Scottish Government

CHAPTER THREE ACCESS

Introduction

3.1 This chapter concerns the assessment of socio-economic impacts of land reform measures relating to outdoor access. It identifies salient criteria for assessment, reviews the current evidence and assessment tools available, and suggests possible indicators and assessment techniques.

3.2 The access measures within the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 ( LRSA) stem from the manifesto commitment of the incoming government in 1997 to "create greater freedom for people to enjoy the countryside", responding to a long history of debate over outdoor access rights, and the need to move beyond the previous legislation of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967, in order to keep apace of contemporary needs for balancing the interests of various types of recreation and land management objectives.

3.3 The crucial issue was the perceived ambiguity of the legal position on access. A general liberty to access most land or customary access through common law was assumed, but: a) often caused anxieties and uncertainties on the part of both land managers and the public, and b) was particularly ambiguous regarding newer forms of recreation, such as 'alternative' and 'lifestyle' sports (Tomlinson et al. 2005). In addition, public bodies had difficulty in providing a supporting role in effective access management, particularly regarding the prioritisation of access in resource allocation.

The land reform measures

3.4 The LRSA features two key measures relating to outdoor access, which came into effect on 9 February 2005. First, it establishes a statutory right of responsible, non-motorised access to most land, inland water and intertidal foreshore for the purpose of passage, recreation, education and commercial activities, as well as reciprocal duties for land managers to act responsibly towards access takers. The Act placed a statutory duty on SNH to produce a Scottish Outdoor Access Code ( SOAC) to support the legislation by providing a key reference point in defining responsible behaviour, land use and land management. Second, the Act gives local authorities a statutory duty to produce a Core Paths Plan "sufficient for the purpose of giving the public reasonable access throughout their area", in consultation with local communities, land managers and other key stakeholders. Local and national park authorities were given three years from the commencement date of the Act (until February 2008) to publish their Core Paths Plan formal consultation draft.

Methods

3.5 The approach involved a desk-based review of access issues as they pertain to the LRSA, and engagement with a range of stakeholders by telephone, email, presentation at a National Access Forum meeting, and a stakeholder workshop. The information gathered enabled the identification of key social and economic criteria, and of the availability or otherwise of appropriate data with which to assess them. This formed the basis for the development of a range of indicators and assessment techniques in accordance with the Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Framework ( SRL).

Identification of access stakeholders

3.6 Access-related land reform measures engender a particularly diffuse set of stakeholders, not least because every member of the public is a potential access taker, and therefore, a stakeholder. For practical reasons this study defined access-related stakeholders with reference to the established institutional structure of the National Access Forum ( NAF) which has representatives of four key areas (access taking, landownership and management, conservation and education) and carries legitimacy from its involvement and evolution throughout the access policy process from 1994. The aim of the Forum as currently constituted is to bring together all relevant interests to advise SNH and others on the implementation of access rights and other issues relating to LRSA Part I.

Stakeholder engagement

3.7 Three main avenues of stakeholder engagement were pursued: telephone interviews; an invitation to full NAF members to attend a stakeholder workshop (see Chapter 9); and an invitation to provide written feedback on the workshop themes to those members unable to attend. Annex 3.1 lists the organisations contacted for access reforms.

3.8 An initial scoping of the issues was carried out using unstructured interviews conducted by telephone with five key stakeholder informants, selected to represent the main access positions and to include perspectives that would not be represented at the stakeholder workshop. Along with the literature review, this exercise allowed us to draft assessment criteria and possible modes of assessment, which formed the basis of discussion in one of the stakeholder workshop sessions. Comparison with the material generated within the workshop enabled the draft to be amended and omissions highlighted.

3.9 Given that space was limited, workshop participants were selected on the basis of inviting only Full Members of the National Access Forum, to ensure a broad range of perspectives both within and between key access interest groups: recreational; land management; environmental/conservation and; public interest/public bodies.

3.10 To allow those stakeholders unable to attend the workshop an opportunity to contribute, a paper was presented at the National Access Forum meeting in Perth in September 2007. The paper outlined the aims of the study and the areas in which views were sought from stakeholders (see Annex 3.2).

Gap analysis and methodological development

3.11 Once the information on the key access-related assessment criteria had been collated from the literature, interviews, workshop and NAF meeting, discussions and email responses, it was possible to conduct a gap analysis in order to pinpoint where available data existed or not. It was important to consider not only possible substantive issues missed, but also the appropriateness of the sample populations, techniques, measures and approaches used to assess them. The available data were collated to give a (preliminary and partial) picture of the impact of access measures. Furthermore, a methodological approach for addressing criteria not covered by existing data was proposed, comprising indicators and other assessment techniques.

Findings

3.12 It is important to underline that the access-related reforms only came into effect in February 2005, and for certain elements, relating to Core Paths planning, implementation deadlines yet to be reached by the time of this research. Therefore, caution was exercised in identifying, interpreting and reporting impacts over short timescales, with few sources of post-Act data, and, findings were used primarily to identify key criteria to develop a methodology to cope with future, possibly unanticipated, impacts. The full suite of suggested criteria, possible assessment techniques and available data sources for access-related land reform measures can be found in Table 3.1.

3.13 Assessing access-specific social and economic impacts must be done in relation to the overall aim of LRSA Part I, "to create greater opportunity for people to visit and enjoy our countryside without interfering unduly with legitimate land management operations" (Scottish Executive 2001, 1), and to broader sustainable development policy agendas concerning health, social inclusion, rural development and sustainable transport. Accordingly, some criteria identified relate to impacts broad in scope, whilst others relate to specific elements of the legislation and its aims. Quantitative indicators have been used where possible, although a number of criteria demand qualitative assessment techniques.

Literature review findings

3.14 There is very little academic literature about LRSA in relation to access, and a complete absence of peer-reviewed publications based on empirical evidence. That which does exist tends to pre-date or closely post-date the reforms, and hence tends to be speculative or focus on the political context and consultation process leading up to the passing of the Act. It is of greatest value in highlighting important criteria for assessment, rather than for identifying actual impacts.

3.15 The uniqueness of the Scottish social, cultural and historical context is often stressed but there is not agreement on what this is. It does signpost that historical and cultural factors are important contextual criteria in assessing land reform. Two general positions stand out: one assuming that new rights have been given to access takers, and; another that existing customary rights have merely been codified in law.

3.16 Survey data suggest that prior to LRSA there was confusion amongst the public about access rights. One survey showed that 41% of respondents thought there was a law of trespass, 33% thought there was not and the remaining 26% were unsure (System 3 Scotland, 1991, cited in Mackay, 2007). The lack of clarity in the law meant that many people were uncertain or cautious about where they might go on the land (Mackay, 2007). Indicators for the impact of land reform could therefore include assessing people's knowledge about their access rights and the confidence with which they are able to enact their rights.

3.17 Roberts and Simpson's (2003) discussion of land managers' perspectives highlights that incomers to an area and access takers are perceived to lack understanding of the working rural countryside and its seasonal variations. This presumed lack of understanding is thought to lead to behaviour which impedes the smooth running of land management, whether for horticulture, forestry or livestock. Land management operations that could incur additional costs from increased or irresponsible public access listed include farm quality assurance schemes, specialist breeding programmes, game conservation and operations, lambing, planting, harvesting, muirburn, stock management. They suggest that promotion of SOAC should be targeted at different visitors to the countryside depending on their understanding. They also assert that many land managers are unaware of the fact or detail of the legislation, such as sources of support, and that they commonly assume that the public do not understand or respect their concerns.

3.18 Roberts and Simpson (2003) stress that to understand behaviours we have to understand motivations and needs. They question whether the provisions of LRSA 2003 will close or widen gaps in perceptions and values - and therefore ameliorate or exacerbate tensions - between access takers and land managers. However, their dualistic construction of living/working countryside versus 'consumption' countryside itself reinforces such tensions. Nevertheless, an indicator to assess whether different sectors of the public, specifically those taking advantage of access rights, are better educated in actually understanding the working operations of the countryside and its seasonal variations would be useful. A problem here, however, is the lack of a baseline from which to assess whether people have a better understanding. An assessment approach sophisticated enough to comprehend the relationship between greater knowledge/understanding and actual behaviour appears to be important.

3.19 The emphasis on responsible access demarks the Scottish legislation from the more regulatory approach taken in England and Wales (Mackay, 2007), although codes of conduct are used to accompany access legislation on both sides of the border. Such codes are often seen to be 'social contracts' rather than instruction manuals. This is especially the case for SOAC, which is underpinned by the notion of mutual responsibility between access takers and providers. The varying interpretations of 'responsible' access, how people internalise ideas of self-governance and notions of citizenship in the countryside are all issues which are beginning to be explored in both the Scottish and English context (Watkins, 1996; Carter, 2001; Roberts & Simpson, 2003; Parker, 2006, 2007; Mackay, 2007). Codes that encourage a sense of place in visitors and an ethic of care towards the environments they are visiting have been found to have a significant role to play in influencing behaviour but some have argued that the complexities inherent in influencing behaviour means that SOAC is only part of what is needed to encourage responsible use of the countryside (Roberts & Simpson, 2003).

3.20 Warren (2002) suggests that environmentally negative impacts of increased access and participation in outdoor recreation may result in: worsening footpath erosion (which would entail the need for greater investment in the maintenance of popular routes); the trampling of sensitive vegetation and soils; and the redistribution and/or reduction of ground-nesting birds. Although these are possible environmental impacts of land reform, they could have knock-on socio-economic effects. For example, increased participation and environmental damage may result in some loss of a sense of wilderness and solitude for the visitor. However, it should be noted that establishing causality is a highly contentious issue.

3.21 Marrow (2005) has considered the implications of LRSA 2003 on the future provision and maintenance of Long Distance Routes ( LDRs) in Scotland. The main issues raised are whether LDRs will still be needed if the public has assured access to the countryside, the extent to which maintenance arrangements with land managers will be affected and the potentially negative effect that the prioritisation of core paths will have on funding arrangements for LDRs. Marrow argues that the LDRs serve a very specific purpose which differs to that of core paths and assured access, as LDRs service a specific market, usually less experienced walkers, and give people confidence to explore more remote areas. The funding, maintenance and popularity of LDRs could therefore be used to assess indirect impacts of land reform.

3.22 With the increasing popularity of outdoor recreation and day visits to the countryside, along with the income they bring to local rural economies, the need for modern access arrangements to fit the present day needs of society was an important driving force for legislative change in relation to access rights. Between 1987 and 1998 the proportion of the population who spent at least one day a month in the countryside rose from 25 to 40%, with 68% visiting the countryside at least once a year (Hunt 2001, cited in Warren 2002). Around 130 million visits to the countryside or coast are made annually by Scottish adults (Mackay, 2007). In the 1990s there was also significant growth in outdoor recreation, particularly walking in Scotland ( SNH, 2004; Marrow, 2005). Whilst there is some evidence of the rise in participation in outdoor recreation slowing down, the number of visits made to the countryside per individual is still thought to be increasing.

3.23 Evidence of the economic impacts of outdoor recreation is beginning to show an important contribution to the Scottish economy ( SNH, 1998b; Higgins, 2000; Christie et al. 2006). Evidence for the social as well as economic benefits of outdoor access and recreation is also growing ( SIRC, 2007a; Forest Research, 2006; Land Use Consultants, 2004). Related debates concern how best to invest in recreational resources to maximise social and economic benefits. Curry and Ravenscroft (2001) argue for greater targeting of recreational resources according to demand, rather than the planning-led approach that has dominated in the past. However, measuring demand is not straightforward, and the authors propose the use of proxy measures: demand for recreational travel; demand for recreational equipment; surveys of countryside recreation; data from UK Day Visits survey; and case studies.

3.24 The key criteria identified from literature can be summarised as follows:

• cultural, political and historical background of access debate
• knowledge of the rights and responsibilities
• confidence with which access takers are able to enact their rights
• education strategies to convey understanding of the reasons behind desired responsible behaviour
• degree of understanding of reasons behind desired responsible behaviour
• linkage between knowledge/understanding of rights and responsibilities and actual behaviour
• interpretation of notions of responsibility in 'responsible' access
• participation in outdoor recreation / visitor numbers
• path and vegetation condition
• distribution and numbers of ground-nesting birds
• visitor experience ( e.g. sense of wilderness and solitude)
• effect on special arrangements with land managers
• funding maintenance and popularity of non-core paths ( e.g. Long Distance Routes)
• targeting of SOAC promotion
• perceptions and values of access takers and land managers and the degree of convergence between them
• practical and economic impact on land management operations
• economic and social impacts of changes in nature and extent of outdoor recreation
• targeting of investment in recreational resources.

Reflection on the available literature as a whole underlines the importance of recognising that the impacts of LRSA 2003 may be both positive and negative for most identified criteria.

Stakeholder engagement findings

3.25 Stakeholders were generally uncertain as to the actual impacts of access measures. Many felt it was too early to discern any changes, that it was difficult to disentangle LRSA impacts from other actions, or that it was difficult to generalise from their knowledge of particular local instances. However, valuable information was garnered in relation to possible and (un)desirable impacts and data sources. These findings represent a broad range of stakeholder perspectives; yet, as with all engagement exercises, they must be interpreted with caution, as some perspectives may be better represented than others.

3.26 A number of overall points were raised that were felt to be crucial to achieving and maintaining balance and trust between different stakeholder perspectives. Impact assessment must allow for positive or negative outcomes for a given criterion, and give scope for intentional and unintentional outcomes. Assessment 'measures' must be considered as a package, rather than particular indicators being picked out in isolation. For example, the negative effects of discarded rubbish by groups of youngsters wild camping, should be weighed against the positive effects on their lifestyle. Likewise, a balanced package of measures would give equal consideration to: access taking and land management interests; land-based and water-based access issues; and the role of access in transport as well as leisure.

3.27 A large number of stakeholders pointed to the importance of assessing the impacts of access-related outdoor activity on the economy, social inclusion and physical and mental health and wellbeing for both access-takers and land managers. It was anticipated that access reform would be largely beneficial for the health of access-takers, but potentially be causing added stress for land managers in terms of uncertainty, difficulty in monitoring access behaviours, and a sense of losing control of one's land and livelihood. For both access-takers and land managers, it was felt important to distinguish between actual access problems and perceptions or fears of problems, and not to dismiss the latter as they affect quality of life and decision-making.

3.28 Assessing how the notion of 'responsibility' is interpreted and practised was felt strongly to relate to both access takers and land managers. A proxy measure of how many of each was aware of SOAC and had read it was suggested, but many acknowledged it was the actual knowledge and understanding of why they ought to behave in a certain way that really mattered in terms of impacts. Assessing how awareness and knowledge of SOAC relates to actual behaviour requires an empirical understanding of values, motivations and various knowledge cultures and the ways in which they underpin practices, which is beyond the scope of correlative statistical techniques and requires qualitative analysis.

3.29 Precisely who should pay for access management infrastructure is a contentious issue, the crux of which is the existence of an incentive structure that encourages land managers to provide adequate access infrastructure and management. Although LRSA does not deal with the implementation of access infrastructure, the latter is widely held to be a fundamental factor influencing the delivery of associated social and economic benefits. On one hand, land managers do not see why they should pay additional costs ( e.g. for signage or to install a self-closing access gate alongside a field gate that is regularly left open by access takers). On the other hand, there is anecdotal evidence that many farmers receiving access payments through Land Management Contracts ( LMC) are taking 'money for nothing' or for very little in the way of access infrastructure. The take-up and material outputs of LMC access options, overlain with infrastructure demand, were suggested as useful indicators of gauging whether access resources were being targeted where needs or added benefits were greatest.

3.30 It was suggested that we examine the effect of LRSA on voluntary access agreements, since the Act seems to have had the effect of crowding out voluntary access agreements between various stakeholder groups. However, some stakeholders are trying to set agreements up within the current framework. It could be interesting to see how voluntary codes operated in relation to SOAC.

3.31 The lack of robust information on the number and nature of access issues and problems was of central concern to a wide range of stakeholders, as the incidence or prevention of problems was deemed a key indicator of many components of LRSA and SOAC in facilitating greater enjoyment of the countryside without interfering unduly with legitimate land management operations. However, there is a general consensus that problems are being under-reported by access takers, and perhaps particularly by land managers, and that the official reporting channel of the SNH portal is not capturing the true picture.

3.32 Access takers who report problems often do it through representative bodies and local access officers, but many are not aware of these channels. Under-reporting by land managers is thought to be due partly to a sense of powerlessness within the official framework (with local authorities seen more as enforcement agencies than sources of help) and a tradition of resolving issues themselves ( e.g. locking gates and erecting prohibitive or misleading signs). The strategic value of reporting problems is not fully appreciated by land managers, who tend to be motivated by the degree to which transgressions can be attributed, and sanctions served, to particular individuals. However, for practical reasons, it can be harder to detect and take action against transgressors when they are access takers rather than land managers.

3.33 The effectiveness and fairness of mechanisms for the prevention and resolution of access-related transgressions of LRSA/ SOAC were raised as key issues. It was suggested assessment takes heed of institutional processes including sanctions and methods of prevention through education and communication. The root of related problems seemed to be the institutional distribution and clarity of roles and responsibility in arbitrating access problems. Access authorities have a statutory duty to uphold access rights, but they do not have a reciprocal statutory duty in defence of the land manager's position since access issues involving anti-social or criminal behaviour ought to be dealt with under criminal law, with the police as the first port of call. One problem is that land managers tend not to differentiate between 'access' and 'criminal' issues, as they all concern the behaviour of the public on their land. Another is that attempts to report problems through both avenues have failed, with authorities saying they do not concern access rights, and the police being unresponsive. A range of stakeholders also pointed to general uncertainty as to the arbitration process beyond the Local Access Forum level.

3.34 Suggestions for indicators related to the exercising of local authority powers in access. Others felt that caution was needed in this regard as, depending on context, the exercise of local authority powers could mean that problems are being solved or it could mean they are not being sufficiently prevented. It was noted that we could assess impacts on occupiers' privacy through a range of indicators including: criminal activity, police calls to an incident, and new gates/security infrastructure being built.

3.35 A number of considerations were noted in relation to the processes and possible outputs of Core Paths planning. Many stakeholders drew attention to the effectiveness and inclusivity of the process as criteria for assessment. There were concerns that there may be access-takers or land managers who have not heard about Core Paths planning, or have not understood the implications or opportunities offered. The responses to the consultation process, including various stakeholder expectations of core paths, were flagged up as possible sources of data for analysis.

3.36 Although the LRSA only demands that Core Paths Plans be drafted, rather than implemented, it was strongly felt that the 'success' of the exercise required the assessment of the social and economic impacts of their implementation through the examination of material and behavioural changes. A number of aspects raised relating to paths could be assessed under 'built' or 'physical' capital, including density, length, connectivity, spatial distribution, and user type suitability. They were linked to issues of social justice between and amongst communities with evidence emerging that some communities have proposed extensive networks of Core Paths, whilst others have proposed virtually none, and some are only appropriate for a limited range of abilities, activities and skill levels. There were also calls for assessment of how core paths are promoted, involving examination of promotional material: how it indicates suitability for different types of access, and how it is circulated.

3.37 Many stakeholders felt it important to assess the knock-on economic benefits of access reform, and pay attention to not only the resource demands of access provisions, but the effectiveness of their targeting. There were different views on whether access infrastructure should be demand-led or led by the "build it and they will come" approach. The path connecting Newtonmore and Kingussie is often cited as an example of where a new path has led to new non-car journeys that were not taken before. The suggestion was made to measure the usage of new (or newly connected) paths between villages resulting from the core paths process.

3.38 Whilst some of these issues were raised in conjunction with core paths, others felt they were equally relevant to other paths. Others still stressed that non-path access must not be forgotten. Suggestions for indicators included: the framing and publicity strategy of the consultation process; methods of engagement with different kinds of stakeholder; supportiveness of responses to draft plans; execution of ground proofing of suggested routes; audit of possible maintenance requirements; perceptions of appropriateness of designated paths; and knock-on economic benefits. It was suggested that Local and National Park Authorities should collect statistics on Core Paths as soon as they are known.

3.39 Figure 3.1 shows the access-related criteria identified by stakeholders as important. They are arranged under the headings of the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework they most clearly relate to, although some may relate to more than one facet.

Figure 3.1 Feedback on criteria and assessment approach

Published data sources

3.40 A key source of existing data on outdoor access is the Scottish Recreation Survey ³ ( SRS) ( TNS, 2005, 2006, 2007), which is a monitoring programme run jointly by SNH and the Forestry Commision in Scotland. Supplementary data sources are required to establish outdoor access taken for more transport-related reasons. The SRS began in July 2003 and is set to run until 2013. Core questions run consistently through the programme but new questions are added and removed as necessary. The data must be interpreted carefully since gathering information on informal recreation is notoriously problematic, and also the methodology has been changed slightly from year to year. The data currently existing covers July 2003 to December 2005 and can thus provide a baseline for a number of key issues relating to the LRSA and the SOAC, specifically: numbers and percentage of population participating in outdoor recreation; frequency and total number of visits; type of recreation activity; percentage using a path on most recent visit; types of location visited; percentage access takers encountering problems on most recent visit; percentage of access takers encountering another user behaving inappropriately, and; percentage of access takers needing to alter route significantly due to barriers or problems. However, SRS does not include non-leisure access-taking or the recreational visits of youths and non-residents of Scotland, and does not differentiate between access on various types of path or non-path terrain. In addition it does not record the spatial distribution of outdoor recreation below aggregate figures for local authority area.

3.41 George Street Research (2006) ⁴ is a useful source of more detailed data on responsible behaviour, but only as it pertains to young people in Scotland. It provides data on the awareness of SOAC and how they heard of it, awareness of the content of SOAC, level of appreciation of possible impacts of their actions, and about communicating SOAC-related principles. However, the authors concede that the methodology did not allow them to understand why they gave particular responses - for example, whether they were ignorant, trying to do the right thing or wilfully irresponsible - and further qualitative research would be required to gain a deeper understanding.

3.42 MVA (forthcoming, summarised in SNH, 2006, 2007) ⁵ reports on a study monitoring responsible behaviour amongst recreational users and land managers by comparing 2005 and 2006 to a 2003 baseline. This provides useful data for a number of the social and cultural indicators, for example: confidence or 'comfort' when taking access; awareness and content of SOAC; problems reported, and; perceived behaviours of others. However, the data only provide a preliminary analysis of such perceptions and rely on reported rather than empirically observed behaviours. A deeper understanding of perceptions of the Code and other parties, how they link to actions would require an in-depth qualitative analysis. Moreover, the usefulness of the data is limited by its representativeness, as the methodology relies on a third party approach, and hence fails to pick up recreational users or land managers who are not active members of representative bodies, or activities that do not have effective representative bodies. It gathers evidence for the same two to three month period every year, which falls outwith the main lambing and calving periods. There is also a need for further information besides problems encountered on respondents' most recent visit, as other crucial incidents and the way they shape the attitudes of access takers or land managers may be missed.

3.43 A number of studies have been conducted or are ongoing about the social and economic impacts of forestry and access to woodlands (Forest Research, 2006; Forestry Commission Scotland, 2006; Scottish Executive, 2006). Although their scope is confined to woodland environments, the methodological approaches are relevant for evaluating a range of market and non-market benefits relating to outdoor access more generally. Similarly, SIRC (2007) conducted a study on the economic and social impacts of local path networks, part of which aimed to develop a methodology for such assessment. This methodology is useful for assessing economic and social impacts of access provision more generally, but is not sufficient on its own as the access measures relate to most land and inland water, not just discernable paths.

Unpublished data sources

3.44 Relevant unpublished data exist in relation to both ongoing studies, and to informal or ad hoc data collection by various parties:

• Local Access Authorities - ad hoc data on access problems and reporting
• Representative bodies e.g. Mountaineering Council of Scotland, National Farmers Union, Scotland also collecting ad hoc data
• East Dunbartonshire Council - ongoing study on health impacts of Core Paths
• LLTTNPA (forthcoming) study on informal camping
• Forthcoming Forestry Commission report on identifying the barriers to access

3.45 For example, many local access authorities are collecting data on the existence and reporting of access problems or incidents. Such data are of potentially great importance since general opinion suggests that there is substantial under-reporting of problems through the official channel of the SNH website portal. However, given there is no standardised procedure, the data are geographically partial and not easily comparable. A working group of the National Access Forum is currently seeking to identify and collate sources of local authority data being collected on ad hoc basis. This may or may not form a usable dataset, but will inform further debate on the pros and cons of employing a standardised approach. It should be noted that many representative bodies, such as NFUS and the Mountaineering Council of Scotland are also collecting ad hoc data.

3.46 Secondly, case study data will be available in the future relating to the health impacts of access measures. The access authority within East Dunbartonshire Council is beginning a study in conjunction with Paths for All and SNH to investigate the health impacts on public health and wellbeing. The study is in its first year and is currently laying down a baseline with which future differences in health attributable to core paths can be assessed. The focus will be on levels of activity from which health care experts can extrapolate health benefits. It is hoped that both the results and the method can be shared around Scotland.

Results where data exist

3.47 There is currently little detailed knowledge of the social and economic impacts of the access-related land reform measures as the changes only came into effect on 9 February 2005. There are, however, preliminary findings relating to the characteristics of recreational visits, awareness of access-related problems and, to a limited extent, visitor expenditure, use of paths, responsible behaviour and confidence in taking access.

Outcomes (regarding access taken on and beyond path networks)

3.48 Findings from the most recently available Scottish Recreation Survey ( SRS) data (relating to the recording period between July 2004 to June 2005) showed a small upward trend in outdoor recreation participation since the access legislation came into effect. The percentage of the Scottish population claiming to have made at least one visit to the outdoors for leisure and recreation in the previous 12 months was 67% in 2004, 75% in 2005 and 79% in 2006. The estimated total number of visits has increased by 19% from to 245 to 291 million between 2004 and 2005. The frequency of visits also increased over this period with 43% having visited the outdoors for recreation at least once a week (compared to 42% in the 2003-4 survey), and 19% visited once or twice a month.

3.49 The SRS found participation differed by age, with those under 55 years old significantly more likely to undertake an outdoor visit for leisure and recreation. It also differed by socio-economic grouping: 88% of AB social grades make visits to the countryside (up from 79% in 2003-4), compared to only 59% of DE grades (up from 49% in 2003-4). It also showed an increase on expenditure related to visits.

3.50 The SRS data relates much more to awareness of the Code than it does to the understanding of its contents and the reasons behind it showed an increase from the previous year in awareness of the SOAC - up from 7% to 25% of Scottish adults being definitely aware of the Code. There were 68% of respondents definitely not aware of the SOAC, which was a decrease from 82% the previous year.

3.51 A study conducted by Progressive (2006) on the experience of walking in Scotland included questions about awareness and understanding of access legislation and the SOAC, but again they dealt more with awareness than understanding. Investigation of content and genuine understanding was limited. They found (with respect to walkers) that on the whole the awareness of most aspects of the SOAC was relatively low ( i.e. 40% agreeing strongly or slightly that they are aware of the new law, 17% disagreeing strongly or slightly and 43% unsure), but greater for residents of Scotland (82% agreeing strongly or slightly), older people and those who walk in remoter areas. They also looked at the effectiveness of communications in building awareness and found that 72% of respondents had not seen or were aware of the contents of the SOAC, although it was lower for residents of Scotland (50%).

3.52 Other survey findings ( SRS, MVA forthcoming, SNH, 2005, 2006) show little change or slight increases in knowledge of the code; understanding of its impact on activities or land management practices; and in responsible behaviour. SRS also showed a slight decrease in respondents encountering a variety of access problems in their most recent visit and little change in experiences of encountering another user's inappropriate behaviour or needing to alter a route considerably because of a barrier or other problem.

3.53 Interim summary findings of the MVA (forthcoming) study on responsible behaviour amongst recreational users and land managers ( SNH, 2005; 2006) found a slight increase in problems experienced by recreational users: 32% of recreational users experienced at least one problem when accessing the countryside, compared to 28% in the previous year, and 18% in the baseline survey. These related most commonly to locked gates, paths blocked by vegetation and restrictive signs. Conversely, the study shows a slight decrease in land managers experiencing problems related to public use in the previous 2-3 months from 76% in year one to 74% in year two. These problems related most commonly to dogs in fields with livestock, but also to litter, gates left inappropriately open or closed and fly-tipping.

Summary and conclusions

3.54 There is currently little detailed knowledge of the social and economic impacts of
Part I of the LRSA since it only came into effect on 9 February 2005 and the process of drawing up of Core Paths Plans was only due for completion in February 2008 (after this project). Published, peer-reviewed, evidence-based research is lacking, and stakeholders are generally uncertain as to the actual, attributable impacts of access reform. However, it has been possible to identify some key criteria and indicators for assessing the likely and potential impacts of access-related land reform measures, provide a summary of partial, preliminary findings, and highlight those that require further data collection, as well as suggested methods for collection (see Appendix 2).

3.55 Availability of data on the nature and extent of access problems was found to be central to understanding a number of key criteria, but is not at present satisfactory, with under-reporting through the official SNH web portal, and consequent reliance on piecemeal, unpublished information collected by LAs and representative bodies.

3.56 Key preliminary changes ( TNS, 2005, 2006, 2007; MVA, forthcoming; SNH, 2005, 2006) appear to be:

• access for recreation has increased slightly
• awareness of LRSA/ SOAC has increased
• awareness of the content of SOAC has increased slightly
• LRSA/ SOAC has changed (reported) behaviours (moderately)

However, particular care must be taken in interpreting existing studies and attention paid to the way they are bounded, as many of them are partial in terms of the stakeholders represented and have methodological limitations.

3.57 More general suggestions regarding further data collection and analysis are for:

• data on access taken for leisure reasons must be harmonised with access taken for other reasons, such as transport;
• data needs to be representative of all key stakeholder groups - existing data tends to focus on some more than others;
• data are required to understanding the underlying relationships between many of the key criteria, such as between physical/built assets, human capital and how they encourage and discourage particular behaviours. For example, data availability is good for awareness of the LRSA and the SOAC and its contents, but not for genuine understanding of the contents and the reasons behind them, and how such knowledge and related attitudes affect actual behaviour. This would involve in-depth qualitative analysis;
• data showing the true nature and extent of access problems (for occupiers, land managers and access takers) is vital for the assessment of many criteria mentioned above.

References

Bell, S., Findlay, C., & Montarzino, A. (2006) Access to the countryside by deaf visitors, OPEN Space Research Centre, 171.

Bullivant, N. (2007) Where do all the walkers go? Countryside Recreation, 15(1), Spring 2007, 19-22.

Carter, J. (2001) Encouraging Responsible behaviour Related to the New Public Right of Access: A Review of Literature and Experience, Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report Summary, Report No.F00ACC06.

Christie, M., Hanley, N., & Hynes, S. (2006), Valuing Enhancements to Forest Recreation using Choice Experiment and Contingent Behaviour Methods, University of Wales, Aberystwyth.

Countryside Agency (2001), How people interact on off-road routes, Countryside Agency, CRN 32.

Countryside Agency (2006) Leisure Day Visits. Report of the 2002-03 Great Britain Day Visits Survey, Countryside Agency Publications, Wetherby, Yorkshire.

Curry, N & Ravenscroft, N. (2001) Countryside recreation provision in England: Exploring a demand-led approach. Land Use Policy, 18 pp. 281-291.

Forest Research (2006) A Valuation of the Economic and Social Contribution of Forestry for People in Scotland: An interim report for Forestry Commission Scotland, Social and Economic Research Group, Forest Research, Edinburgh.

Forestry Commission Scotland (2006), All Forests Visitor Monitoring. Survey of visitors to FCS forests. Year 1: June 2004 to May 2005, Edinburgh, FCS.

George Street Research Ltd (2006) Baseline of responsible behaviour: young people in Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage, 154 ( ROAME No. F04AA601/2).

Higgins, P. (2000) The contribution of outdoor recreation and outdoor education to the economy of Scotland: Case studies and preliminary findings, Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 1, 69-82.

Jones, A., Bateman, I. & Wright, J. (2003) Estimating arrival numbers and values for informal recreational use of British woodlands: Final report to the Forestry Commission,CSERGE, Norwich.

Land Use Consultants (2004) Making the Links - Greenspace and Quality of Life. Technical Report, Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No.060 ( ROAME No.F03AB01)

LRPG (1998a) Identifying the Problems. Scottish Office

LRPG (1998b) Identifying the Solutions. Scottish Office

LRPG (1999) Recommendations for Action. Scottish Office

Mackay, J.W. (2007) New Legislation for Outdoor Access: A review of Part 1 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, Scottish Affairs, 59, 1-29.

Morrow, S. (2005) Continuity and change: the planning and management of long distance walking routes in Scotland, Managing Leisure, 10, 237-250.

MVA (forthcoming) Responsible behaviour amongst recreational users and land managers: 2005 monitoring against 2003 baseline, Scottish Natural Heritage, Inverness, F05AA602.

NFO System Three (2001) Survey of behaviour associated with access and informal recreation, Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report F99ACC08.

Parker, G. (2006) The Country Code and the ordering of countryside citizenship, Journal of Rural Studies, 22(1), 1-16.

Parker, G. (2007) The Negotiation of Leisure Citizenship: Leisure Constraints, Moral Regulation and the Meditation of Rural Place, Leisure Studies, 26(1), 1-22.

PFAP & SNH (undated) Advisory Signage for Outdoor Access: Good Practice Principles, Paths for All Partnership & Scottish Natural Heritage.

Progressive (2006) Investigating and enhancing the walking experience in Scotland: Final Report for VisitScotland, SNH & FCS, Progressive, Edinburgh.

Roberts L & Simpson F (2003), Encouraging Responsible Access to the Countryside, in Hall D, Roberts L & Mitchell M (eds.) New Directions in Rural Tourism, Ashgate, Aldershot, 67-79.

Scott Porter (2005), Cycling and mountain biking in Scotland: VisitScotland Executive Summary, Scott Porter Research & Marketing, Edinburgh.

Scottish Executive (2001), Land Reform: The Draft Bill.

Scottish Executive (2003), Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003.

Scottish Executive (2006), The Scottish Forestry Strategy, Forestry Commission Scotland, Edinburgh.

SIRC (2007), What paths do for Scottish Society: An economic and social impact study of local path networks, Report for Paths for All, Scottish Natural Heritage & Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Sport Industry Research Centre, Sheffield.

SNH (1998a), Access to the Countryside for Open-Air Recreation: SNH's Advice to Government,SNH, Perth.

SNH (1998b), Jobs and the Natural Heritage: The Natural Heritage in Rural Development,SNH, Perth.

SNH (2001), Natural Heritage Zones: Recreation & Access, SNH, Edinburgh.

SNH (2004), Natural Heritage Trends: Access and Recreation - Outdoor activities, Information Note Series,SNH, Edinburgh.

SNH (2005), Scottish Outdoor Access Code: Public Access to Scotland's Outdoors - Your rights and responsibilities, Scottish Natural Heritage, Perth.

SNH (2005), Responsible behaviour amongst recreational users and land managers: 2005 monitoring against 2003 baseline, Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report Summary, Report No.F05AA602

SNH (2006), Responsible behaviour amongst recreational users and land managers: 2006 monitoring, Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report Summary, Report No.F05AA602

TNS (2005), Scottish Recreation Survey: annual summary report 2003/04, Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report, No.105 ( ROAME No. F02AA614/2).

TNS (2006), Scottish Recreation Survey: annual summary report 2004/05, Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report, No.183 ( ROAME No. F02AA614/3).

TNS (2007), Scottish Recreation Survey: annual summary report 200, Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report, No.220 ( ROAME No. F02AA614/4).

Tomlinson, A., Ravenscroft, N., Wheaton, B., & Gilchrist, P. (2005), Lifestyle sports and national sport policy: an agenda for research, Report to Sport England, March 2005.

Warren, C. (2002), Managing Scotland's Environment, University of Edinburgh Press, Edinburgh.

Watkins, C. (1996), Rights of Way: Policy, Culture and Management, Pinter, London.

Annex 3.1 Organisations contacted for information on access

Annex 3.2 Paper presented at NAF meeting

Assessing the impacts of Land Reform policy

Purpose

1. The attached paper from the Macaulay Institute outlines a research study to assess the impacts of land reform, which is being undertaken on behalf of the Scottish Executive.

Action

Members are invited to:

• discuss the study and;
• comment on the key parameters that could be used to assess the social and economic impacts of the land reform agenda.

The paper provides details of a stakeholder workshop which will take place on Thursday 6 ^th September, providing further opportunities for input. Full and corresponding forum members are also invited to contribute by correspondence.

2. Comments by correspondence should be directed to Dr Katrina Brown, whose contact details are noted in the paper.