Better Places Green Recovery Fund - Evaluation Report - March 2022

Published: 2022 

• Conclusion
• Recommendations

Summary

Successful fund delivery

The Better Places Green Recovery Fund was successful in meeting most of its objectives to facilitate improved visitor management across Scotland’s hot spot locations during the 2021 summer season. A total of £2.7 million was awarded to 87 projects, for the provision of staff and infrastructure, to help manage visitor numbers and behaviour throughout the 2021 visitor season and to reduce the impacts on local communities and the environment experienced in 2020. Six projects could not proceed in time and were withdrawn. However, a total of 81 projects (93%) went on to deliver new, improved or temporary infrastructure and to employ a range of seasonal staff to engage with visitors to promote responsible access, enjoyment and support greater care of the places visited.

Outcomes delivered

The most noticeable and reported outcomes related to the improvement in visitor behaviour brought about by the better management of parking, camping, toileting, and litter, with fewer areas damaged by fires, and less environmental damage. This improvement can be explicitly linked to the direct engagement by the extra 127 seasonal staff with visitors. It was also reinforced by clear information provided in the form of signage, leaflets, videos or online content promoting the Scottish Outdoor Access Code (SOAC) and campaigns to care for the local environment.

Noticeable improvements on the ground

Improvements to visitor infrastructure, worth £0.82 M, consisting of either new or enhanced permanent facilities such as car parks, bins, paths, and signage, or temporary facilities such as toilet provision, were delivered on the ground. These facilities helped solve many of the problems experienced in the previous season in most locations. The improvements to local places benefitted local communities and businesses as well as visitors and was highlighted in feedback from the applicants and widely on social media.

Expectations exceeded

The general delivery of projects and what was achieved in particular by the seasonal staff exceeded expectations on a number of levels. The scale of face to face interaction with an extremely high number of visitors was exceptional as noted by the employers. The high level of skills, experience and effectiveness of the seasonal staff employed was also highlighted, resulting in some employers extending contracts beyond the period of the funding.

Additional benefits achieved

A number of additional benefits, beyond those anticipated in the applications, arose from the projects including

• additional survey and monitoring of paths,
• surveys of wildlife and habitats,
• and community planning of facilities required for the following year.

Repairs and improvements to paths, bridges, steps and signage over and above the directly funded infrastructure projects were delivered by seasonal staff. The enthusiasm of seasonal staff also resulted in many more local people volunteering for community clean-ups and environmental projects further enhancing local places.

Challenges encountered

The timescale for applicants to apply for funding and deliver projects by the start of the 2021 season was extremely tight. Slippage in the recruitment of staff and in the delivery of infrastructure (due to shortages in the supply of materials or contractors due to the pandemic and delays in procurement) contributed to an overall underspend of 31%. Some of these challenges were unavoidable, however, an earlier announcement of funding availability and offers, as well as a longer application window to ensure better quality applications, would have significantly enhanced what could be achieved.

Community empowerment

Local concerns about visitor management and conservation of the natural environment resulted in nearly half (48%) of applications being received from community groups, community development trusts or joint applications between communities and the voluntary sector or private sector. Successful delivery of projects from the Better Places Fund helped communities plan and raise other funding for community ventures to further enhance their local areas.  The achievements of the initiative also generated a high expectation within communities for ongoing funding to continue to address visitor management and environmental improvements in 2022.

Collaboration & co-ordination

Around 68% of the seasonal staff supported by the Fund, some 86 posts, were employed in the 7 previously identified national hot spot areas and the Western Isles. These ‘Better Places’ funded staff joined extra seasonal staff employed by the National Park Authorities, local authorities, Forestry and Land Scotland and NatureScot, along with staff from Police Scotland, to mount a co-ordinated approach to visitor management throughout the season. Collaboration in the form of induction, training and operational management was also provided by the National Parks and local authorities e.g. The Highland Council. It was this collaborative approach on the ground that greatly added to the successful delivery of positive outcomes. This approach also extended to site monitoring, allowing data to be pooled and shared regionally.

Need for ongoing funding & priorities

There is a very strong case for a Better Places Green Recovery Fund or similar to run in 2022 and beyond. This is based on: the feedback on the effectiveness of the Fund; the evidence regarding trends in visitor numbers, as reported at the Visitor Management Steering Group; and likely ongoing pressures in the national hot spot areas. Funding should be prioritised for seasonal ranger posts that cover national hot spot areas and island locations where the impact of visitor numbers is significant. The overwhelming feedback was that the staff on the ground made the biggest difference in changing and informing the public’s behaviours, and improving understanding on responsible access and caring for the environment. The provision of low key small scale infrastructure, including temporary solutions, should continue to be funded in areas with high visitor pressure until more permanent solutions can be developed.

Longer-term sustainable funding options

A more long term sustainable funding model is required for the employment of seasonal staff to manage visitor pressures and for the improvement of facilities to cope with visitor numbers. The level of funding required will vary across the country depending on trends in visitor numbers and the current facilities available. A strategic approach and long lead in time for the planning and delivery of permanent infrastructure will be required.

Building on the achievements and capturing good practice

A significant amount of experience in visitor management has been accumulated by recipients of the Fund for both infrastructure provision and for seasonal posts. It will be important to share good practice in a number of areas such as monitoring, reporting and evaluation, overcoming challenges, and novel approaches, as well as developing resources and induction training to help develop and support future projects.

Introduction

The primary aim of the evaluation was to understand to what extent the aims and outcomes of the Better Places Green Recovery Fund had been achieved.  Information was gathered from the Fund final reports, data provided to the Visitor Management Strategy Group, and through discussion with a sample of applicants, NatureScot Fund assessors and our Area staff. Additionally, the evaluation sought to get a clearer understanding of the challenges faced both immediately in 2021 and also pertaining to the future, as well as capturing some of the unexpected benefits that had arisen from successful projects. The evaluation provides a number of recommendations for future delivery to meet on going visitor management pressures, subject to resources.

Background

​​​​​​​Aims of the Better Places Green Recovery Fund

The overall aims sought by the Better Places Green Recovery Fund were: improved visitor experience; improved visitor behaviours; and reduced impact on communities, land managers and the natural and cultural heritage. To deliver these aims, all projects needed to ensure that their proposed visitor management measures were in place and operational at visitor “hotspot” locations, in time for summer 2021. In addition to this essential criterion, projects needed to contribute to at least one of the following outcomes:

• Communities and interested parties see or are involved in positive action to address issues and visitor impacts leading to improvements to local and visitor experiences and places.
• Designed solutions and options from visitor management plans are taken forward leading to improvements to places, including green/blue space, which people visit and live beside.
• Communities, including landowners, land managers, businesses and visitors are motivated or empowered to help deliver plans and activities in a collaborative way.
• Places under pressure and suffering negative impacts from increased visitation are managed in a sustainable way that supports low impact responsible enjoyment.
• Solutions provide a source of visitor generated income that helps to sustain the infrastructure or service provision.
• Solutions are implemented that encourage a low carbon impact, particularly in areas prone to high levels of car-based access.
• Projects and activities align with strategic plans for the area or location and help deliver priority actions.
• Projects and activities that support national communications activity for visitor management.
• NatureScot and its strategic partner agencies, including the Scottish Government, are better informed about visitor management activity and action applied in 2021 for managing impacts and developing opportunities linked to green tourism.

Visitor Management Strategy

A national partnership led by VisitScotland, with support from NatureScot, Police Scotland, National Park Authorities, Forestry and Land Scotland, local authorities, Transport Scotland and other partners came together in 2020 to address a Scotland-wide approach to visitor management and to address the challenges experienced by local communities. The Better Places Green Recovery Fund was one of a number of measures put in place to support visitor management. Other measures are set out in the Visitor Management Strategic Framework.

Overview of the Better Places Green Recovery Fund

Financial summary

A total of £2.7 million was awarded to 87 projects, for both the delivery of staff and infrastructure, to help manage visitor numbers and behaviour throughout the 2021 visitor season and to reduce the impacts on local communities and the environment experienced in 2020.  Projects were awarded in two rounds with 39 projects approved in the first round (2a – deadline for applications 9 April) and 48 projects approved in the second round (2b – deadline for applications 14 May). Some projects were exclusively for infrastructure delivery (19 applications) others exclusively for staff posts (39 applications) but over a third (29 applications) were a combination of both staff and infrastructure delivery.

The financial summary of projects awarded in both rounds is given in Table 1 below. A total of £1.92 M (69%) of the funding was awarded to projects for staff posts which included seasonal rangers, wardens, visitor management assistants and visitor facilities staff. Projects relating to staff posts were more numerous in the first round as the deadline for staff to be in the post was the end of June if they were to be operative for the summer season. The remaining (31%) of funds awarded (£0.88 M) went to provide additional infrastructures such as bins, temporary toilets, car park and path improvements, signage etc. which had been identified as necessary to address the problems occurring in the previous season.

Table 1: Overall funding summary

Funding round	Applications received (nos.)	Applications approved (nos.)	Total awarded (£k)	Infrastructure awarded (£k)	Seasonal Posts awarded (£k)
2a	76	39	1,466	277	1,188
2b	86	48	1,324	598	727
Total	162	87	2,790	875	1,915

It was essential that visitor management measures were in place and operational in time for the summer season 2021 in order to be most effective and to meet the essential criterion for the Fund. For many applicants, meeting that deadline at short notice proved to be too onerous resulting in six of the larger infrastructure projects being withdrawn or not proceeding, and others being slightly reduced in scale. Similarly, the tight timescales meant that some seasonal posts were delayed in recruitment or start date, resulting in fewer weeks of operational activity. A financial summary for the seasonal posts and the infrastructure delivered is given in tables 4 and 6 in later visitor management sections.

Geographic Coverage

The high number of applications received gives an indication of the demand for additional funding for visitor management in Scotland’s popular tourist areas and other locations close to population centres. Applications were prioritised where they sought to address the problems that had been identified at the national visitor management strategy level, primarily but not exclusively in the 7 nationally identified hot spot areas: Highland including North Coast 500, Glencoe and Arisaig & Morar; Cairngorms National Park; Loch Lomond & Trossachs National Park; Highland Perthshire; East Lothian coast; and the Pentland Hills Regional Park.

Outside these hotspot areas, projects were also funded if they were able to demonstrate a high level of visitor pressure and propose effective solutions to tackling this. They included projects in some of Scotland’s other coastal communities, on islands and in central belt locations close to larger centres of population where the local greenspace became under significant pressure during 2020.

Other applications were not successful, either because they did not demonstrate a significant level of pressure on the natural heritage i.e. were too focused on town centres; were too focused on tourism development or environmental education rather than visitor management; were from private individuals or companies where it was deemed there was insufficient public benefit; or the evidence was not supplied to demonstrate high volumes of visitors. Some applicants in the first round who did not supply the correct supporting documentation were invited to reapply in the second round.

Type of Applicant

The Fund was open to a wide range of applicants from community groups, voluntary bodies charities, local authorities, countryside trusts, recreational bodies and land managers,  essentially anyone who owned and managed land subject to visitor management pressures and able to meet the project criteria. Table 2 below gives the breakdown by type of applicant from the 87 applications awarded funding. This illustrates the high demand from community groups, community partnerships and trusts for visitor management support as well as from the local authorities. Some applicants made multiple applications for different land holdings e.g. voluntary bodies for different reserves or different types of seasonal staff.

Table 2: Type of applicant:

Nos. of applications	Community  Groups, Trusts & Partnerships	Voluntary sector bodies & recreational user groups	Countryside Trusts	Local authorities	Private estates
2a	20	9	0	9	1
2b	18	4	3	21	2
total	38	13	3	30	3

Under the Better Places Fund (round 1) which was launched in December 2020, a total of 35 community organisations received funding for the planning, feasibility and design of visitor management facilities. This helped some applicants for round 2 to present projects that had been carefully planned and costed and had support from a large number of stakeholders and were more likely to be delivered within the tight timescales. 

Delivery against the Fund outcomes

The majority of applicants were able to meet the essential criterion of having staff and / or infrastructure in place for the summer season 2021. There were delays in the start of some projects but the majority of staff and infrastructure was delivered and operational for the main season through until the end of October. The essential criterion was therefore achieved at a high level across much of Scotland especially in the hot spot areas.

Projects also met one or more of the outcomes as highlighted in the final reports and synthesised below.

Table 3: Delivery against the outcomes

Delivery	Outcomes
Communities and interested parties see or are involved in positive action to address issues and visitor impacts leading to improvements to local and visitor experiences and place This outcome was achieved at a high level.	Significant evidence was provided by all of the applicants of the positive impact that either the seasonal posts or the delivery of infrastructure had made on improving visitor management and behaviours in their locality. The evidence was in the form of written reports from the seasonal staff and applicants, verbal feedback from visitors, direct written feedback or social media feedback from landowners, visitors and members of the community noting the differences made. The most noticeable difference noted related to a reduction in litter, and human waste, and improvements in parking, but also the smaller improvements in path infrastructure and to the local environment e.g. vegetation clearance and removal of invasive species.
Designed solutions and options from visitor management plans are taken forward leading to improvements to places, including green/blue space, which people visit and live beside. This outcome was achieved at a high level.	From the problems that arose in 2020, many applicants had already prepared management plans at either a local or regional level and knew what infrastructure was required to deliver solutions. Delivery of car park extensions and car park restoration along with associated signage allowed for better parking and noticeable improvements to local places. Temporary toilet provision greatly improved local environments.  Plans to improve strategic paths (Core Paths, Scotland’s Great Trails etc.) were implemented. Local plans for litter collection and storage were delivered by seasonal staff, local community volunteers and visitors leading to an improvement in green and blue spaces.
Communities, including landowners, land managers, businesses and visitors are motivated or empowered to help deliver plans and activities in a collaborative way. This outcome was achieved to a high level.	A high number of the projects funded were collaborative in nature including partnerships between community groups and the local authorities, voluntary sector and community group partnerships, private estates and individual land managers and communities. In addition, feedback suggested that projects engendered a greater pride in local places with new partnerships formed and a desire from many communities to engage in further collaborative projects.
Places under pressure and suffering negative impacts from increased visitation are managed in a sustainable way that supports low impact responsible enjoyment This outcome was achieved to a medium level.	The 127 seasonal staff supported by the Fund were able to manage negative pressures by directly engaging with visitors, informing and educating them on responsible behaviour. This was evidenced in reports to the Visitor Management Strategy Group and in the final reports. The infrastructure provided in the form of temporary toilets, bins, restored and extended car parks went some way to relieve pressures. However, feedback suggests that more infrastructure is still required in a number of locations to achieve this outcome.
Solutions provide a source of visitor generated income that helps to sustain the infrastructure or service provision. This outcome was achieved at a low level.	Some projects sought to generate income to sustain the infrastructure or new services provided. This was achieved from car parking charges (installation of ticket machines), donation or honesty boxes, and from the hire of E-bikes. Other projects noted that the timescale was too short to deliver sustainable income sources.
Solutions are implemented that encourage a low carbon impact, particularly in areas prone to high levels of car-based access. This outcome was achieved at a low level.	Only a handful of projects were received that addressed sustainable travel, such as providing E- bikes for hire or delivering bike stands and repair stations to encourage visitors to use their own bikes to travel locally. The use of E-bikes by rangers to carry out their duties was implemented in a number of locations. Enhanced path provision at a number of locations also encouraged visitors to walk rather than take the car.
Projects and activity align with strategic plans for the area or location and help deliver priority actions. This outcome was achieved at a high level.	All projects aligned with the overarching Visitor Management Strategy Framework for Scotland, providing evidence of co-ordinated action to reduce visitor pressures and proactively manage local areas for visitors and improve local environments. In addition, projects referenced their alignment with Locality Plans, Biodiversity Action Plans, Access Plans, and Tourism Strategies etc.
Projects and activity that support national communications activity for visitor management. This outcome was achieved at a high level.	The seasonal staff delivered a wealth of leaflets and advisory material to visitors which promoted SOAC and encouraged responsible behaviour. New information leaflets were designed along with Websites and videos. Promotion of national campaigns such as ‘Leave no Trace’, ‘Clean coasts’, ‘Surfers against sewage’ and ‘Give your litter a lift – take it home’ etc., were identified as helping to reduce litter and engender care for the environment.
NatureScot and its strategic partner agencies, including the Scottish Government, are better informed about visitor management activity and action applied in 2021 for managing impacts and developing opportunities linked to green tourism. This outcome was achieved at a high level.	All of the seasonal staff undertook monitoring. This ranged from comprehensive co-ordinated monitoring that took place across Highland Region and in both National Parks, to the more modest recording of use of facilities and visitor numbers/types at key locations. The type of monitoring also related to the operational area covered and patrolled by the seasonal staff, the type of facilities present and the environmental context. This was provided as evidence of activities undertaken in the final reports submitted. The wealth of information collected is already being used by agencies and local communities to plan for visitor management in the coming season and as evidence to support future funding bids.​​​​​​​

Overall, we, therefore, conclude that the aims of the Better Places Fund were successfully met – funding was put in place at key locations which led to significant improvements to the visitor experience and behaviours and reduction in the negative impact of visitors on communities, land managers, and the natural and cultural heritage.  

Visitor management - seasonal staff

Seasonal Staff - Overview

The Better Places Fund invited applications for the employment of seasonal rangers, either full-time or part-time, including funding for overheads. The aim of these posts was to lead on visitor engagement, to promote the Scottish Outdoor Access Code, to deal with issues concerning irresponsible behaviour, carry out patrolling, monitor impacts, as well as carry out liaison with communities, volunteers, landowners, agencies, and the police etc. The Fund also sought applications for visitor operational staff, again either full-time or part-time, full season or part of season, including overheads. The aim of these posts was to provide support services to ensure the effective operation of outdoor visitor facilities and services such as managing litter, parking, toilets, camping and campervan facilities etc.

A total of 59 applications were approved to employ 127 seasonal staff dedicated to visitor management including

• seasonal rangers,
• access rangers,
• wardens (site/ community),
• visitor services assistants,
• and visitor facilities & service staff (who carried out a range of cleaning and site maintenance tasks, along with estate maintenance staff either based in visitor centres or site-based).

Table 4: Summary of funding offered for seasonal staff

Funding round	No of applications approved	Amount offered £k	Amount claimed £k	% completed
2a	27	1,188	790	66
2b	32	727	457	62
Total	59	1,916	1,247	65

 

The majority of the applications were received from local authorities (20), but also a high proportion from community development trusts or community groups (16) as well as from the voluntary sector (11) and a few from private estates (8). Whilst the voluntary sector and local authorities have experience of managing seasonal staff, for many of the community groups and private estates this was a new venture bringing with it certain challenges but also significant and some unexpected rewards.

The type of post recruited depended on the requirements of the location/place, the relevant visitor pressures and the duties to be carried out. A breakdown of the number of seasonal staff employed by type is given in Table 5 below. The type of applicant also affected the type of post recruited i.e. local authorities and third sector bodies who had established ranger services employed rangers; community trusts often called the seasonal posts ‘community wardens’ whereas other applicants might have used the term ‘visitor services assistants’. The names and duties were also often used to differentiate the visitor management funded staff from other seasonal rangers or wardens with wider duties. However, nearly four-fifths of seasonal posts were directly involved with face to face visitor management and fell into the first 4 categories listed below, with countryside or access rangers making up over 60% of the total.

Table 5: Seasonal staff by Type of post

Type of post funded	No of staff (total 127)
Countryside ranger	68
Access ranger	10
Wardens ( site/ community based)	17
Visitor services assistants	5
Visitor facilities and service staff	13
Estate maintenance	14

 

Geographical Distribution:

Around 68% of the seasonal staff (86 posts) were employed in the 7 previously identified national hot spot areas and the Western Isles as follows: Highland & NC500 (39), Highland Perthshire (16), LLTNP (5), Cairngorms (5), Pentland Hills Regional Park (8), East Lothian Coast (8), and Western Isles (5). The remaining staff, (41 posts) were employed in the coastal communities of Fife, Aberdeenshire and Angus (8); Central Scotland (27); Argyll and Southern Scotland (6) where visitor pressures had also been identified. These ‘Better Places’ funded staff joined extra seasonal staff employed by the National Parks, Forestry and Land Scotland, and NatureScot, along with staff from Police Scotland, to mount a co-ordinated approach to visitor management throughout the season.

Challenges encountered

A number of challenges in applying for funding were highlighted by the applicants. The majority of which were associated with the short time scales around recruitment, training and preparation of staff to start on the ground. This resulted in fewer weeks of operational activity and therefore a reduction in staff costs contributing to the underspend in this part of the Fund. Other challenges highlighted related to the management of staff, particularly for private estates and/or community groups with no previous experience of ranger staff management and no existing management structures for new rangers to slot into. In particular, the following challenges were identified:

• Difficulty recruiting staff to some remoter parts of Scotland, especially the Islands.
• Difficulty recruiting staff due to shortages in local accommodation (Highlands and Islands).
• Difficulty in recruiting full-time staff, instead several part-time staff shared posts.
• Delays in staff being able to start because of waiting for Protecting Vulnerable Group (PVGs) checks to come through (in some cases this was significant).
• Inexperience of managing countryside staff and underestimation of the time involved in doing so, relevant for some community groups and private employers.
• Lack of time to fully train staff and accessibility to training resources particularly around access and conservation and mediation.
• Setting up communication channels between seasonal staff on the ground and also with the local community.
• Community consultation was sometimes hindered during the summer as many local people were themselves busy in the visitor season.

Local authorities had additional time constraints relating to their recruitment policies and systems.

In spite of the challenges identified, the employing bodies reported that seasonal staff were quick to become familiar with their locality and the requirements of the role. Part of this induction process was facilitated by the Fund and delivered by local authority access managers and other permanent ranger staff for the new seasonal posts including posts recruited by other organisations and community groups. For example, The Highland Council Outdoor Access Manager delivered training on SOAC, and Keep Scotland Beautiful gave training on litter prevention and fixed penalty notices. Other online training was provided by NatureScot.

Seasonal Staff - Delivery

The seasonal staff nearly all carried out similar duties to deliver their visitor management services. Engagement with visitors was carried out through regular patrols of busy areas, parking facilities, informal camping spots and on strategic paths. Direct interaction with visitors was undertaken to highlight the importance of responsible behaviour and explain what that meant for a variety of activities such as camping, parking, access with dogs, etc. Great emphasis was placed on promoting the SOAC and on safety issues especially near the coast and inland water as well as in mountain areas. Information leaflets were developed to advise motorhome users and campers, or existing ones used, e.g. NatureScot’s leaflet on informal camping, to help reinforce messages on responsible behaviour. These were left on windscreens or tents or given directly to visitors. Other products were developed and trialled such as poo kits at coastal locations in the NW Highlands.

A variety of visitor monitoring was carried out to record information on visitor numbers at different locations and their mode of transport. The numbers and types of vehicles were recorded at various car parks, to understand the volume of visitors and the peak periods. Likewise, the numbers of informal campers were recorded along with incidents of fire marks, outdoor toileting and environmental damage. Putting out fires and clearing up fire and BBQ sites was carried out widely, along with the installation of temporary signage to try to reduce the number of open fires. Litter collection was a routine duty and many staff implemented beach cleans with visitors and locals who volunteered. The additional waste collection was initiated by seasonal staff through contact with the relevant council departments. Where irresponsible behaviour was encountered, seasonal staff were able to provide appropriate advice and in some cases issue fixed penalty notices. The wealth of data collected is already being used to plan for visitor management in the coming season.

The engagement was not limited to visitors but included significant community and landowner liaison both to manage the current visitor pressures but also to help plan for future management. Much seasonal staff developed social media accounts to help relay information about their activities to local people and also to receive information on visitor issues. Seasonal staff set up ‘WhatsApp’ groups to help co-ordinate with other services on the ground, increasing effectiveness locally. A significant amount of effort was made to promote ranger activity through social media including very good acknowledgement of the Fund on social media and websites, in press releases and newsletters, on-site and at events. 

In addition to the routine duties, depending on the local area and visitor pressures, seasonal staff often undertook a variety of other tasks relating to:

• Habitat and species survey and monitoring
• Habitat improvements including removing invasive species
• Environmental education to increase understanding of nature (e.g. guided walks, school and activity group events)
• Path repairs and improvements to path infrastructure (bridges, gates, signs)

Other seasonal staff were employed on a part-time basis to carry out specific visitor facilities duties such as cleaning of temporary toilets and camping facilities, as well as a waste collection at specific locations. Additional estate maintenance staff also delivered improvements to visitor infrastructure by repairing paths, signs, way-marking and carrying out a variety of environmental improvements to enhance local places.

Additional and unexpected benefits

A number of additional benefits from having seasonal staff on the ground were highlighted in the final project reports, these were over and above the day to day achievements of the staff involved and included:  

• An ability to respond to issues quickly to prevent situations from getting out of hand or escalating
• An ability to respond quickly to accidents as staff were nearby
• Greater numbers of visitors and locals joining in organised litter picking events,
• Local communities mobilised and keen to do other volunteering, more litter picking, environmental improvements, path repairs etc.
• Greater numbers of volunteers involved in habitat management, and species recording
• Greater pride in local places reported and an enthusiasm to deliver new community projects
• New partnerships made with other seasonal staff, landowners and community groups, with WhatsApp groups set up to share information and ensure effective coverage of the area
• New campaigns launched to engender respect for local places e.g. ‘Love the Glen’ at Glencoe
• Additional modest revenue for local projects from honesty and donation boxes, and greater compliance with car parking fees resulted in a 50% increase in revenue
• Significant donation for habitat restoration (NTS Ben Lawers)
• Creation of local employment opportunities especially in rural locations

As this range of benefits suggest, the funding of seasonal staff to manage visitors made a very tangible and considerable positive difference at many locations across Scotland. Plans are in place to re-employ seasonal staff in some locations for the 2022 season if funding is available.

Visitor management - infrastructure

Infrastructure Overview

A total of 54 applications (over half of the successful applications) sought to deliver either temporary or permanent infrastructure to improve visitor management. The total amount offered was just under £0.9 million as illustrated in Table 6. Only 6 projects did not proceed 2 projects for the purchase and hire of variable messaging signage, 1 for the provision of temporary toilets, 1 for waste disposal and 2 for additional large bins and people counters. A number of other projects were reduced in scale due to problems associated with the timescale for delivery and the lack of availability of materials due to Brexit and the pandemic, or the lack of availability of contractors. More of the projects in the early round (2a) were completed than those projects that applied in the later round (2b) again illustrating the extra time needed to deliver projects during the pandemic.

Table 6: Summary of funding offered which included infrastructure

Funding round	No of applications approved	Amount offered £k	Amount claimed £k	% completed
2a	23	277	261	94
2b	31	598	419	70
Total	54	875	680	78

 

The breakdown of the projects according to cost is given in table 7. This shows that 28 of the projects (57%) that went ahead cost less than £10,000 and only 8 of the projects (16%) cost more than £30,000. The smaller scale and less expensive infrastructure projects were more likely to be delivered in time for the summer season whereas some of the larger-scale projects either did not proceed or were reduced significantly resulting in an overall underspend of around a third.

Table 7: Nos. of projects summarised by cost (grant claimed per £’ 000)

Funding round	Less than £5k	£5 – 10k	£10 – 20k	£20 – 30k	More than £30k
2a	7	7	2	2	4
2b	8	6	5	4	4
Total	15	13	7	6	8

 

In reality, the total amount of infrastructure improved was much higher than those capital projects delivered by the Fund as many of the applications for seasonal posts also delivered improvements to paths, bridges, signage and waymarking as part of their ranger and warden duties using materials that were already at hand. In addition, funding for seasonal estate maintenance staff (e.g. Falkirk, Edinburgh) allowed for much needed infrastructure improvements at a number of busy locations. Overall, this further illustrates the combined positive effect of staff and infrastructure provision to deliver improved visitor management.

Challenges Encountered

A number of challenges were highlighted by the applicants which affected both their ability to take up offers of funding or deliver the scale of the projects planned. For example, there was insufficient time or staff resources to plan for some capital projects due to staff on furlough or posts vacant. Requirements of planning permission for larger capital works again meant that some projects could not be delivered within the timeframe. Delays in obtaining materials to implement works and the rising cost of material due to the pandemic and Brexit also had an impact. Local authorities had additional time constraints relating to their procurement systems. All of these challenges highlight the need for greater forward planning of even small scale infrastructure projects and longer lead in time for their delivery once funding becomes available.

Infrastructure - temporary and short term facilities:

The Better Places Fund enabled the hire or purchase of temporary items such as: toilets and portaloos, bins and recycled waste provision to address inappropriate toileting and widespread littering. The fund also covered the cost of construction and installation of temporary infrastructure for additional car and bike parking provision to help manage traffic issues as well as advice, information and interpretation e.g. signage associated with these facilities including variable message signage. Temporary facilities for camping and campervan provision were also eligible to assist the management of informal camping.

Of the total 54 applications that included infrastructure provision, nearly a quarter of these (24%) were for temporary facilities (temporary toilets, car parking) often including temporary signage. The uptake of temporary toilets at key locations such as busy car parks, popular laybys near the start of walks or near informal campsites was very popular. It served to address problems associated human waste immediately. The fund supported 68 toilets at 20 locations across Scotland. From data gathered in 2020, temporary toilets in the form of either portaloos or toilet blocks could be positioned according to areas of need. In a few cases (e.g. Highland Perthshire and Loch Lomond) the temporary toilets were repositioned to areas of higher need or to address local concerns. In the majority of cases these facilities were a major success in improving visitor experiences, improving local places and dealing with previous problems associated with human waste.

In addition to the cost of hiring and installing temporary toilets, there was also a cost associated with cleaning these facilities. This was funded under the scheme and was accounted for in the seasonal staff section (visitor facilities staff – cleansing) or was carried out at some locations by volunteers. The Fund also supported 11 of The Highland Council’s ‘Comfort scheme’ providers to carry out additional cleaning and make their facilities available for visitors. The ‘Comfort scheme’ operates where there are no public conveniences and is an important part of the regional infrastructure in the Highlands.

Applications to provide temporary car parking facilities were successful at a couple of locations (Glencoe, Falkirk), with more permanent work detailed below. There were very few applications for the provision of new temporary camping facilities, but where temporary facilities existed additional infrastructure in the form of waste management, signage or donation boxes were funded, e.g. Wigtown Bay. Instead, the focus to address irresponsible camping and associated issues was carried out through face to face interaction with the campers by the seasonal rangers and other visitor management staff. This helped to limit inappropriate toileting, littering, and damage caused by fires, but the impacts associated with camping, especially in coastal locations, could not be successfully addressed by the Fund in a single year. It is likely that greater incentives to encourage the provision of temporary and permanent camping facilities will be required.

Infrastructure – Permanent facilities:

The Fund allowed for the construction and installation of a number of permanent infrastructure facilities such as

• toilets (new or upgraded);
• additional car and bike parking;
• advisory, information and interpretation signage (including SOAC);
• campsites (low key and basic);
• campervan facilities (Aires) including service hubs (waste disposal/water supply);
• bins/recycled waste provision;
• paths required to manage capacity issues, including urgent repairs;
• and landscape improvements/repairs and mitigation measures.

The following permanent infrastructure was delivered by the Fund:

Car park improvements

including; extensions and repairs were funded at 24 locations. This ranged from small scale improvements (e.g. 12 sites in Highland Perthshire, Drymen and Loch Lomond) to more major expansions (e.g. Findhorn, Loch Ness, Kingsbarns). Some of these included height barriers or ticket machines, and nearly all had associated signage to welcome and orientate visitors.

Motorhome and campervan facilities

were only delivered at a couple of locations with drive-in waste disposal for motorhomes and campervans created at the Ettrick Valley in the Scottish Borders and at Scourie in the North West Highlands. The latter has been especially successful in preventing waste disposal locally on the NC500 route. A greater lead-in time for project planning, including planning permissions, licensing etc. may have prevented more of these facilities from coming forward.

Path restoration

including:

• resurfacing,
• drainage,
• culverts
• or bridge replacement was carried out on 11 paths.

This varied from significant improvements in Loch Lomond & the Trossachs National Park (resurfacing Three Lochs Way – 2.5 km) to more modest repairs over longer routes (repairs at East Schiehallion – 4km, Speyside Way and Moray Coast Trail – 20 km, Cateran Trail – 4.2 km). Shorter sections of the path were restored at Cromarty – 800m, Kilmarnock – 326m, the majority of these paths were either Scotland’s Great Trails, Core Paths, or provide links to loch shores and coastal areas. A number of people counters were also installed to help with the monitoring of visitor numbers (e.g. East Schiehallion in Highland Perthshire, Muirshiel & Castle Semple in Renfrewshire).

Signage

in the form of welcome and orientation signage was included in 27 applications and provided in multiple locations (e.g. East Lothian coast, Lunan Bay, Cashel Community Woodland, Sandwood Bay) helping to direct visitors to the correct place to park, find toilets and other facilities as well as identifying the start of paths etc. Signage was installed to reinforce messages from the Scottish Outdoor Access Code at multiple locations as well as provide specific SOAC messages to protect wildlife and the environment. Signage also included safety messages especially at coastal and loch-side locations to help address water safety, partially due to the increase in water-based recreation. Signage in the form of way-marking of paths was carried out on a number of strategic routes e.g. Three Lochs Way. A number of applicants wished to purchase variable messaging signage however, due to a lack of availability of this kit, in the end, only 2 VM signs were successfully hired for use in Aberdeenshire.

Bin provision

of all types including bins for recycling, was included in 13 applications and a total of 163 extra bins were sited at multiple locations, often car parks, to tackle the problem of widespread littering. This was supplemented in a number of regions e.g. Highland, by increased waste collection by Councils often at the request of seasonal rangers and other visitor management staff. Seasonal NTS staff at Glencoe utilised 3 mobile litter picking stations to encourage visitors to collect litter and these proved to be very effective. In Argyll and Bute the Council teamed up with the GRAB Trust, a local social enterprise company, to produce posters, bin and food stickers aimed at litter reduction and tapping into the national ‘Give your litter a lift – take it home’ campaign.

Toilet provision

was addressed more as temporary infrastructure provision, with only one application for toilet facility upgrades at Grandtully. This was supplemented by the additional opening of Council toilet facilities and additional cleaning in visitor hot spots.

Picnic furniture and benches

and other small scale infrastructures (e.g. bike racks at Drymen and Smoo Cave and bike repair stands) were funded at a few locations to improve the visitor experience and, in relation to bike racks, increase sustainable travel options. Picnic furniture, including picnic tables for fewer mobile visitors and BBQ stands, was included in applications where there were other infrastructure improvements such as at car parks or at key viewpoints on strategic paths.  

Additional or unexpected benefits

A number of additional benefits were highlighted in the final reports which included:

• Successful project delivery helped lever in funding from other sources e.g. funding from the National Park for new projects at Drymen, resulting in a greater number of projects coming on stream.
• Increased membership of Community Development Trusts and interest in the local environment (Drymen).
• Support for local trades and local employment.
• New environmental campaigns e.g. ‘Love the Glen’ at Glencoe.
• The scale of additional income from honesty and donation boxes.
• The scale of additional revenue from car parking (e.g. Cashel Forest income increased by 3 times).
• Support for local businesses from promotion at local visitor hubs (e.g. Loch Ness hub).
• Successful temporary facilities are now being converted to permanent facilities (e.g. Glencoe, Grandtully, and Pentland Hills Regional Park).

Despite the benefits delivered, the funding of temporary and small scale permanent infrastructure only partially addressed the issues experienced in 2020 and these issues remained prominent for part of the season at a number of locations such as at Arisaig and Morar. Feedback suggests that there continue to be insufficient facilities for car parking, motorhome and campervan parking as well as waste disposal, informal camping for tents, toilets, and litter collection, especially in the national hot spot areas but particularly around the NC500.

Highlights

The following eight examples are just a few of the projects funded by the Better Places Green Recovery Fund and illustrate the diversity of activity, the range of outputs, and the variety of partnerships formed to achieve successful visitor management. ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Conclusions

The Better Places Green Recovery Fund was successful in meeting its objective to facilitate improved visitor management across Scotland’s hot spots during the 2021 summer season. A total of £2.79 M was awarded to 87projects of which 93% delivered what they set out to do with only 6 projects being unable to proceed. This was a significant achievement due to the short timescales allowed for recruiting seasonal staff and implementing infrastructure projects in time for the start of the summer.

The level of success varied across Scotland but by and large in the hot spot areas and other fragile areas, the Fund contributed to addressing many of the visitor management issues associated with littering, inappropriate toileting, irresponsible car parking, irresponsible camping, damage from open fires and damage to the environment that were experienced in 2020. For some remoter areas, especially Arisaig and Morar, the volume of visitors combined with the fragile environment and limited infrastructure meant that the Fund was insufficient to completely tackle the problems and more targeted and longer-term solutions will be required.

The additional boots on the ground, principally seasonal rangers but also the numerous community wardens and other seasonal staff, has allowed for better management of visitor numbers and behaviours. The success of these posts locally and nationally has been recognised by the wealth of positive feedback from visitors, local communities, employers and national agencies. Expectations of what could be achieved by the seasonal staff were exceeded in many cases, with some employers extending contracts until the end of the year or even into 2022. Nearly all applicants wish to recruit similar staff for the 2022 season which is a testament to the skills and dedication shown by the staff employed from the Fund.

The variety of visitor management duties carried out by the seasonal staff and illustrated in the final reports aligns well with the variety of visitor pressures in particular localities. There was a uniformity in the basic duties carried out, to engage with visitors and to promote responsible behaviour, but a wealth of other activities and products were delivered and new relationships made, which further enhanced visitor management and inspired ongoing community collaboration. The data recorded by the seasonal staff and shared regionally is already being utilised by a number of agencies and local authorities to help plan for future years.

The funding for infrastructure items which included temporary toilets, litter bins and car park extensions was widely reported to have alleviated some of the problems associated with irresponsible car parking, littering and human waste experienced in 2020. Feedback also indicated that orientation signage and improved waymarking of paths, along with path upgrades, made visitors feel more welcome. Furthermore, the promotion of the Scottish Outdoor Access Code on information boards, signage, leaflets, and by the extra seasonal staff, helped to encourage more responsible outdoor access and fewer impacts on nature. Often this infrastructure was small scale and relatively low cost, but sufficient to meet the needs of the locality. One facility that attracted fewer applications was for low key camping provision through either temporary or permanent facilities. This may have been due to the planning and consultation required in relation to appropriate locations, or a reluctance by landowners and communities to diversify into this land use without further advice and consideration of the impacts.

Over half of the applications received were for both staff posts and infrastructure provision. This funding model proved useful, with the combination of seasonal staff along with additional temporary or permanent facilities producing better results for visitor management overall. For example, seasonal staff could provide messages to visitors on responsible access with the facilities than on hand to allow them to behave responsibly. 

Knowing where to park or where to find toilets alleviated many but not all of the main visitor management issues. However, without sufficient ongoing provision of temporary or permanent facilities at key locations, it is difficult to see how visitor pressures can be addressed especially in remoter and more fragile areas. What is clear from the final project reports is that many of the applicants worked together to deliver services and facilities at a regional or local level. Some communities had support from larger organisations i.e. National Parks or local authorities which helped speed up the delivery of projects, and/or recruitment of staff, as well as allowing for co-ordination on the ground.  This collaborative effort and sharing of expertise is an important outcome from the Fund.

Delays due to timing was the biggest factor in reducing the effectiveness of the Fund. The timescale for applicants to apply for funding, receive confirmation and deliver projects by the start of the 2021 season was extremely tight. Slippage in the recruitment of staff and in the delivery of some of the major infrastructure projects resulted in a significant underspend of approximately 30%. There were unavoidable reasons for the lack of delivery, due to Brexit and the pandemic, but certainly, the earlier announcement of funds and more forward planning including feasibility work would be helpful for applicants. Remoter areas and islands also had difficulties in receiving materials and delivering projects due to their locations, with costs often being higher. This should be accounted for in the preparation of future funding schemes.

The interest shown in the Fund and subsequent delivery of projects goes some way to demonstrate the scale and type of investment required to meet ongoing visitor management measures for the future. Visitor numbers are expected to be as high for 2022 as in 2021. Therefore, without similar investment especially in seasonal posts, there is concern about a return of the problems experienced in 2020. Solutions have been delivered through seasonal posts recruited, and provision of new and temporary infrastructure, and it would be wise to build on this momentum and success resulting from the Fund.

There is already considerable interest from applicants for a further round of the Better Places Green Recovery Fund. This comes from those who either were not in a position to apply in time for the 2021 fund, in part due to staff furlough and resourcing pressures or were unable to meet the short deadlines for delivery. The majority of the interest, however, comes from the successful delivery of existing projects, with applicants ready to deliver an even more effective service and more infrastructure next year. There is a greater understanding of visitor management pressures from 2020 and 2021 and greater clarity of the requirements for seasonal staff and new or improved infrastructure resulting from the wealth of monitoring that was conducted as part of the Fund.

An assessment of the cumulative impact on the environment from the greater number of visitors also lends weight to the need for ongoing investment in visitor management at a local level. This is especially the case in some islands and other remote geographical locations where the volume of visitors quickly overwhelms the facilities available and has a greater impact on fragile environments. Further evaluation of the visitor impacts on the ground and the resources required to remedy this will also contribute to decisions on future funding, as will the predictions/trends for visits to Scotland post-pandemic.  Feedback has also indicated strongly the need for early communication and longer lead-in times for any future funding rounds.

A number of recommendations including running a similar fund for the 2022 season are set out in the following section. This would have significant benefits, not only in addressing visitor management issues but more importantly, capitalising on all the experience gained from the 2021 season and the planning that has been undertaken to deliver a more effective service for 2022 with longer delivery potential.

Ongoing visitor management is widely reported to be required in all of the hot spot areas for the foreseeable future. This suggests that a more permanent solution for funding seasonal posts and improving infrastructure is required. Experience and data gained from the Better Places Green Recovery Fund can contribute to the information needed to work towards this goal.

Recommendations

1. There is a very strong case for a Better Places Green Recovery Fund or similar in 2022 and beyond. This is based on the evidence regarding trends in visitor numbers and likely ongoing pressures in the national hot spot areas. Domestic tourism is likely to continue to rise and European visitors will start to return to Scotland, making the summer of 2022 at least as busy as in 2021.
2. An early decision on the size of the Fund and the criteria should be made to allow potential applicants to plan and co-ordinate visitor management for the coming summer season. All those involved in visitor management need greater certainty about the potential resources available.
3. Consideration should be given to simplifying the Fund to allow for a quicker process for both the applicants and for the administration of the Fund. This may include standard rates for seasonal posts and associated costs for equipment. Different rates should also be considered based on the area covered, with a higher rate being offered to staff who cover a wider geographical location, multiple sites or remote areas, and lower rates offered to seasonal staff dedicated to smaller sites or specific restricted locations.
4. Funding decisions for successful applicants should be made earlier to allow organisations, communities and land managers time to plan ahead including allowing time for earlier recruitment and staff training. 
5. Funding should be prioritised for seasonal ranger posts that cover national hot spot areas and island locations. The overwhelming feedback from the projects funded in 2021 was that the staff on the ground made the biggest difference to changing behaviours and improving understanding on responsible access and caring for the environment. It is also important that future funding is directed to the areas under the greatest pressure and where the fragility of the area can easily be overwhelmed or damaged without sufficient investment in visitor management.
6. The provision of temporary and low key small scale infrastructure should continue to be funded in areas with high visitor pressure until more permanent solutions can be developed. Innovative funding solutions such as local business sponsorship may be effective in some areas to deliver some temporary facilities e.g. toilets and the support staff required to service them.
7. Additional incentives for the provision of low key camping facilities should be considered for areas where the environmental impacts of high visitor numbers have been identified.
8. Small scale revenue opportunities, from donation boxes to modest charging for facilities, should be investigated to allow income generation that can be re-invested in maintaining and developing facilities or supporting seasonal posts.
9. Longer terms funding models to allow for the permanent employment of seasonal staff should be sought. The information gathered over the 2021 season provides suitable evidence for the likely ongoing numbers of visitors and the management required.
10. Opportunities to share good practices from successful projects should be developed, e.g. conferences, regional events, and online information. This could include sharing skills, knowledge and novel approaches to particular issues.