Forestry for People: An Investigation of 'Forestry for People' benefits in two case study regions
Lead Researchers: Dr Alex Franklin, Dr Rhys Evans
Background
This research represents the case study component of the wider ‘Forestry for People Scotland’ research project. It was conducted between June 2007 and January 2008.
The research was commissioned by Forest Research’s Social & Economic Research Group (SERG), on behalf of Forestry Commission Scotland. The wider project is undertaking a comprehensive evaluation of the economic and social value of ‘Forestry for People’ (F4P) in Scotland. The overall aim is to quantify and describe the diverse social and economic benefits of forestry for the people of Scotland.
As a component of the wider project, this research element is designed to provide detailed, context-specific assessments of benefits under the Forestry for People Social Benefit themes of: Culture, Health, Education, Recreation, Amenity, Livelihoods, and Community Capacity. This has been achieved by using a Case Study methodology to draw on stakeholders’ experiences of involvement in ‘Forestry for People’ activities.
Aims and Objectives
The overall aim of the original research brief was to ‘examine and describe the nature and extent of ‘Forestry for People’ benefits accruing to residents in the two case study areas, and to analyse the relationship between benefit types’. This was achieved by undertaking two principal phases of research. The first phase produced a detailed spatially-explicit profile of each case study area. The data from this first phase then enabled the targeted execution of a second research phase. This involved a more in-depth analysis of ‘Forestry for People’ benefits with selected groups and individuals, using primarily qualitative social scientific research methods.
The research was guided by two main Research Questions:
1) What are the benefits of woodland related activities and use?
a) Explore typologies of activities/ uses.
b) Find description or evidence.
c) Demonstrate who benefits and how.
d) Explore partnerships and map institutionaland community relationships.
2) How and to what extent do woodland related activities and use contribute to community (and personal) development?
a) Explore the relationships between benefit types and actors / places.
b) Explore the ‘outcomes’ of activities and uses (community and personal development).
The questions were used to guide the investigation of the Social Benefits themes developed by the wider Forestry Commission ‘Forestry for People’ project:
o Culture
o Health
o Education
o Recreation
o Amenity
o Livelihoods
o Community Capacity
From the outset it was recognized that the schema of themes breaks a continuous social phenomenon into discreet categories in order to ease the task of conducting research. Not only are the themes interrelated but exploring those
inter-relationships was one of the important focuses of the study.
Methodology
In an effort to capture some of the diversity of the use of Scottish forests to develop social benefit, two contrasting case study sites were pre-selected by the Forest Research Social and Economic Research Group (SERG). One is located in the most urban part of Scotland – Glasgow; the other in the rural Highlands of Scotland, centred on Loch Ness.
Phase 1 – Desk Based Profiling
The purpose of Phase One of the research was to profile selected areas within each case study region in order to provide a working knowledge-base from which a subsequent, more targeted, research phase could be designed and implemented. An important function of this profiling work was the selection of key locations within each case study for this targeted research. The work started with a ‘quick scan’ of available data on social forestry activities which are taking place in the two case study regions (Glasgow & Clyde Valley, and Loch Ness). This initial ‘quick scan’ enabled the selection of sub-region(s) (with an approximate total area equivalent to a 20 mile radius for each case study region), for more detailed profiling.
The profiling involved mostly desk-based research (dominated by internet searches and email correspondence) and some ‘scoping’ interviews (mostly by telephone) with key stakeholders. In the selected sub-regions profiling work drew upon available socio-economic statistical data to present background information. This included data relating to employment, deprivation, and social groupings. In addition, profiling research in selected sub-regions canvassed a wide range of organisations, institutions, partnerships, voluntary organisations and other groups to determine what social forestry activities were taking place in the selected areas.
The resulting profiles produced the following information:
• data relating to forest cover and forest management types;
• available, background socio-economic data;
• information about community-based, forest-related activities and projects (focusing on the seven benefit Themes);
• information about relevant ‘social forestry’ sector projects, partnerships and initiatives;
• a stakeholder analysis, mapping the relationships between key individuals and organisations and presenting a database of contact details. Although completed as a discreet Work Package, the information contained in the Profiles was then continually updated as further information became available during the field work Phase of the research.
Map 1 – Loch Ness Case Study Boundary
The Loch Ness Case Study area is located along the shores of the loch and consists of three sub-areas: the North Shore, the South Shore and the Fort Augustus area. Each differs from the other in terms of patterns of land ownership, settlement, forest cover and activity, and levels of community development activity. Together they form a complete picture typical of many rural places in Scotland.
Map 2 – Glasgow Case Study Areas
The Glasgow/Clyde Case Study area incorporates three different localities, all of which are located within the City of Glasgow Local Authority. Two of the selected case study localities are residential communities. One is Drumchapel, which is situated to the northwest of the city centre; the other is Castlemilk, which is to the south east of the city centre. Both are Housing Estate communities which have suffered a legacy of large vacancy rates, inter-generational social exclusion, and have become repositories for those suffering from disability and unemployment. The third locality, Pollock Park, is a green space situated just south of the City centre. It is an important resource to the other two case study communities, supplementing their own woodland assets with programmes across a range of social benefit categories.
Phase 2 – Field Methods
The first Phase of the work delivered a profile of uses and actors who gain social value from forests and forest activities in the two case study areas. In order, though, to understand the nature of the benefits they enjoy, the motivations which drive them and the ways in which they enact their enjoyment/ use/ appropriation of these benefits, we needed to hear from a representative sample of the people mapped in the first exercise. Accordingly, based on the results of the profiling work and ongoing discussions with SERG members, specific locations, groups, activities and themes were then selected for detailed investigation. Participant observation and digital ethnographic techniques were used to investigate activities, projects and specific landscape variables. Focus groups and group interviews were used to investigate group and collective values, whilst semi-structured interviews were used to gather in-depth knowledge from key respondents.
In Loch Ness, this involved in-depth interviews with fourteen key informants, two focus groups and one expert group discussion. An initial ‘reconnaissance’ was undertaken using digital photography and participant observation journals to confirm information discovered during the profile, to make sure significant cases were not missed, and to see the whole area, walk in selected places and talk to the people we met in the woodlands. During the field trips, visits were made to five significant sites and we attended two events staged in forests. During these events attendees were informally interviewed. In total twenty-seven people were interviewed.
In Glasgow, in-depth interviews were conducted with fourteen Key Informants and three Focus Groups were undertaken. An initial reconnaissance produced photographic data of deprivation, as well as of community presence in the woodlands. Three woodland-based events were attended and one Forest School class. One school was also visited. Five site visits were made to Pollock Park, and site visits were also made to four other woodland sites. Three meetings of the Glasgow Forest Education Initiative were attended. Approximately thirty individuals were interviewed.
The majority of data was gathered during the interviews with key informants and the group interviews. Attendance at events, such as a children’s tree planting day or forest classroom, allowed the research to gather both contextual data and testimonies from participants. This was supplanted with the data gathered from observation, digital images and reflexive field notes.
Outputs
For a copy of the Executive Summary please follow this link.
To obtain a copy of the Main Report generated from this research please email Alex Franklin direct:
franklina1@cardiff.ac.uk
Partners and Funding
This research represents the case study component of the wider ‘Forestry for People Scotland’ research project. It was commissioned by Forest Research’s Social & Economic Research Group (SERG), on behalf of Forestry Commission Scotland. The research was conducted between June 2007 and January 2008.
The research was undertaken by Dr Alex Franklin of BRASS in partnership with Dr Rhys Evans of Integrate Consulting. GIS support was provided by Dr Scott Orford, School of City and Regional Planning, Cardiff University.
Key Findings
Each case study area offers unique insights into the social benefits of forest-based activity from the context of their widely differing situations. They feature unique characteristics across a range of social and economic indicators, including high and low population densities, obvious and hidden deprivation, high and low proportions of forested land cover, and different histories and trajectories of development. Despite these and other differences, this research suggests that people in both communities increasingly put a high value on their forest spaces, seeing them as important assets in responding to the challenges of developing their own communities and delivering improvements in their lives.
Overall, the most significant phenomenon to emerge from the evidence was the almost universal enthusiasm expressed by respondents for the value of forests and woodlands in their lives. This was expressed both as a general affection for the actual forest spaces themselves, and as specific affection for the activities in which they are engaging in forests. Comments such as: "There’s something about being out in the woods that just helps you to chill out when you’re stressed" reflect not only specific mental health benefits of forest-based activities, but also the way general affection for forest spaces is expressed.
This enthusiasm was manifest in the zeal expressed by most respondents in terms of promoting further development of forest uses which deliver the social benefits they enjoy. Participants in forest-based programmes readily shared, through passionate accounts, the high value they placed on the benefits they gained. Those engaged in the management of forest-based programmes and assets were just as passionate in their advocacy of forests, as were forest rangers, development officers and others in the public sector. Many of the actors displayed a keen sense of social entrepreneurship in the ways they supported the development of forests for social benefits. This entrepreneurship can be witnessed in the growth of new partnerships and new projects, bringing new opportunities to link together forests and communities.
Across both Case Studies we saw respondents volunteering, learning new skills, enjoying new opportunities to socialize, improving their health and changing their livelihoods in response to the opportunities presented by forest-based developments in their communities. In both places we were able to observe first-hand how accessing social benefits from woodland spaces has brought new value to communities and prompted a revaluation of their forest spaces. In many different ways respondents told us that:
• Forests and woodlands are special spaces for learning, both formal and informal.
• Forests and woodlands are spaces of new healthful activity.
• Forests and woodlands are spaces of recreation, both traditional and innovative.
• Forests and woodlands are spaces which support the expression of culture.
• Forests and woodlands are spaces of high amenity value, particularly in terms of community pride and identity.
• Forests and woodlands are important contributors to a variety of livelihoods, including a growing sector managing the delivery of social benefits.
• Forests and woodlands host activities that provide valuable routes back to employment and social inclusion.
• Forests and woodlands are valuable assets for building community capacity and social capital.
The social benefits delivered by forest-based activities accrue both to individuals and to communities. Through involvement in forest-based activities individuals can improve their health, their prospects for paid employment, their social skills, and enjoy better connections with the natural world and with the communities around them. Communities can enjoy improved connection to place, local pride, increased capacity to effect change in their local environment, as well collectively enjoying better health, prosperity and vitality.
Perhaps one of the greatest strengths of forest-based schemes is that they are equally important across the range of communities in Scotland. They are assets which can host the delivery of a multiplicity of social benefits which address the multitude of needs which are faced by these communities. In both rural and urban locations this research found that although the drivers of need may differ across both situations, there is a universal demand for the special educational opportunities, the opportunities for healthful activity, recreation, cultural expression, livelihoods and community capacity building, all of which can be associated with the community development of forests and woodlands.
As an asset, forest and woodland spaces support the development of a complex range of social benefits and this complexity is a part of what makes the interaction of community and forest spaces so productive in terms of addressing a wide range of needs across a wide range of situations. In Glasgow, for example, poverty and social exclusion drive the need for spaces of inclusion and self-esteem. In the Highlands, the historic legacy of the Clearances and the changing fortunes of the rural economy also drive a need for spaces of ownership and positive identity. Forest-based activities have the potential to address both of these situations and many others.
In both of the Case Study areas we witnessed how interactions between communities and woodland spaces were changing the way local people saw the value of their woodlands. The growth of new sectors of interest – health, education – and the additional partnership funds they bring with them represent new ways of valuing forest spaces. The growing emphasis on partnership working in community development, whether for urban regeneration or rural development, has again brought new value to woodland spaces. All of this new value brings new virtue to forests, changing public perceptions of them along the way. Already, the Scottish public is getting more involved in woodlands – more projects are being developed, more initiatives are starting and more partnerships are being built which focus upon forests and woodlands in one way or another.
This research suggests that those who get involved find their enthusiasm for forests and woodland spaces grows rapidly – indeed, the strength of that enthusiasm can be seen across the breadth of evidence that was examined. With increasing activity and increasing enthusiasm on the part of all those involved, it would seem inevitable that there is a shift in how the Scottish public values forests and woodlands. The investment of new value in these spaces can give them greater positive virtue in the public eye, rendering them new virtuous forests.
