation work and management funded by EcoCo allowed the successful planting of

meadows.

A visible and sustained increase in biodiversity increases the amenity

value of these sites, and offers more opportunities for both relaxation

and mental stimulation

The increase in biodiversity (defined as the number of species recorded)

observed in the meadows has shown to be durable over the years.

Volunteering Local volunteers have reported feeling part of something

bigger benefiting the local area.

Education Have run a number of talks about project to local

community, have done bug walks with local scout groups and with school

Training Volunteers received training on meadows management,

species identification and monitoring.

Media The project was regularly promoted, on website and via

twitter. It received coverage on local newspaper

Carbon The conversion of Grangepans, an area of amenity

grassland into species-rich grassland increased carbon sequestration capacity.

Water retention

Grangepans Meadows retains more water reducing water runoff onto impervious area.

Commute Grangepans Meadow has enhanced the commute journey of local area of Bo'ness for those who pass through area to

get to town centre

Pollination Pollination is the main benefit of this project. Increased visits from pollinators are supported by species survey

KEY

No or little benefits observed in the short term/expected in the long term

Perceived as having a positive impact. Some indications available.

Perceived as tangible benefits, correlated by at least one source.

Perceived as the main benefits, correlated by different sources

Green roofs Figure 16: Green roof at CalaChem Ltd. Photo; Suzanne Burgess, Buglife.

The Inner Forth Landscape Initiative’s ‘Glorious Green Roof’ project was funded by EcoCo and the National Lottery through the Heritage Lottery Fund and managed by Buglife. Green roofs increase buildings insulation and reduce noise pollution.

34

The first green roof was installed in May 2016 at CalaChem, a chemical manufacturing company.42 The 142 m2 green roof was praised by Angus MacDonald MSP:

The second green roof installation was in Carrongrange High School, a local authority run special needs school for children with support requirements.43. The 300m2 green roof is accessible and equipped with an all-abilities pathway. The gardening club at High School encourages pupils to take an active role in looking after the green roof. Workshops have been organised to encourage teachers and children to use and maintain the green roof. See also: https://www.buglife.org.uk/campaigns-and-our-work/habitat-projects/glorious-green-roofs https://www.buglife.org.uk/campaigns-and-our-work/habitat-projects/bings-for-wildlife https://www.buglife.org.uk/campaigns-and-our-work/habitat-projects/bridgeness-biodiversity

42 Scottish Green Infrastructure Forum, Angus MacDonald MSP hails success of Grangemouth Green Roof project,

online, available at: http://www.sgif.org.uk/index.php/news-and-events/blog/183-angus-macdonald-msp-hails-

success-of-grangemouth-green-roof-project 43

Scottish Green Infrastructure Forum, Rooftop garden to help new school’s pupils blossom!, online, available at:

http://www.sgif.org.uk/index.php/news-and-events/blog/143-rooftop-garden-to-help-new-school-s-pupils-

blossom

Figure 17: Green roof at Carrongrange High School. Photo; Suzanne Burgess, Buglife.

“It was great to get along to see this green roof, one of two installations in Grangemouth, to see how things were going, and to get an idea of what this meant for CalaChem and for Buglife. Hearing of the wildlife which had been spotted was proof for me that this is and will continue to be a successful installation. With it being the beginning of the season there is clearly more growth to come, however it was clear to see the importance of this project, and great to hear how it is encouraging biodiversity, even in the midst of an industrial area. I am glad to hear, too, of the benefits to CalaChem. Once again we see CalaChem giving a platform for nature to flourish, and I hope to see more of this from local industry in the future. It was encouraging to hear that CalaChem are considering increasing the number of green roofs within their complex.” Angus MacDonald MSP

35

7 Recommendations This final chapter details recommended management actions to address any concerning results from

monitoring and subsequent evaluation which will support further enhancement of the CSGN.

The research proposal which was issued by the original team working on the socio-economic impact

assessment at the beginning of the project was an excellent start to this assessment.44 Unfortunately,

two key recommendations from this research proposal were not followed through:

A baseline for socio-economic data was not established.

Socio-economic data was not monitored throughout the project in a consistent way.

More generally, we would recommend, relating to the different project phase:

Project development: Set out an ambitious yet feasible plan for monitoring and evaluation, with

clearly defined indicators. Provide detailed explanation of the monitoring requirement to the

implementing partners.

Monitoring: Ensure that all aspects are covered and that the datasets are regularly updated

throughout the project. Inquire regularly about any missing information and oversee the

quantity and the quality of the data monitored.

Evaluation: Allow a longer period of time for the evaluation period, due to delays and

limitations during data collection. Schools and teachers are unavailable between June and

August. Feedbacks for school visits and awareness raising session should be conducted after the

event.

44

Annex 0 (A1950254): EcoCo socioeconomic study brief, initial planning stage – Viktoria Valenta and Paul Watkinson – 2016.

36

8 Table of figures Figure 1: What is natural capital? ............................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2: Sites selected for the EcoCo Socio-economic impact assessment ................................................ 8 “Figure 3: Table of indicators ...................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 4: Theory of change in Health, Community and Learning & Behaviour benefits. ........................... 14 Figure 5: Theory of change for economic and environmental benefits ..................................................... 15 Figure 6: Airds Moss, October 2016, photo Daisy Whytock. ...................................................................... 19 Figure 7: Benefits overview: Airds Moss ..................................................................................................... 21 Figure 8: Fannyside Muir, Slamannan Plateau, May 2016, Scott Shanks, Buglife ..................................... 23 Figure 9: Slamannan Plateau in 2014.......................................................................................................... 25 Figure 10: Slamannan Plateau in 2018 ....................................................................................................... 25 Figure 11: Flanders Moss, an accessible natural site advertised on Euan's Guide ..................................... 27 Figure 12: Benefits overview: Flanders Moss ............................................................................................. 28 Figure 13: Viewing Platform at Black Devon Wetlands. Photo David Palmar ............................................ 30 Figure 14: Conducting visitor surveys in Baron’s Haugh, July 2018. ........................................................... 32 Figure 15: Benefits Overview: Bo’ness (Grangepans and Bridgeness). ...................................................... 33 Figure 16: Green roof at CalaChem Ltd ...................................................................................................... 33 Figure 17: Green roof at Carrongrange High School ................................................................................... 34

37

9 List of annexes Annex 0 (A1950254): EcoCo socioeconomic study brief, initial planning stage – Viktoria Valenta and Paul Watkinson – 2016.

Annex 1 (A19594559): Evaluation Framework for Applying the Ecosystem Approach – Simon Pepper – 2016.

Annex 2 (A2045115): Site- specific data for Socio-economic analysis – Scoping Viktoria Valenta and Paul Watkinson – 2016.

Annex 3 (A1974485): Report Template - Viktoria Valenta and Paul Watkinson – 2016.

Annex 4 (A2562372): Methodology – Donatien von Rohland and Tom McKenna – 2018.

Annex 5 (A2614055): Valuation from site managers– Donatien von Rohland– 2018.

Annex 6 (A2701799): EcoCo Life Visitor Survey – Donatien von Rohland – 2018.

Annex 7 (A2652954): Volunteering and Awareness data for EACEI sites – Daisy Whytock – 2018.

Annex 8 (A2655289): Visitor survey for Low Moss - Donatien von Rohland – 2018.

Annex 9 (A2711092): Volunteering and Awareness data for Slamannan Plateau – 2018.

Annex 10 (A2711094): Peatland Code Emissions Calculator_v1.1 - Fannyside Data 2018 - Scott Shanks – 2018.

Annex 11 (A2711090): Carbon calculation for Slamannan Plateau - Scott Shanks – 2018.

Annex 12 (A2689768): Volunteering and awareness data for Braehead Moss - David Hill – 2018.

Annex 13 (zA159336), Flanders Moss NNR Visitor Access Study: An investigation into trail surface decisions affecting social and bio-physical impacts on the largest raised peatland bog in the United Kingdom, Napier University, Edinburgh - Alan Jeffrey – 2003.

Annex 14 (zA161213): Visitor Perceptions at Flanders Moss NNR, Main Report - May Johnstone – 2010.

Annex 16 (A2297401): EcoCo Life Flanders Moss Monitoring Peatland - Stephen Longster – 2018.

Annex 17(A2673965): Black Devon Wetlands Visitor Survey – RSPB – 2018.

Annex 18 (A2680704): School and awareness data for Black Devon Wetlands - Allison Leonard – 2018.

Annex 19 (A2716650): EcoCo School Survey - Donatien von Rohland – 2018.

Annex 20 (A2636487): School Engagement stats for Baronshaugh.

Annex 21 (A2660892): Volunteering and awareness raising monitoring data for Inner Forth sites (incl. Garibaldi Bing, Fallin Bing) – Suzanne Burgess

38

10 References Biello, David (2009), Peat and Repeat: Can Major Carbon Sinks Be Restored by Rewetting the World's Drained Bogs?, Scientific American, 8 December 2009, available at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/peat-and-repeat-rewetting-carbon-sinks/

BONN et al. (2014), Investing in nature: Developing ecosystem service markets for peatland restoration” Ecosystem Services, Issue 9, pp. 54–65.

British Dragonflies Society (2018), Flanders Moss page, online, available at: https://british-dragonflies.org.uk/content/flanders-moss-page Department for business energy and environmental strategy (2018), Updated short term traded carbon values for appraisal purposes, available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/671194/Updated_short-term_traded_carbon_values_for_appraisal_purposes.pdf

Dise, Nancy B. (2009), Peatland Response to Global Change Science, 06 Nov 2009: Vol. 326, Issue 5954, pp. 810-811, available at: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/326/5954/810

EPA (2018), Carbon Emission Calculator, US Environment Protection Agency, online, available at: https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator

Euan’s Guide (2018), Flanders Moss - A step back in time, Disabled Access reviews, online, available at: https://www.euansguide.com/venues/flanders-moss-stirling-7520/gallery

Hume, J. (2015) ‘CSGN Benefits Valuation Report’, Scottish Government, available at: http://www.centralscotlandgreennetwork.org/delivering/costing-valuing-and-resourcing-the-csgn

NCC, (2018). What is natural Capital?, Natural Capital Coalition website, consulted on 19/07/2018. Online, available at: https://naturalcapitalcoalition.org/natural-capital/

ONS (2017), Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) survey available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/bulletins/annualsurveyofhoursandearnings/2017provisionaland2016revisedresults

RSPB Local Group to Baron’s Haugh, Reserve description, online, available at: http://baronshaugh.x10host.com/reserve%20description.htm Scottish Government (2018), CLIMATE CHANGE PLAN, The Third Report on Proposals and Policies 2018-2032, February 2018. Scottish Green Infrastructure Forum, Angus MacDonald MSP hails success of Grangemouth Green Roof project, online, available at: http://www.sgif.org.uk/index.php/news-and-events/blog/183-angus-macdonald-msp-hails-success-of-grangemouth-green-roof-project

39

Scottish Green Infrastructure Forum, Rooftop garden to help new school’s pupils blossom!, online, available at: http://www.sgif.org.uk/index.php/news-and-events/blog/143-rooftop-garden-to-help-new-school-s-pupils-blossom

Volunteer Scotland (2018), Calculating the economic value of your Volunteers, online, retrieved from: https://www.volunteerscotland.net/media/254583/guidance_-_calculating_the_economic_value_of_your_volunteers.pdf

Volunteer Scotland (2018), The economic value of volunteering, online, available at: https://www.volunteerscotland.net/for-organisations/research-and-evaluation/data-and-graphs/economic-value-of-volunteering/