Characterising Community Groups Engaged in the Big Tree Plant and Identifying the Benefits and Challenges of Involvement for Participants

Characterising community groups engaged in the Big Tree Plant and identifying the benefits and challenges of involvement for participants A report by Silvanus on behalf of Defra August 2013 Executive Summary Introduction The Big Tree Plant (BTP) grant scheme, launched in 2010 by Defra and the Forestry Commission, aims to encourage and fund the planting of trees in England’s cities, towns and neighbourhoods, delivering a £4 million Coalition Government commitment to establishing one million new trees by 2015. This research project ‘Characterising community groups engaged in the Big Tree Plant and identifying the benefits and challenges of involvement for participants’, was commissioned by Defra to explore and understand the successes and challenges of participation within a scheme of this nature and aspiration. It also aims to inform possible future environmental community grant schemes. This research is intended to contribute to a better understanding of the influence and benefits of the campaign and whether such outcomes have been embedded with potential for longer term impact. Methods The research comprised: literature review; review of applications to BTP and associated data; semi- structured interviews with stakeholders; surveying of successful and unsuccessful applicants; semi- structured interviews with participants within the scheme; follow-up interviews addressing evidence gaps; and the use of an advisory user group composed of BTP applicants, recruited during the research process, to feedback on method selection, interim findings and reporting. The approach to data analysis has been to identify key themes emerging from each stage of the research and to use these to refine the questions being asked of the evidence in an iterative process. This has informed an exploration and characterisation of groups participating in BTP in terms of the resources and assets that facilitated their involvement. Findings - Motivations What was striking about many respondents’ understanding of their motivations to plant trees was their articulation of the potentially multifaceted benefits that tree planting as an activity and an outcome could bring to their locality. Trees and tree planting were frequently perceived as having various, interrelated impacts, ecological and socio-cultural, short and long-term, and this diversity was replicated in the mixed motivations of groups applying to and participating within BTP. Groups with existing aspirations and plans to create or enhance spaces with benefits to both ecological and human communities accessed BTP funding to help meet these ambitions. Improving the nature conservation value and aesthetic appeal of the local area were reported as the main motivations for the majority of applicants. However, such environmentally focused goals were i also frequently accompanied with an enthusiasm for tree planting as a method of achieving a community focused impact, the generation of a broadly defined local collective ‘spirit’ or ‘pride’. Findings - Ease of application and participation within BTP and challenges and barriers to this Costs - Attempting to reduce unit cost per tree to an acceptable level (around £4) has been found to be the most common challenge for the groups involved in this study - particularly where street and fruit tree planting was proposed - and was the most common barrier to successful application. Various strategies for successfully reducing average unit cost were used. In order to achieve such solutions, groups regularly drew on existing social bonds with their communities to gain appropriate resources (such as land for additional whip planting or additional volunteers to carry it out). For others, challenges in meeting this and other BTP priorities appeared to act as a catalyst for the formation of new social links to achieve access to such assets. Match funding – Match funding (a pre-requisite for applications) for projects came from a variety of sources both cash and in-kind. The issues of what ‘in kind’ match funding was and how important an element match funding might be within a proposal appeared to be the area of participation perhaps least well understood by groups. Small groups with limited financial capital and little prior experience in attracting matched funds found this more of a barrier than larger, more practised groups. Species Choice - Selecting appropriate tree species was an area in which many applicants had sought advice and support. All applicants in this study had ensured the appropriateness of their planting proposals to some degree. However, some considered appropriateness to be the species preferred by the local community, rather than assessing the suitability of species for the specific site/s. Local council Tree Officers and specialist tree nurseries were frequently cited sources of guidance in this area. Application Process – BTP’s application and compliance procedures provide an interesting example of a desire to meet aspirations associated with the Big Society and localism agendas by facilitating the ideal of communities applying direct to the scheme with minimal advice and intervention from the fund’s administrators. Whilst this relative simplicity was a draw for a number of participants, it remains the case that misunderstandings occurred and that those with more experience and resources were better able to address the process with ease. The BTP hotline was consistently recognised by applicants as central to addressing issues around these stages of their involvement, as was the advice and guidance provided by external bodies and agencies. Community Engagement – Groups’ common interpretation of community engagement as a high priority within projects appeared to contribute to varied and inclusive approaches to consultation with and involvement of, local people and groups. The need to identify community support and involvement or routes toward it in order to meet BTP’s priorities and to access voluntary resources for planting and long-term care in order to reduce costs and create value for money may have played a role in this, as perhaps did the recurrent identification by BTP groups of a relationship between opportunities to create local ‘ownership’ of the plantings and their long-term success. ii Roughly half of research participants reported issues in community engagement, groups with a tree, or environmentally focused aim most likely to find it challenging. Groups sometimes found their engagement of local people in developing and delivering their project tested by a perceived lack of understanding or valuation of urban forestry and trees within that community. Findings - Two Common Strategies for Success Accessing external advice and assistance – Important aids to success were employing existing social networks and links and forming new relationships to enable access to external support, knowledge and experience. The majority of participants within BTP for example, had accessed formal external support in the form of advice or professional services. Areas in which applicants most commonly sought such guidance were project budgeting, species choice and design. The role of the third-sector and local government in providing expertise, skills and other resources to groups participating in BTP was striking within the research sample. This advice and support was accessed in a wide variety of ways and both created and consolidated links between such organisations and participants within the scheme. These relationships were potentially beneficial to both parties, particularly in terms of knowledge exchange, those offering support possibly gaining community connections, trust and understanding, those receiving it the chance to acquire new understanding and expertise in relation to tree planting, community engagement, etc. Beneficiaries applying via umbrella organisations (see Appendix D for definition) - The research suggests that umbrella organisations have been very important in enabling small, inexperienced groups with small planting projects and communities from areas experiencing high levels of deprivation to get involved with BTP. They appear to have been significant in removing barriers that may otherwise have dissuaded groups from applying directly themselves. Such support included advice, assistance and sometimes management of: finances; application writing; planting design; overseeing planting; links between groups and volunteers; and public consultation and project publicity. Such organisations can be seen to have, in various ways, provided an infrastructure through which small and less resourced groups and proposals could access BTP funds. Findings - Outcomes from application to and participation in BTP The most frequently reported benefits to participants were the gaining of new skills, increased community pride and an enhanced connection to nature. Other outcomes were perceived to have contributed towards physical, psychological, emotional and social well-being amongst this group. The main reported benefits for applying groups were the ability to achieve their aims and objectives and to enhance their confidence and reputation. Enhancing social bonds within their community and forming and consolidating bridges and links to other organisations during their engagement with BTP were also important. Benefits to the wider community were understood to include improved material and social surroundings (eg. improved aesthetics and community cohesion) and an enhancement of the natural and cultural value of places. Increased tree coverage was

Load more