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 often aimed at enhancing natural capital iii

to create more bio-diverse, productive and engaging places. These improvements were anticipated to offer multiple services to neighbourhoods: mainly cultural, such as opportunities for education, inspiration and well-being, but also provisioning them (providing fuel or food) or regulating environmental processes that impact upon them (improving air quality, for example).

All applicant groups had plans either for carrying out further tree planting projects themselves and/or to inspire and encourage others to plant trees, with the majority of groups proposing multiple methods.

Findings - Approaches to Tree Planting

Most research participants’ planting proposals were proposed to contribute towards on-going socio- cultural and/or spatial change. For some, BTP was helping enable the continuation of groups’ existing work and aspirations to improve green spaces in specific areas or to continue working with particular groups to improve quality of life for them and their communities. What is again notable is that planting proposals were frequently constructed not as isolated material changes, but part of delivery mechanisms of associated socio-cultural impacts.

Findings - Effectiveness and sustainability of planting

Engaging local communities (including specific sections within them or community groups) to undertake planting and aftercare work often appears to represent a particularly active stage of knowledge exchange within BTP projects. Groups reported multiple strategies for cascading and embedding relevant tree expertise toward community planters, whilst they perhaps learnt more about the capacities of their communities and appropriate ways to develop and sustain them. It was considered a high priority for many groups that communities take ownership of such plantings and their participation in tree planting and maintenance were regularly seen as a mechanism of achieving this.

Summary of Recommendations

Recommendation 1: Ensure the eligibility and criteria of tree planting/environmental grant programmes encourage a diversity of applications and flexibility to suit local circumstances

Recommendation 2: Recognise and value funding support mechanisms appropriate to:

 helping kick start communities toward formulating new plans and ideas around tree planting/environmental projects and carrying these out

 helping communities to take forward relatively established longer-term visions for social and spatial changes that use tree planting as a vehicle toward this

Recommendation 3: Create varied, creative, flexible and comprehensive application and compliance guidance appropriate to varied audiences

Recommendation 4: Recognise the role of existing advice and support providers to the urban forestry sector, their resource needs and explore gaps

iv

Recommendation 5: Ensure clarity (clearly worked examples in guidance) over which areas of funding application and participation are fundamental to success

Recommendation 6: Continue to develop existing understandings of the potential role of social networks when designing funding mechanisms similar to BTP or when assessing the impact and scope of existing ones and gaps within these

Recommendation 7: Consider the sustainability of sources of support that exist for communities wishing to plant trees/enhance their environment and how changes in their provision might challenge the success of projects of similar ethos, approaches or aims as those taken forward under BTP

Recommendation 8: Consider establishing a route to funding and support for tree planting/environmental improvement via organisations acting as umbrellas to beneficiaries

Recommendation 9: Explore the potential of strategies for supporting social and cultural legacies of BTP and similar schemes beyond their immediate lifetime

Recommendation 10: Continue to recognise the value of creating opportunities to create cultural celebrations of trees and use them as symbolic markers, at national and local events

Recommendation 11: Further monitoring, evaluation and research into BTP impacts and legacy in order to inform future funding schemes and approaches to Urban Forestry

v

Contents

1 Introduction and Literature Review ...... 1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.2 Methodology (Summary) ...... 4 1.3 The current context for Tree Planting Schemes: a review ...... 6 1.4 Conclusions ...... 21

2 Motivations for applying to BTP, challenges and barriers to successful application and participation, resources and strategies for success...... 25 2.1 Introduction ...... 25 2.2 Motivations ...... 25 2.3 Ease of application and participation within BTP and challenges and barriers to this ...... 29 2.4 Participation within BTP: further tactics for successfully meeting challenges and barriers in application to and compliance with scheme ...... 37 2.5 Local Community engagement...... 39 2.6 Research on two significant strategies for successful participation within BTP...... 50

3 Outcomes Obtained by Groups from application to and participation within BTP ...... 60 3.1 Benefits for participants within BTP funded projects ...... 60 3.2 Benefits to the wider community ...... 63 3.3 Outcomes for applying group ...... 66 3.4 Ways in which further tree planting will be encouraged and embedded through the BTP funded projects 68 3.5 Consequences of lack of success ...... 69 3.6 Conclusions ...... 70

4 Approaches to Tree Planting ...... 72 4.1 Aims ...... 72 4.2 Planting plans ...... 73 4.3 Diversity of planting schemes...... 74 4.4 Planting methods ...... 77 4.5 Effectiveness & sustainability of planting ...... 79 4.6 Survival rate of trees ...... 81 4.7 Conclusions ...... 82

5 Typologies ...... 84 5.1 Type 1 – Large Umbrella Organisations ...... 84

vi

5.2 Type 2 – Small Umbrella Organisations ...... 86 5.3 Type 3 – Small groups able to draw on internal resources and existing social capital ...... 88 5.4 Type 4 – Small groups building new social capital ...... 91 5.5 Small community focused groups with little experience not accessing assistance ...... 94 5.6 Type 6 – Umbrella organisation beneficiary groups...... 95 5.7 Summary of Group Types ...... 97

6 Summary of recommendations ...... 99

7 References ...... 104

Appendices ...... 111 Appendix A - BTP Management and delivery structures ...... 111 Appendix B – Campaign Partners ...... 113 Appendix C - Methodology ...... 114 Appendix D – Definitions ...... 120 Appendix E – Stakeholder telephone interview questions ...... 121 Appendix F – Telephone interview questions – Successful applicants ...... 123 Appendix G – Telephone interview questions – Enquirers ...... 125 Appendix H – Survey questions ...... 126

vii

1 Introduction and Literature Review

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 Background to the development and management of the Big Tree Plant Scheme and this report The Big Tree Plant (BTP) grant scheme 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. BTP, as a specific delivery mechanism of this funding and pledge, was also developed in response to the Coalition Government’s ‘localism’ and ‘Big Society’ agenda, which seek to support people in generating positive change within their communities. These concepts are underpinned by the belief that ‘people understand the needs of their area best, which is why it [government] is transferring power so people can make more decisions locally and solve their own problems to create strong, attractive and thriving neighbourhoods’ (gov.uk website ‘Community and society’: no date). BTP has sought to move this agenda forward by enabling communities to access funding to run and manage tree planting projects for the benefit of themselves and their locality. The development and management of BTP has also been advised upon and supported by a partnership board consisting of organisations from the forestry, environmental, voluntary and community sectors.

Application to the scheme, launched by Defra and the Forestry Commission in 2010, is particularly directed toward ‘community and civic groups, or other non-profit organisations to establish community-led tree planting projects in areas that would benefit most’ (BTP Website ‘Funding and Grants’: 2013). These areas of need have been established by mapping potential sites against the 30% most deprived areas in England and against the 30% least green areas in England (measures derived from the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) and the Generalised Land Use Database).

BTP funding is allocated via competitive rounds, the first of which took place in 2010, with the sixth and final application deadline falling in August 2013. Guidance documents and application forms are available online and a BTP hotline was established at the start of the scheme to manage enquiries and to provide support. Groundwork London are contracted to administer the BTP application process, managing the hotline, advising on the eligibility of applicants and projects, providing general guidance on how to apply and collating information prior to each application’s assessment (by an independent Grants Panel). Groundwork have worked under the direction of the Forestry Commission who have supported the evolution of the administration process over time. Groundwork’s role has not officially been one of providing advice on how to develop and run tree planting projects. However, it appears this type of assistance has been provided to an extent where staff feel there is a proven need for it and they have relevant experience.

As described, though the development of the application and participation process was advised upon by the Partnership board, BTP’s grant submission and compliance approach is not reported to have been modelled directly on those of previous or existing schemes. It is instead suggested, by those involved in its conception, to have developed first in response to the ethos of the Big Society

1

and localism context and then to have evolved iteratively, in response to the experiences of participants and those administering the scheme.

So for example, to facilitate the ideal of communities applying direct to BTP with minimal advice and intervention from other sectors, the application route and engagement within the scheme were designed in principle to limit supervision, paperwork and technicality. Stakeholders in this design process have reported that guidance documents and application forms, for example, were initially intended to be as non-bureaucratic as possible, but to some degree became more detailed over time in response to lessons learnt1. All documents and forms were web-based but were available in other formats if required.

The research project ‘Characterising community groups engaged in the Big Tree Plant and identifying the benefits and challenges of involvement for participants’, detailed by this report, was commissioned by Defra to explore and understand the successes and challenges of participation within a scheme of this nature, aim and aspiration. The research complements the quantitative monitoring of the scheme (undertaken by Groundwork London) and was commissioned in order to:

‘develop the evidence base to facilitate better understanding of the capacity of community groups to undertake action to improve their local environment and whether this type of activity can lead to further community action

…build an understanding of how to engage most effectively with communities who made a BTP bid; and support the needs of groups…unsuccessful in their bid, or [who] chose not to apply despite initial interest

…to understand if engendering a sense of ownership of trees through tree planting increases local quality of life and community engagement, as well as short and long term care for local trees.’ (Defra’s Big Tree Plant competition details and project specification: 2012)

This report, as an outcome of this project and its aims, seeks to describe and explore key characteristics, approaches and resources of groups and organisations who were successful in their bid for BTP funding and in delivering a tree-planting scheme. It endeavours to help establish the types of motivations, relationships, actions and outcomes that typify a thriving BTP project. It also explores barriers to successful application and the strategies or support mechanisms that may help address these. This research, on the challenges and successes of the BTP, 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.

BTP has been implemented at a time of significantly shifting policy and practice including the movement towards local decision making and empowerment of communities to take a greater role

1 The guidance documents and application forms have been updated after each round, most significantly following round one, to improve various aspects including accessibility and ease of completion. Examples of these changes include enhanced guidance on VAT and the stating of a target unit cost per tree to BTP as it has gained impetus as a determining factor in the grant assessment process.

2

in such decision making, but also alteration of Planning regulations and realisation of the multifaceted value of trees and woodlands (ecosystem services) as a sustainable resource, a means to help mitigate climate change and a provider of health and well-being services. All of these have been highlighted by the Independent Panel on Forestry (IPF) (2012), whose recommendations include support for the work of community groups and more and better maintained trees close to where people live. At a time of economic pressures and public cuts the IPF report also proposes an evolved Forestry Services organisation which will broker, support, champion and work in partnership rather than fund directly. At the nexus of so many of these dynamic contexts, the BTP provides an apposite opportunity to explore and understand the key characteristics of communities that are effectively engaged in shaping and improving their social, psychological, and environmental circumstances, the challenges to their achievement of this and the accrued learning that can help cultivate and embed such achievement.

The IPF report, largely endorsed by the Government’s response, “Government Forestry and Woodlands Policy Statement” Defra, January 2013, has confirmed both the desirability of expanding tree coverage close to where people live and the opportunity that is available for third sector and community voluntarism to have a significant and active role in the future of the UK’s treed spaces (Independent Panel on Forestry Report, 2012). However, for these aims to be realised effectively it is vital that the processes and resources underlying successful community ‘ownership’ of such places are properly evidenced and understood. For example, research has identified that engagement with urban tree planting initiatives can be threatened by a community’s detachment from local decision making, demonstrated within these schemes by local residents’ inertia toward them, lack of confidence that their outcomes will be significant and belief that their views will not be influential within them (Roberts, n.d). However, successful community ownership of tree planting schemes can create a resource of practical skills and local knowledge, provide a catalyst for social and environmental change and protect and sustain project outcomes (Ibid).

This research project specifically explores the kinds of beneficial outcomes communities and organisations engaged in the BTP feel they have realised along with any unexpected outcomes. Previous research on environmental volunteering has identified that there is a clear need for projects providing such opportunities not only to clearly monitor numbers of volunteers, but also to evaluate the kinds of benefits obtained by organisations and individuals from these activities (O’Brien et al. 2008). In addition, there has been relatively little research that examines the nature and benefits of ‘grassroots’ voluntary action (Unell & Castle, 2012). BTP offers a lens with which to explore the characteristics and experiences of groups that, whilst small, provide important locations of local activity and connection (Ibid).

The research has also centred upon understanding how the existence of BTP may have contributed to the capacity of groups to envisage and create green space, whether these capacities can or will be applied to other forms of community activism and whether they will resource the longer term care of the BTP treescapes. So, for example, it has been argued that in affluent societies collective bonds and aspects of life (relatives, communities, civic responsibilities and membership of groups) play a more significant role in determining health and happiness than economic resources (Jordan, 2008). These networks and associated patterns of behaviour, such as trust and mutuality, can be described as aspects of social capital, a phrase that recognises that social networks and connections are of 3

direct value to their participants and their neighbourhoods (Helliwell & Putnam, 2004). Schemes such as BTP, with the potential to support the formation of social capital, need to be examined closely for evidence for how this or other factors, have resourced community activism, individual well-being and potential future collective engagement. Further, previous research has established that there is a need for investigation of how the provision of autonomy to volunteers in shaping the activities they are undertaking and in managing and/or creating landscapes affects the length and sustainability of voluntary commitment (O’Brien et al. 2008). As a scheme which devolves significant responsibility to organisations and groups in precisely these areas, BTP offers the opportunity to explore how community governance of and participation within BTP projects impacts on local voluntarism and quality of life.

The research will ascertain the variety and range of approaches taken to tree planting and the creation of treed landscapes, identifying novel and creative practices and lessons for success. It will explore difficulties encountered and novel solutions to these.

Through capturing evidence of the challenges and successes of the BTP this research will 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.

Further information on BTP can be found at www.forestry.gov.uk/england-bigtreeplant.

1.2 Methodology (Summary)2

1.2.1 Research Questions The overall aims of the research project detailed in this report were to:

 identify the key characteristics, approaches and resources of groups and organisations that participated in the BTP and challenges and barriers to successful participation.

 identify the key outcomes obtained by groups and organisations from participation in BTP and any impact of these upon subsequent individual, community, organisational and neighbourhood welfare and behaviour.

The Objectives set for the project were to:

 evidence the motivations, relationships, resources, actions and outcomes that typify a successful BTP project and analyse these to create a typology of groups that have effectively engaged with the BTP and the characteristics that define them.

2 A more detailed description of the methodology can be found in the appendices

4

 evidence the motivations, relationships, resources, actions and outcomes that typify a non- successful BTP project and analyse these to create a typology of groups that have struggled to engage in the BTP and the characteristics that define them.

 identify challenges and barriers to successful BTP applications and analyse the evidence provided by both successful and non-successful groups to understand the strategies, resources or support mechanisms that may help overcome these.

 explore data on the perceived outcomes obtained by groups and organisations from their participation within BTP (both successful and non-successful applicants) for evidence of impact upon individual, community, organisational and neighbourhood welfare and behaviour and how sustained such impacts may be.

 evidence the range and analyse the success of approaches under BTP to creating/extending and managing treescapes, identifying novel approaches and best practice.

 present practical recommendations for effective, sustainable and inclusive community engagement and the need for future work.

1.2.2 Methods The research consisted of a multi-faceted approach to data collection including:

 Literature review

 Review of applications to BTP and existing data including quantitative data collected by Groundwork London

 Semi-structured interviews with stakeholders in the design and management of the application process

 Piloting and delivery of survey to successful and unsuccessful applicants and those that enquired but did not apply.

 Semi-structured interviews with applicants to and participants within the scheme carried out to collect focused, rich qualitative data expanding and developing understanding in all areas

 Follow-up interviews undertaken to address any further gaps in evidence identified during interim analyses, reporting and knowledge exchange.

 Advisory User group recruited during the research process from BTP applicants to feedback on method selection, interim findings and reporting.

5

1.2.3 Data Analysis 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 method has confirmed that exploration of the data and characterisation of groups participating in BTP in terms of the resources and assets that facilitated their involvement is an appropriate approach. Working with the idea of social relationships and behaviours associated with them as assets or capital belonging to groups, for example, allows them to sit alongside other aspects of BTP that require or generate assets, such as its creation of natural capital (new, natural environments) and its utilisation of economic and human capital (skills and expertise).

1.3 The current context for Tree Planting Schemes: a review

It is estimated by the United Nations that by 2015 the level of urbanisation in Europe will reach 80%, in comparison to the 75% level of 2000 (Tzoulas et al., 2007). As the growth rate of cities increases, new and multiple challenges are presented for approaches to urban green space creation and maintenance (Tzoulas et al., 2007). Academic and policy literature is beginning to acknowledge the value of urban green spaces for their aesthetic, social, health and environmental benefits and there has simultaneously been the development of a body of literature concerning community driven urban greening projects (Moskell, Broussard Allred & Ferenz, 2011). This literature includes studies of community development, maintenance and engagement of/with vegetable and flower gardens, forests, street trees, nature walks and memorial parks. The focus of this next section will be to highlight existing research which has been conducted on community and voluntary projects involving trees, including both the planting and aftercare stages, and other green-space development projects where relevant. As Austin (2002, p.178) notes, “citizen tree planting projects are not only about getting trees into the ground”, they also potentially provide opportunities for the development of tree care knowledge, physical improvement of the area in which they are planted and multiple opportunities for social engagement, connection and appreciation with/of nature.

1.3.1 Structure of review:  overview of which key characteristics of a green space project facilitate successful engagement and recruitment of local volunteers and stakeholders. This has relevance to BTP in several ways: one, in mapping some of the possible motivations for and barriers to communities applying to BTP as a vehicle of green space project delivery; second in enabling an understanding of how applicants themselves may have experienced achieving community participation within their project.

 benefits of engaging an urban community in tree planting projects: personal benefits, community benefits and benefits to organisations or institutions.

 exploring the factors necessary for the sustainable maintenance of community tree project aims and the various legacies of previous/on-going projects.

6

1.3.2 Project accessibility and the engagement of volunteers and communities This section combines literature concerning both urban tree planting projects carried out by local councils (which often work in collaboration with existing community groups to source volunteers) and local community forest or tree planting projects which were set up with the aim of targeting specific social demographics or improving specific environmental characteristics. Consequently, the level of community/volunteer involvement and the nature of what is required/offered from/to these members of society is context specific, but relevant to the circumstances of Big Tree Plant projects.

Katie Roberts, the project director of Trees for Cities, in her report entitled 'Securing urban trees through community involvement: Planting street and community trees in disadvantaged urban locations' (No Date), provides the following table summarising why it is important to engage the local community in tree planting projects:

Table 1: Roberts' Reasons for Involving Communities in Urban Tree Planting

Roberts (n.d), goes on to argue that whilst important, engaging communities is not always easy. This may be particularly true concerning communities that live in areas where deprivation levels are high (such as those targeted for inclusion within the BTP project), when projects are remote (situationally from the communities they are trying to engage) (Wakefield et al., 2007), where there is an existing lack of accessible trees and wooded areas and where communities are socially or infrastructurally isolated (Greater London Authority, 2005).

7

The most significant barrier to enrolling communities on urban forestry projects has been argued to be society’s general lack of understanding concerning urban forestry and tree issues, resulting in a lack of public awareness of the worth or merit of becoming involved in such projects (Moskell, Broussard Allred & Ferenz, 2010). Other frequently mentioned barriers to participation in urban greening projects, as detailed by project co-ordinators, are that urban forestry programmes place time demands on already busy lifestyles and that it is often more difficult to make contact with members of the public who are not already engaged in community projects (Moskell, Broussard Allred & Ferenz, 2010). Such challenges can be exacerbated by the fact that when people do choose to take part in urban forestry projects, a lack of staff and funding resources can impede the extent to which participants’ motivations are fulfilled and the project meets its goals (Moskell, Broussard Allred & Ferenz, 2010).

A number of ways of engaging communities with urban tree projects have included working with ‘friends of’ groups, schools and existing community groups that have formed through religious, social, leisure and special interest networks. Summit and Sommer (1998) argue that recruiting volunteers through existing community groups or ‘visible’ local residents increases successful enrolment as people find it more difficult to turn down the requests of those with whom they are already acquainted. Furthermore, through enrolling or seeking the community engagement expertise possessed by other organisations such as housing associations, charities and non- government organisations, project organisers can enhance the effectiveness of project outcomes (Greater London Authority, 2005).

Roberts (n.d) identifies 7 key factors as contributing to the successful engagement of individuals in urban tree projects. These include: understanding that promoting projects on the basis of broad public interest topics (such as climate change) may be less successful in recruiting volunteers or community members than through the promotion of benefits that directly affect potential stakeholders; assigning worth to the public benefits that result from tree planting initiatives so that project participants recognise ‘their stake’ in these; offering people the opportunity to invest money or in kind contributions in a project so that they feel they have a vested interest in its success; identifying the positive impact that a sense of community ‘ownership’ can have on a project; combining a number of participative methods for engagement that are specifically designed with the target group in mind, remaining transparent in the planning and implementation stages of the project in order to empower community members to become involved in local decision making systems in the future; and consulting those approached who decide not to take part, as learning from their reasons can improve a project for future development.

Furthermore, through exploring the successes of a Trees for Cities, London based project in partnership with the Borough of Southwark, concerning the planting of trees on St Asaph’s Road, Roberts (n.d) has highlighted a further set of ‘practical’ on the ground activities that can successfully engage local people. In this particular case study, knocking on residents’ doors, mail dropping and group workshops were all used to raise awareness of the project and to offer opportunities for local residents and businesses to discuss what was appreciated, aspired to, and what concerns existed regarding the planting project. An additional ‘community mapping’ exercise also took place before these consultation activities so that the project co-ordinators were able to determine aspects like whether or not they would need translation services. According to Roberts such consultation 8

activities led to better planning as residents had a greater local knowledge of which specific locations would be most appropriate to place the trees (for example in some locations old trees had caused traffic hazards), and also provided Trees For Cities an opportunity to communicate the benefits of tree planting schemes. The social side of the workshops, as with other engagement practices, is argued to result in more successful take up of programme behaviours or practices as the creation of new social norms for the neighbourhood are more likely to lead to a sustained community commitment (Summit & Sommer, 1998). Equally, educating the community at these ‘consultations’ through a FAQ session on issues surrounding urban trees, and the dissemination of information on where to find further ‘online’ guidance on tree care were also deemed significant elements of the project’s success. These were seen as empowering practices that opened up opportunities for people to actively seek further engagement and eased their concerns around issues such as subsidence. Such findings were echoed in Sommer and Cecchettini’s (1992) study as the authors discovered that asking local residents their preferred choices on where to plant street trees resulted in the programme co-ordinators becoming more informed of residents’ worries, and also provided an opportunity in which to educate them concerning the importance of site parameters in tree location decision making practices.

The use of the internet to engage communities in urban tree projects has also been explored by Moskell et al (2010). Drawing on the emotional or spiritual motivations people may have for planting trees, for example because of their symbolic status as “icons of hope, vitality, history, cultural identity and connection with nature” (Moskell, Broussard Allred & Ferenz, 2010, p.7), the United States Forestry Service has developed ‘The Grove’. ‘The Grove’ is an online social network that encourages U.S citizens in thirteen states to plant and nurture different trees, based on their characteristics, for different symbolic reasons (for example, to mark a birthday, to mourn the loss of a loved one or to remember a community event). This example points to a further way in which tree planting projects may engage a range of technological and social techniques in order to become accessible to those with distinct motivations.

With reference to a project based in Nairobi, Roberts (n.d) also notes that for tree planting projects that take place in disadvantaged communities, financial incentives may increase aftercare efforts and levels of continued involvement. For example, financially rewarding people if the tree they planted is still alive and cared for six months, one year and three years after being planted, gives them a stake in the success of the project. In socially advantaged contexts though, Sommer et al. (1994) have found the opposite to be the case. In their study, residents who paid for and planted their own trees as part of a street tree planting programme, were more satisfied with the outcomes of the programme than those who did not pay for, or plant, their own tree (Sommer et al., 1994).

Whilst Roberts (n.d) points out the need to engage the community through a variety of participation techniques, Moskell et al. (2010) note that for the majority of urban forestry volunteers, it is considered more desirable to take part in actual tree planting and care than to take part in fundraising or lobbying activities. However, drawing on research conducted by Westphal (1993) and Still and Gerhold (1997), Moskell et al. (2010) explain that the reasons why people choose to take part in urban forestry projects are shaped by personal motivations and the values they place on trees themselves. Therefore it may be important to align opportunities offered by a project with the motivations of those being approached. Moskell et al. (2010, p.18) state, “volunteerism researchers 9

have suggested that matching the messages used in organizations’ recruitment campaigns to the motivations of volunteers is an important factor in the initial engagement of stakeholders (e.g. Clary et al., 1998; Snyder & Omoto, 2008)”. Summit and Sommer (1998, p.4) echo such findings stating that in addition to giving people practical information concerning what needs to be done, how to carry out the associated tasks and where to do them, forestry organisations and programmes also need to “emphasize practical [and] personal benefits of an environmentally sound behaviour; or make an environmental threat relevant to people in a personal way, and give them something to do to counter that threat”. Research exploring motivations for and barriers to taking part in environmental volunteering, in a wider context (O’Brien et al., 2008), also identifies the significance of personal goals as a driver for such voluntarism. O’ Brien et al. (2008, pp73-75), find that most common amongst these are the potential of such activity to meet both people’s desire to engage with nature and the outdoors, and their belief that natural environments require active conservation management. Frequently these types of impulse towards involvement appear rooted in positive childhood recollections of environmental activity (Ibid). Younger people were also particularly motivated by the opportunity to gain new skills and confidence (O’ Brien et al, 2008, pp75-78), whilst the retired and unemployed enjoyed the opportunity to bring some order and action to their week (O’ Brien et al, 2008, pp78-79). This study highlights that motivation for voluntary engagement with projects to manage and enhance the environment can be closely tied to their potential for meeting ambitions and needs associated with an individual’s life stage, cultural, social and economic circumstances.

In summary, it appears that whilst urban greening projects can engage communities with forestry activity in a variety of ways, in order to do this effectively, the outcomes of the project and the motivations of the prospective participants need to be successfully aligned.

1.3.3 What are the benefits of Urban Forestry Projects? This section, provides firstly a generic overview of the benefits that urban trees and urban forestry programmes provide, before considering these more specifically with reference to personal benefits, community benefits and the benefits that organisations or institutions may gain by becoming involved in urban greening projects.

In the (ex) Mayor of London’s report on the need to connect Londoners with trees (Greater London Authority, 2005, p.7), it is argued that street trees offer:

10

Table 2: Benefits of Street Trees (Greater London Authority, 2005)

 enhanced quality of life […] through promoting a sense of well-being and so promoting health

 increased privacy in residential roads and gardens through screening

 increased local property values (Tyrväinen & Miettinen, 2000)

 historical importance

 links to areas of green space

 filtering airborne dust and pollution

 reducing temperature extremes at street level

 absorb some traffic noise.

This same report goes on to highlight that trees can serve as signifiers of permanence and a sense of place in a rapidly changing environment, an issue which has been explored in a number of tree contexts from cemeteries to orchards, by academics working in the field of Human Geography (Cloke & Jones, 2003; Cloke & Jones, 2004; Cloke & Pawson, 2008; Jones & Cloke, 2002).

From an environmental perspective, a study carried out in the most densely populated areas of the United States discovered that residents valued urban trees the most for their shade providing and air temperature reducing characteristics (Lohr et al., 2004). However, this finding is likely to be seasonal and more pronounced in areas where average temperatures are higher. Furthermore, the aesthetic character of trees are seen to be essential in the construction of high quality urban design (Greater_london_Authority, 2005).

The growing understanding of the link between human contact with nature and all round wellbeing is being studied within a wide variety of leisure, educational and work contexts. Specific examples that concentrate on the presence of urban trees will be highlighted in the next subsection.

1.3.4 Personal benefits to be gained from the presence of urban trees and taking part in urban forestry programmes The topics of human health and wellbeing (in its widest guise) are beginning to form a significant body of literature when considered alongside the presence, use and construction of urban green spaces. Links have been made between longevity and access to green space (Takano, Nakamura & Watanabe, 2002; Tanaka et al., 1996) and participants who were asked to rank their own perceived levels of health considered themselves healthier when they had access to green space (De Vries et al., 2003). Harting has considered more specific health measures in relation to participants spending 11

time in natural areas and has found that being in natural environments can lower blood pressure (2003), increase attention functioning and contribute a sense of positive emotional wellbeing (Hartig, 2008; Hartig, Mang & Evans, 1991). A further body of literature emerging from the disciplines of sociology of sport and human geography are beginning to consider physical exercise alongside notions of wellbeing and ‘nature’ in particular through the concept of ‘therapeutic landscapes’ (Bodin & Hartig, 2003; Hansmann, Hug & Seeland, 2007; Ingen, 2004; Pretty et al., 2005; Williams, 2007). Reflecting these findings, urban garden projects have begun to be designed with the aim of improving the fitness levels of those involved. A London based example called ‘Project Green Gym’ was inaugurated in 2003 in Waltham Forest with the aim of improving health and fitness, by encouraging local residents to become more active. Gardening activities such as coppicing, hedge laying and caring for newly planted trees were offered in weekly sessions in a social environment where people simultaneously gained a physical workout, made friends, cared for their local environment and learnt new skills (Greater_london_Authority, 2005). O’Brien, Williams and Stewart’s (2010) review of the connections between health and urban forestry provides a comprehensive overview of the evidence for an association between urban and peri-urban green spaces, trees and woodlands with positive physiological, psychological and social health and well- being. However, this study notes that quantitative research in this area tends toward abstract definitions of green environments that regularly exclude dimensions of urban forestry, particularly street trees (O’Brien et al, 2010: 41-42). The authors cite the work of Kuo (2001) and Wells (2000), discussed below, as significant departures from this tendency (Ibid).

An emerging trend in the academic literature has been to consider the influence that the presence of street trees has on those who can see them through their workplace, home or school windows. On this theme, Kuo (2001) and Kuo and Sullivan (2001) discovered that the presence of trees and green spaces in front of apartment blocks can lead to feelings of increased mental strength and reduced mental fatigue, resulting in residents being better able to take on life situations and to react less aggressively to family members. A study focusing on 7-12 year olds also found that housing quality was seen to impact on children’s ability to focus attention to a significantly lesser degree, than if the children’s houses had natural views (Wells, 2000). Dandy (2010: 10) suggests that such evidence, where fairly restricted contact with natural aspects of landscape can generate restorative impacts, indicates that street trees will have similar ‘substantial’ effects.

Linking to the same age group of children as the previous research, a study was undertaken to discover if participation in activities in green settings resulted in a decrease of ADHD symptoms, with positive results (Taylor, Kuo & Sullivan, 2001). Consequently, when these pupils had green play areas at school they were also found to have higher attention levels (Blair, 2009; Taylor, Kuo & Sullivan, 2001). Taylor et al. (2002) echo such findings stating that the presence of green spaces near inner city children’s homes can lead to improved self-discipline.

By engaging directly in tree planting activities it has been argued that volunteers both young and old can gain a sense of achievement or accomplishment “that may be lacking in a [in their…] day-to-day life” (Westphal, 2003, p.139). This can translate to those whose lifestyles have suddenly significantly changed, (for example military personnel who retire). In such cases, gardening and tree care can aid recovery and ease trauma for those affected by crisis (Hewson, 2001; Miavitz, 1998). The cathartic nature of gardening and caring for plants and trees has also been shown to provide a form of 12

therapy for those living in difficult circumstances in real time- in other words, not just after a specific traumatic event. Indeed Tibdall et al. (2010, p.592) have argued that, “perhaps it is not surprising that interacting with nature through gardening offers a means of resistance and resilience for individual soldiers and civilians during war, given the large literature on the therapeutic benefits of plant–people interactions”.

1.3.5 Community benefits to be gained from the presence of urban trees and taking part in urban forestry programmes Concerning the social benefits of urban tree projects, it has been argued that the presence of natural features in urban environments plays an important role in residents’ feelings of attachment towards their locale and an increased likelihood that they will interact with other local residents (Kim & Kaplan, 2004; Kuo, Bacaicoa & Sullivan, 1998; Sullivan, Kuo & Depooter, 2004). Glover (2004) calls such environments ‘third spaces’ where residents can gather outside of the home or workplace, create community networks and identify with each other. Trees in particular have been shown to positively influence intra community integration and interaction when compared to unvegetated green spaces (Coley, Sullivan & Kuo, 1997). This is further said to translate to a higher sense of community belonging and safety (Kuo et al. 1998). Irrespective of safety perceptions though, crime rates have been shown to be lower, as the increased presence of outdoor community gatherings in treed areas near to apartment blocks or housing estates can act as a form of informal surveillance (Kuo et al., 2001). In addition, well cared for urban green spaces represent pride and care in/for an area and as such can act as territorial markers that further deter criminal behaviour (Brown & Altman, 1983; Brown & Bentley, 1993).

More specifically linked to urban tree planting or tree care projects, studies have illustrated that the coming together of a community to carry out a tree planting project can lead to a sense of community spirit and confidence in the local population, which can ultimately empower groups to take on policymakers and local councillors, in order to tackle other issues of concern (Austin, 2002; Summit & Sommer, 1998; Westphal, 1993). Westphal (2003) similarly notes that successfully fulfilling the relatively simple desired outcomes of urban forestry programmes can empower individuals to come together in a bid to combat more complex issues such as reducing crime, giving local unemployed residents work experience or turning around the aesthetic image of a neighbourhood, often through the creation of further, knock-on, urban greening projects. As Moskell et al. (2010, p.5) state, “ while urban forestry can be a platform for people to get to know each other and for trees to be planted and cared for, it may also be a catalyst for individual and community development”.

A burgeoning new body of literature has begun to look at the potential for tree planting projects to act as expressions of community resilience in the wake of environmental, social or personal loss (Anderson, 2004; Miller & Rivera, 2007). Tidball et al. (2010, p.592), drawing on Nucifora (2007), define resistance as; “the ability of an individual, group, organization, or entire population to withstand manifestations of clinical distress, impairment, or dysfunction, and resilience to the ability of an individual, group, organization, or entire population to rebound from psychological perturbations, both in the context of critical incidents, terrorism, and mass disasters.” In New Orleans, for example, after the widespread devastation left by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, volunteers 13

and local agencies set about planting over 6000 trees. Three local NGOs were developed specifically with this aim in mind, including Hike for KaTREEna, Replant New Orleans and Parkway Partners. This act was said to have boosted citizen morale by bringing the community together in a time of mourning (Tidball & Krasny, 2007; Tidball et al., 2010). Similarly after hurricane Hugo hit South Carolina, a Charleston based study by Hull (1992, p.100), discovered that urban forests stood as symbolic representations of memories and associations, stating that “the role of urban forests as symbols of cherished meanings and memories needs to be emphasized as a major benefit deriving from urban forestry […] Trees symbolize spiritual values, personal memories, reminders of the past, preservation and endurance”.

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States of America, the U.S. Forestry Service sought to research the ensuing changes in the use and stewardship of trees (Tidball et al., 2010). The Living Memorials Project (set up by the USFS) involved the creation of 687 landscape memorials across the USA between 2001 and 2006. These landscapes were created through community planting of individual trees, small forests or bonsai gardens for example. Tidball et al. (2010, p. 594) came to the conclusion that engagement in “civic ecology practices, including urban community forestry, community gardening, and other self-organized forms of stewardship of green spaces in cities (Tidball & Krasny, 2012), are manifestations of how social and ecological memories can be instrumentalised through social learning to foster SES [Social Ecological Systems] resilience following crisis and disaster”.

As Stewart and O’Brien (2010, p.4-5) note, much of the most referenced research exploring the connections between trees and green spaces and individual and collective health and well-being, has been carried out within the U.S and there is a clear need for comparable UK focused studies, particularly on the ‘potentially unique’ role of trees and wooded spaces in urban and peri-urban areas.

1.3.6 Benefits to be gained for organisations and institutions, that take part in urban forestry programmes A key benefit of engaging with urban nature is the breadth of educational opportunities that can be exploited from this. Thus, trees can provide a key resource or educational material, which when located in or near to schoolyards can be harnessed in a number of ways (Greater_london_Authority, 2005). Caring for, planting or playing near trees, in addition to the mental and physical wellbeing benefits explored above, can offer up opportunities to teach children about biological, ecosystem and environmental processes, and caring for trees has been argued to develop personal responsibility (Pudup, 2008).

Community engagement in urban greening projects may not just be through direct planting or caring, or raising awareness of urban forestry benefits, but successful projects have also enrolled volunteers to conduct street tree inventories as part of wider ecosystem maintenance and restoration projects (Bloniarz & Ryan, 1996). Such participation has been shown to be a cost- effective method of data collection whilst also promoting citizen awareness of urban forestry projects (directly to volunteers and indirectly through the awareness they raise by talking to friends and families concerning their work on such projects) (Bloniarz & Ryan, 1996). Thus, environmental

14

organizations could actively promote data collection activities as volunteering opportunities in order to reduce project economic outgoings.

A number of studies have also pointed to the potential of tree planting projects and local resident consultation events as a means for councillors to connect with their constituencies (Westphal, 2003). Residents are said to feel more at ease in communicating their worries and concerns in such settings and thus, politicians can use these opportunities to not only demonstrate their support for urban greening and environmental betterment, but they can also learn about what matters to residents and set up future schemes with this in mind. Consequently urban forestry projects can act as wider knowledge exchange forums for local politicians to foster community support generally, and particularly preceding electoral campaigns.

1.3.7 What are the legacies of urban forestry projects and what measures can be taken to make them sustainable? In a report on connecting Londoner and trees, it was highlighted that trees can often become the subjects of both deliberate and unintentional degradation by pets, vandals, traffic and road works (Greater_london_Authority, 2005). Whilst in the second section of this review it is argued that street trees and cared for urban green spaces surrounding houses and apartment blocks can increase social cohesion and interaction, leading to reduced crime and fear of crime, it is important to note that if urban green spaces fall out of care and become overgrown, the opposite is argued to be the case (Bixler & Floyd, 1997; Kuo, Bacaicoa & Sullivan, 1998). Therefore, in order to sustain the positive attitudes and emotional connections to the landscape that have been developed through urban forestry projects, it is important that long term management and aftercare plans are in place. As Austin (2003, p.178) has argued,

“much attention is focused on planting day [in urban forestry programmes]. Too much emphasis on tree planting, however, with limited attention to how the trees will be maintained afterward, may mean missing out on information that will be useful in directing future projects in other neighbourhoods. Such information not only will improve efforts to encourage greater citizen involvement but may improve post-planting survival of trees by supporting local stewardship efforts”.

In order to aid with the long term care of trees, and reflecting Austin’s (2003) findings, a number of studies promote the need for communities to feel a sense of ownership over the trees and gardens they engage with through urban green space projects. Consequently it is argued that people will be more likely to maintain landscapes after formal involvement in programmes, if they feel a sense of ownership in them and if they have a vested interest in their survival. One way of encouraging this behaviour has been through the development of online resources for tree care, or in the case of the aforementioned St Asaph’s Road project, a ‘Love Trees Hotline’ similar to the ‘tree care hotline’ developed by the Sacramento Tree Foundation (Summit & Sommer, 1998). These hotlines were set up so that residents could call and report damage to, or problems with, new trees. Thus charities, such as Trees For Cities, can be made aware of new issues and be given an opportunity to remedy any problems (Greater_london_Authority, 2005).

15

A further key practice to bear in mind in the development of urban forestry projects, is the choice of which tree species to plant in which locations. The reduction of wildlife value, building subsidence, premature tree death and unwanted spread are all negative outcomes that may result from planting the wrong species of tree in inappropriate locations. In order for urban forestry projects to maximise the benefits to society and the environment, Table 3 has been developed.

16

Table 3: Mayor of London's Right Tree Right Place Checklist (Greater London Authority, 2005)

17

Whilst the wrong choice of tree species may lead to an urban forestry project failing to be sustainable, a project that is not tailored to its neighbourhood is also likely to fail in the long term. Austin (2003) suggests that project co-ordinators need to watch residents and analyse how they interact and engage with the proposed tree planting site, as well as each other, as part of a scoping process. Asking the opinions of key figures in the community their opinions concerning a proposed project is thought to be one way of gathering information that can lead to the tailoring of a project to the local community, particularly by incorporating their concerns.

One legacy attributed to participant engagement in urban forestry programmes that has been explored by Summit and Sommer (1997) is that; if project co-ordinators successfully engage with social psychological principles and research concerning behavioural change, they are more likely to effectively influence project participants to engage in further pro-environmental behaviours and/or becoming involved in further environmental programmes. In other words, if managed correctly urban forestry projects can instil a long term sense of environmental care and proactive behaviour into the participants they enrol (Pudup, 2008).

Community and personal empowerment can also be seen as a legacy of urban forestry and more generic greening programmes. The concept has been touched upon already in this review however it should not be thought of as an unproblematic ‘good’ that is bestowed upon those who take part in such projects automatically. Table 4 has been taken from Westphal’s (2003) guide for urban and community foresters who seek to gain empowerment outcomes from their projects:

18

Table 4: Westphal's (2003) recommendations for urban and community foresters wishing to put empowerment into practice.

Before the project:

 What benefits and goals do the local residents identify as important? Obtaining this information will require listening and analysis by the practitioner. No one will say “we need to plant more trees to reduce stress and raise our cognitive functioning.” But they might say “This place brings you down. We need more life here, more colour!” In this case, a landscape project on the block could have a significant impact. Do the needed benefits stem from a green landscape or active involvement in a greening project or both?

 Are the needs of a target population for benefits at the individual, organizational, or community level, or some combination?

 Local resident motivations may be different depending on whether they are concerned most about their neighbourhood or the environment. The outreach should be structured accordingly.

 Empowerment is a developmental process. Gains from active involvement in greening projects can be very helpful at a certain point in this development, but too early or too late and the empowerment benefits might not be realized.

During the project:

 Process is key. Foster open and inclusive decision making in greening projects. Not all greening practitioners are experienced in organizing. There are other organizations in most communities that do focus on organizing and community development. Partnering with these organizations may be helpful for greening practitioners who are not sure of how to facilitate an inclusive process.

 Watch out for empowered but not empowering local participants, particularly those who dominate a project. Greening practitioners may be able to foster a more empowering process for a project or intervene in other ways to strengthen empowerment outcomes in the face of a more domineering local participant.

19

After the project:

 Practitioners should take their assessments of the impacts on a neighborhood with a grain of salt, recognizing that they might not see all the important interactions among project participants and nonparticipants. A successful tree planting project does not necessarily indicate success in generating social benefits.

 Networking with other good, non-greening organizations (e.g., education, job creation, and sports organizations) can further the empowerment potential from greening projects. This network can help a greening practitioner gain rapport and access to groups and neighborhoods they are unfamiliar with. More importantly, these other non-profit groups or agency programs can bring further resources to the neighbourhood and can create additional ties between local individuals and organizations and the wider community. Other organizations can also provide programs or projects that are the next step for a neighborhood—either a simpler project or a more complex one, depending on the neighborhood skills and interest. In this way, a network of greening groups and other organizations can match the empowerment level of a neighbourhood and continue the empowerment process through multiple projects and programs.

 Whether empowerment outcomes from active involvement come to fruition or not, greening projects may also confer or enhance benefits from living in a green environment. This is also one way that individual- or group-level benefits can have an impact at the community level. On-going maintenance of a greening project and the level of existing green landscape will have an impact on the benefits possible from the changes produced by these projects.

 Recognize that urban and community forestry is a part of the solution but cannot transform a distressed neighborhood alone.

20

Like the distribution of social capital in urban greening projects (Glover, 2004), table 4 highlights that empowerment techniques need to be carefully managed in order to foster an egalitarian sense of community so that all of those involved in a forestry project get something from it.

1.4 Conclusions

Whilst urban green space projects are increasingly being studied and valued by academics, stakeholders, organisations and politicians, the urban forestry literature is significantly less dense than that concerning community gardens, for example.

The existing literature which emanates from a wide breadth of academic disciplines, from behavioural psychology, human geography, environmental planning, ecosystem services, to physiology and mental health studies, all point to the benefits that personal and community engagement in urban forestry projects can result in.

In the current climate of increasingly sedentary and (urban) indoor lifestyles, disaffection in environmental protection and management, as well as social isolation at the neighbourhood level, it has been highlighted that urban forestry projects are uniquely positioned to promote physical activity, social cohesion, environmental protection behaviours and community empowerment. Furthermore, in certain circumstances, indirect benefits of urban forestry projects have resulted in reduced crime rates, an increased sense of urban safety, increased house prices due to improved environmental aesthetics and reduction in both adult and child mental stress and attention deficit.

This review has also begun to point out the emergence of a burgeoning body of literature concerned with the role of trees in social resilience to change in the face of environmental disaster, political uprising and terrorist attacks. Thus, the value of urban forestry projects can be seen to go beyond environmental, health and aesthetic factors, as their symbolic value as memory aids, grief facilitators, place makers and resistors of change is also beginning to be explored.

It seems there is a particularly limited existing body of published research concerned with the value that urban forestry projects can provide for organisations or institutions. In other words, existing studies have focused almost exclusively on pointing out what urban forestry offers to community groups, volunteers, neighbourhoods or the general public, with almost no research focusing on how organisations or institutions can harness these benefits to mutually enrich their own practices, community outreach schemes or public images.

Finally, with direct reference to the Big Tree Plant Project, the table below (Table 5) has been constructed to complement the research findings emerging from the following research. The table amalgamates the breadth of recommendations and observations which have been discovered throughout the process of writing this review.

21

Table 5: findings to complement BTP research outcomes

What might challenge  High levels of deprivation involvement of communities in tree planting?  Tree planting site far from community

 Existing lack of trees and woodland areas

 Community socially or infrastructurally isolated

 Lack of community understanding of urban forestry and tree issues resulting in project not being seen as significantly worthwhile or valued

 Already busy lifestyles and existing time demands limit opportunities for involvement

 Lack of adequate project resources and staff to meet the community/participants’ needs

 Negative perceptions surrounding street trees (for example: that they cause subsidence)

What might support  Working with ‘friends of’ groups and other community involvement of communities groups in tree planting?  Working with local schools

 Promoting projects through existing special interest and community networks

 Seeking community engagement expertise from existing local charities, housing associations and NGOs

 Promoting project benefits that are specific to distinct community groups (rather than promoting generic benefits of tree planting projects)

 Taking on board the reasons why people chose not to take part

 Being open in the planning and implementation stages of a project and promoting user/community consultation at this stage

22

 Conducting a community mapping exercise before designing a project, in order to gain a clear understanding of who lives in the area and what their needs are

 Holding local ‘FAQ’ drop in sessions

 Promoting online information regarding generic tree care and specific tree planting projects

 Aligning participant motivations with project goals.

What might support  Promoting a sense of ownership over newly planted trees involvement of individual members of the community?  Offering cash rewards for long term tree care

 Offering a variety of ways for people to ‘get involved’

What motivates personal  Better provision of shade engagement in tree planting projects?  Enriching the local biodiversity

 Increasing local house prices

 Aesthetic appreciation

 A feel-good sense of engaging in pro-environmental behaviour

 Symbolic reasons (e.g. marking important dates/historical events in the urban landscape)

 Improving/maintaining physical fitness

 Improving/maintaining mental health

 Offering a form of ‘escape’ from other life situations

 Engagement in a cathartic activity

 Connecting with nature

 Improving the landscape for children

 Social reasons

 Gaining a sense of personal responsibility

23

 Gaining a sense of achievement

 Learning new skills

What motivates communities  Fostering community spirit/pride through working together to engage in tree planting projects?  Tackling local social or political issues

 ‘Building’ a welcoming outdoor environment in which to gather as a group

 Delimiting the neighbourhood from the surrounding area (boundary formation)

 Act of collective mourning/remembrance

What motivates  Promoting a good public image organisations/institutions to engage in tree planting  Team building for employees projects?  Making ties to the community

 Collaboration opportunities

 Use of volunteers for environmental data collection/ tree care (i.e. cheaper labour)

 Generating political support

 Learning from the community

What might foster long term  Considering long term management of landscape in the benefits from tree planting planning stage of a project project?  Fostering community ownership

 Providing tree-care helplines

 Providing online tree care support

 Planting appropriate tree species

 Ensuring the local environment can support trees before planting them (appropriate soil type, sunlight, drainage etc.)

24

2 Motivations for applying to BTP, challenges and barriers to successful application and participation, resources and strategies for success.

2.1 Introduction

The section begins by briefly exploring BTP groups’ motivations for planting trees and applying to the scheme. It then addresses some of the key challenges and barriers to successful application to and participation within BTP, as well as the resources and strategies employed by applicants to overcome these. The research explores communities’ engagement within the application process and scheme in terms of the relative ease or difficulty of their participation and the resources or assets which appear to have facilitated successful progression.

2.2 Motivations

As stated on the Big Tree Plant website, “The main aim of the Big Tree Plant is to encourage and support community groups to plant trees in neighbourhoods where people live and work.”

“We want to help improve the quality of life of those living in England’s towns, cities and residential areas by making neighbourhoods more attractive, healthy places to live; especially in areas of greatest deprivation and/or where there is little greenery.”

“We want to encourage citizens to take responsibility for establishing, protecting and enhancing green spaces in their local area.” (Forestry Commission online: n.d)

Communities and organisations who applied to BTP were asked what motivated them to want to plant trees, and to seek funding through BTP, as opposed to through any other route. These answers were examined to establish their variety and explore how the aims of BTP matched with the aspirations of groups engaged with the scheme.

2.2.1 Motivations to want to undertake a tree planting project The motivations of groups applying to BTP to want to plant trees were many and varied, with all describing multiple drivers and rationales, often relating to the achievement of a mixture of environmental and community focused aims.

Improving the nature conservation value and aesthetic appeal of the local area were reported to be the main motivations for the majority of applicants in undertaking a tree planting project and characterised the objectives of a wide range of group and project types. These were also frequently stated as being the main benefits provided by BTP funded projects, perhaps demonstrating that many respondents’ felt able to closely align their aims and the resultant outcomes of their participation during their participation within the scheme.

The improvement of aesthetic appeal was frequently linked by respondents to increasing the pride of communities in their local area, so can perhaps also be understood as a community focused, rather than straightforwardly environmental motivation. 25

The majority of environmentally focused motivations were reported by groups whose work or aspirations are specifically tree or environmentally focused. However, most community focused groups also found environmental goals acted as an impetus toward tree planting. This is perhaps not surprising with more common recognition in recent years that looking after the local environment can provide associated benefits for people and communities as well.

In terms of motivation to plant trees to achieve a community focused impact, the chance to generate a broadly defined local collective ‘spirit’ or ‘pride’ through this endeavour was a regularly reported impetus amongst the research sample. Less frequently, tree planting was understood to be an action that could help address existing social or political issues within the area or something that could help achieve positive physical or

mental health amongst local people.

The perceived opportunity to promote a good public image Image courtesy of Long Buckby Green was cited by several successful applicants as a motivating Space Group factor and the opportunity for a group to increase or forge ties with the local community via tree planting activity was a recurrently recorded motive for such activity. The fostering of these opportunities were also reported as a frequent benefit of participation within the scheme, with BTP projects elevating organisations and groups’ profiles within their area and establishing links to similar groups and those with differing aims and resources.

The provision of an educational resource was mentioned as a project aim by some respondents. This was considered particularly important to groups involving school children in their project, or anticipating that the areas created by their project would be utilised by schools or youth groups.

One group of participants within BTP described a cultural motivation underlying their wish to plant trees, a desire to mark a specific occasion, such as the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee or to commemorate a person or event of significance to the local community. Planting trees for a well-known event such as Tree Week or for the Queen’s Jubilee can be seen as a tool of driving community involvement in tree planting, generating a broad cultural purpose, containing ideas and imagery which can be drawn upon by diverse individuals or communities as motivational. In this research it was also thought by some groups to add reputability to the planting aspirations and events.

One of the BTP aims that appeared perhaps less of a fit with applicant aspirations to plant trees was to provide planting in socially and green space-deprived areas. Some groups were keen to plant trees in areas which were not necessarily deprived and stakeholders in BTP have confirmed that it would have been ‘much more difficult’ to achieve the required number of successful projects if the grants panel had stuck rigidly to levels of deprivation as the decisive factor in determining success. Ultimately BTP’s grants panel were flexible on this criterion, to some extent, with some less deprived areas still receiving funding if they were understood to provide considerable benefits for the local community. This potentially enabled different communities to participate within the scheme, and was evidenced by the funding scheme report 2012 (Groundwork London) which reported that 22 % of projects approved so far had been in non-deprived locations (within the research sample this 26

proportion is higher with approximately 46% of respondents representing non-deprived communities). These applicants’ success could also be seen as a possible indicator of a tendency for more deprived areas to have less access to the resources necessary to facilitate application to and participation within schemes such as BTP, the nature of which are explored further below.

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 multiple, 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. Further discussion of the motives briefly summarised here are explored in discussion of outcomes of BTP participation in Section 4.

2.2.2 Motivations to apply to BTP A high proportion of groups within the research sample, who had successfully applied to BTP, reported that one of their main motivations to apply was that their group and project seemed to have a good fit with BTP’s eligibility criteria. This was considered by many successful applicants to be the most important aspect of deciding whether to apply to the fund or not. This may suggest that BTP was regularly recognised as a route to realising existing tree planting plans and aspirations for certain community groups and organisations.

Groups submitting bids for more expensive and larger projects frequently reported being attracted to the scheme by the amount of funding available (all submitting bids of £8,000 or more, two applying for over £25,000). This could indicate that groups with large, expensive projects may struggle to find funding of this scale, and that BTP was perceived as a good opportunity for achieving such schemes.

Some groups were attracted to engage with the scheme by the impression that the application process was straight forward and several of these reported no challenges with it. However, a higher proportion found difficulty to some degree, focused around interpreting application guidance, communicating with BTP, understanding BTP priorities, developing their project to fit those priorities and demonstrating how they have achieved that. It seems that BTP’s aim to operate with a relatively simple application and participative process was an active driver for some groups to engage with it. However, it also appears that this simplicity of procedure, with minimum supervision and intervention, did not prevent some applicants underestimating the work involved in application, with groups at times misjudging their ability to navigate it with ease and some misjudgements possibly resulting in a lack of success.

More minor factors that encouraged application, within the research sample, were familiarity with organisations involved in the scheme and being advised or encouraged to apply by the funding administrator and other BTP partner organisations, such as the Tree Council and the Forestry Commission. Those that were advised to apply by partner organisations also accessed assistance from them, with species choice, planting design and budgeting of the project being common areas for which these groups accessed support. This is indicative of wider evidence that BTP regularly

27

facilitated the linking of groups with more experienced and knowledgeable organisations that contributed towards the success of their application.

Some groups identified a general lack of funding for the planting of street trees that made BTP an obvious or important choice for financial support of their project.

A small number of respondents were attracted to the scheme because they wanted to be part of a national campaign. In these instances groups appeared to feel that linking their project to the wider BTP scheme would help boost the importance of their planting. This could suggest that BTP was sometimes understood by groups participating within it as having the potential to act as a cultural catalyst, resourcing engagement with tree planting in the same way that Tree Week or the Woodland Trust’s Jubilee planting scheme may behave (as described above).

Table 6: Summary of motivations to plant trees and to take part in BTP

Summary

Motivations to Plant Trees

 Frequently a mixture of motives as tree planting regularly understood to be a multifaceted activity with similarly varied potential benefits

 Often focused upon enacting change at a local level

 Regularly a combination of community and environment focused motivations

 Improving nature conservation value of local environment a common motive

 Enhancing aesthetic value of local area a frequent aspiration

 Broad impulse to increase community pride or spirit through tree planting projects frequently expressed

 Tree planting as route to improving local social or political issues or improving mental and physical well-being amongst residents less frequently articulated as motivation, but central to some projects

 Use of tree planting to increase groups connections and links to local community a common motivation and similarly a wish to raise local profile sometimes described

 Provision of educational resource incentive for some

 Symbolic (marking celebration or commemoration) rationale for some tree planting

28

 Bringing opportunities associated with tree planting to communities in areas of relatively high social or spatial deprivation an important motive for some groups, but projects frequently proposed for localities experiencing less insufficiency

Motivations to Plant Trees via BTP

 Good fit between BTP, the applying group and their plans for tree planting

 Opportunity to apply for significant amount of money

 Application process perceived to be relatively straightforward by some groups

 Less frequently reported motives included familiarity with organisations delivering BTP and encouragement by (and support from) another group

 Chance to fund planting of street trees a motive for some

 Conferring additional legitimacy on tree planting plans an aspiration for some groups

2.3 Ease of application and participation within BTP and challenges and barriers to this

In this section, ease of successful application and participation within BTP is explored, particularly central challenges to this and the strategies with which groups addressed such barriers. This report takes a critical approach to exploring groups’ engagement within the scheme, highlighting potential obstacles in order to both draw attention to the assets and relationships groups drew upon to navigate these, developing understanding of what attributes characterised groups involved in BTP and further, any role of BTP in stimulating increased access to these resources.

During the research unsuccessful groups were asked for the reasons BTP gave for their lack of success. Groups recalled3 them including:

 unit cost per tree too high

 lacking match funding

 proposing planting of inappropriate species

3 One group also felt that their project being in a rural area contributed towards their lack of success, despite not being given this as a reason by BTP.

29

These perceived barriers to success and ways in which more successful groups dealt with them are explored in the first part of this section. The section goes on to detail further challenges to easy participation within BTP and the strategies groups used to address these.

2.3.1 Unit cost per tree Unit cost per tree refers to the average cost per tree being requested from BTP. This is calculated as the amount being requested from BTP (total project cost minus the value of match funding) divided by the number of trees proposed to be planted. The target unit cost per tree was around £4 as the fund had an overall budget of £4 million and the target of planting 1 million trees. The scheme did allow the funding of projects with higher unit costs, but these needed to be balanced out by projects with lower average unit costs.

Stakeholder interviews with members of the Grants Panel, the Forestry Commission’s lead officer on BTP and Groundwork London staff have indicated that achieving a low unit cost per tree has been a key requirement for groups securing BTP funding. By the final rounds of the project, following feedback from applicants, advice and guidance on the need for applicants to achieve an average unit cost per tree of around £4 was available in BTP guidance documents accompanying the application form, via the BTP hotline or from the BTP website. However, for those applying to earlier rounds, this information was less developed and the guidance on unit cost less clear. In particular, advice on this aspect of the scheme has been provided by via the BTP hotline, including recommendations on reducing the unit cost per tree to groups unsure of how to do this. For some, this advice has been received before their proposal development, for others it has been provided once their draft application had been submitted and reviewed.

The most common method suggested to control costs in this area has been to carry out additional planting using cheaper whips. All stakeholders engaged in this research were concerned about the consequences of this method of reducing average cost. One stakeholder commented “So the unintended consequences of that, for example, we recognised, might be a concern. Because if you follow the mantra of 'right tree, right place'.., in that context, if you're telling groups 'go and find some other land to plant some trees on because it might bring the unit costs down, and you might get some government money', you might end up getting the wrong trees in the wrong place”. Another stakeholder reported concerns about the effects on Image courtesy of Leading Link sustainability of planting and community engagement, “… occasionally it meant that they were quite disparate projects, so the bigger bit of planting, the smaller trees [large area of whips], didn't have any connection with the main part of their project, the priority for them [the applicant], which meant that the maintenance possibly wasn't done as well as it could have been, and the community engagement might not have been there.”

Despite some concerns however, unit cost became a pragmatic tool of determining a project’s potential for success or otherwise, it appears. Two stakeholders indicated that when applications

30

were reviewed by the grants panel, they would start by assessing those with a lower unit cost and work up from there. One stakeholder indicated that when applications were reviewed by the grants panel, they would start by assessing those with a lower unit cost and work up from there: reported that “from the cheapest - the unit cost - the cheapest unit cost upwards. So we started [with] trees costing £2 a tree, and then we reached a threshold of £4 a tree. And then we moved on from there.”

Another stakeholder stated “…we had to make the Minister's money go as far as possible, if you like, and to make sure we achieved our target. So a lot of our modelling was based on unit cost…priorities were cost over and above anything else really.” However, it was also the case that some applications with higher unit costs were accepted when they demonstrated positive impacts in other ways. One stakeholder said “…through the panel process, we tried to be flexible where we could to accept some projects with higher unit costs, if they were going to have a massive impact overall. So there was that flexibility built in.”

Stakeholder perceptions were supported by the evidence provided by groups participating within the scheme. An inability to reduce unit cost per tree to an acceptable level (around £4) has been found to be the most common reason for unsuccessful application to BTP for the groups involved in this study.

As well as being a barrier to success for some applicants, the unit cost per tree could also act as barrier to making an application to BTP. Two groups in the study wanting to focus on meeting the need for street trees in their areas found the target average cost dissuaded them from application, believing the funding of large street trees would be too expensive. One of these groups went on to apply after discussions with the Tree Council, with whom they had existing links and were successful in their application. Via an existing relationship with the local council they were able to include a large area of council whip planting as match funding, contributing significantly towards reducing their unit cost to BTP. For the other group this remained a prohibitive aspect of the scheme and their application went no further.

Reducing unit cost per tree was also the area which groups applying to and successfully participating within BTP found most challenging. The research indicates that groups whose projects involved the planting of orchards or street trees were most likely to find this difficult to negotiate, as this type of planting requires more mature trees, which as described above are significantly more expensive than whips. Strategies for reducing average unit cost varied, but as per the advice from BTP the planting of a large area of low cost whips was the most common approach to addressing this challenge. In order to achieve this strategy, groups’ required access to additional land to carry out whip planting and access to such space was frequently facilitated by relationships with local land owners willing to provide such land for the project. For some groups this approach involved drawing upon already established associations, but for others BTP acted as a catalyst for the formation of new relationships providing access to land.

Where groups did not leverage land for additional planting via new and existing social connections, methods of cost reduction were more frequently linked to the reduction of the size or number of more expensive trees and the inclusion of cheaper tree protection. These methods were most commonly reported by small organisations with limited resources in terms of people, money and 31

time. It was felt by a high proportion of the groups that employed this approach to cost reduction that it might have negative impacts both upon the benefits provided to the community and the long term survival of the trees. The most common concern in this area was that less effective tree protection would result in accidental damage by maintenance teams. Others reported scenarios where reducing cost impacted upon outcomes, such as one group focusing on an educational site who planted smaller fruit trees in their orchard area than had been planned. This reduction in tree maturity has been perceived to have resulted in fewer educational benefits for children from the school, as those involved in planting will not see the tree blossom or produce fruit, having left the school by that point. Nevertheless, the group feel current pupils have still benefitted by being engaged in planting and that the trees will go on to provide a valuable resource for future generations of school children.

Some groups used multiple strategies to create a reduction in cost per tree and drew upon various types of social and natural resource in the process. As well as employing the methods discussed above, some small groups also drew on existing social bonds within their communities to access donations of trees. This contributed towards reduced average costs and also acted as a way of engaging local people in projects. An example of how the flexible use of multiple strategies to reduce unit cost per tree was achieved successfully is explored in the case study at the end of this sub-section.

The implications of altering project design to incorporate additional planting in some cases required the use of resources (time and money) spent on negotiating access to additional land and designing the new planting and strategies for achieving it. This was considered a significant burden for some groups, both small and large. Larger groups reported finding this a challenge, but one that they could locate the means to address. However, for smaller groups with more limited resources this extra time/financial burden was considered to be a significant challenge to ease of application and participation within BTP.

Two groups understood they had being advised to aim for a target cost to BTP of £2 per tree, rather than the publicised £4. Both managed to significantly reduce their costs through planting more whips and were successful in securing BTP funding, but neither reached the lower target. One group, acting as an umbrella organisation, returned to the communities they work with to ask if they would be willing to plant more trees than originally planned. This required increased staff involvement in contacting groups and identifying solutions, entailing more budget spent on employees’ time. As a well-established and relatively large organisation they had access to the financial capital to facilitate this. Smaller groups with less financial flexibility needed to resort to different, often social forms of capital.

The planting of additional whips could also lead to additional costs where tree survival rates were not as high as anticipated, with additional finance required to replace a larger amount of failed trees. This had only been an issue for a small number of research participants, but again had created difficulty for some groups with limited financial resources.

Sourcing cheaper planting stock through researching prices at a range of suppliers was another method of achieving a low average unit cost, even where orchard trees were planted. This may 32

demonstrate that low cost stock and planting accessories are potentially available, but that some groups who didn’t employ this strategy were unaware of where to access lower cost sources. This could be due to a reliance on local nurseries rather than wholesale ones located further afield or those that operate by mail order. Accessing cheaper planting stock however, may raise issues surrounding provenance and quality of trees, particularly concerns around plant health.

There were several projects reviewed as part of the research that were successful participants within BTP, despite having a much higher average cost per tree. One of the first groups to apply to the scheme for example, were unaware of a target unit cost and so it did not impact on their application or project (as described above, guidance was less specific in the first round of funding). The group’s representative felt their success, despite this higher cost, was linked to the relevance of their planting of local varieties of orchard trees in a county with a rich orchard heritage. All species planted were locally distinctive types sourced from specialist local nurseries. This group perceived that drawing upon the knowledge resource held within their group (of local tradition) and the resultant cultural relevance of their scheme, had facilitated their successful engagement within the scheme.

Case Study

Group name: Yatton and Congresbury Wildlife Action Group (YACWAG) Location: South West Main focus: To create and maintain nature reserves and further environmental education in their local area. Level of deprivation: Not in 30% most deprived.

Project description: YACWAG secured BTP funding for the planting of 60 trees around the villages of Yatton and Congresbury to mark the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee. These were intended to replace trees lost due to disease and vandalism, as well as planting up recently developed areas lacking trees. A Jubilee wood was also planted at a local primary school.

The aim of the project was to enhance the visual amenity of the area; plant fruit trees to link to the local history of apple orchards and to provide free food in the future; and to provide more opportunities for children to get close to nature.

Planting was carried out primarily by YACWAG volunteers, local residents and school children but local Tree Officers arranged for the planting of trees by contractors in hazardous locations. The responsibility of aftercare was taken on by a ‘Tree Team’ of volunteers, individual landowners, groups and Yatton Parish Council, depending on the location of the trees.

Meeting the challenge of reducing average unit cost: YACWAG employed a range of tactics in attempting to reduce their average unit cost per tree. One approach to balancing project finances was to omit the purchase of strimmer guards for trees, originally intended to avoid accidental damage by council contractors maintaining tree planting sites. This was not a favoured method however, as it was considered by the group to pose a potential risk to the longer term sustainability of planting and other preferred initiatives such as additional whip planting were also used, following 33

advice from Groundwork London. Further land was accessed by the group via building on pre- existing relationships members had with a school and a neighbouring village in order to plant additional numbers of whips. The subsequent geographic expansion of the project enabled more people to become involved in the planting and gain access to the potential benefits of the activity. It also meant that trees were established closer to their community – an additional benefit because “people from Congresbury don’t really want to come and plant trees in the next village…They want to do it in their own village”. In addition, YACWAG drew upon existing social bonds within their community, through sourcing the additional whips for increased planting from group members that had grown them from seed and through tree donations made to the group by local residents. YACWAG can be seen to have drawn on a variety of resources in ensuring the success of their scheme. Working under an easily shared cultural banner of planting to recognise the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee, they were able to use and build upon members’ existing social networks to recruit additional voluntary engagement and natural resources to their project, reducing the potential financial cost of purchasing and planting additional whips.

2.3.2 Match funding The challenge of securing matched funding for their BTP projects appeared to effect the ease with which some groups applied to and participated within the scheme. Those within the research sample who had experienced difficulties were smaller groups with a range of aims and levels of experience at completing applications. As attracting match funding can be a key component in strategies to reduce the unit cost per tree and also in demonstrating support for the project, this can be a significant barrier to successful engagement within the program.

The 2012 BTP Analysis Report (Groundwork London) evidenced that successful applicants had attracted £7m in match funding for £3.4m of BTP grants. Match funding for groups involved in this research came from a variety of sources both cash and in-kind. Cash sources included: groups’ own funds, grants from local authorities, parish councils and non-governmental grant giving bodies and fund-raising activities held specifically to create finance for BTP projects. In-kind sources included donations of time by local professionals, skilled volunteers and groups’ existing employees, as well as material donations of trees and planting accessories.

Groups with existing financial capital which they could contribute towards the project found this aspect of project development easier than those with limited financial resources. A small number of respondents also reported that securing BTP funding enabled them to access match funding from other sources: “...this is where the benefit of the BTP comes in, as soon as you know you’ve got a source of funding it gives you the confidence to be able to make commitments…and you then sort of bring in other funding.” Those with strong social networks and the ability to draw on them to attract donations and skilled volunteers also found achieving higher levels of match funding less challenging.

Utilising linkages to Local Authorities (LAs) has been found to be an important route to sourcing match funding for communities and groups in this study. Many groups planted trees on council land 34

and accessed free or reduced cost professional services from their LA in the planning, planting and aftercare of planting projects which could be used as in-kind match.

Notably, this aspect of the application form appeared to be misunderstood by some applicants, with some omitting in-kind services from the financial part of the application form. This may suggest that increased guidance could be usefully provided to less experienced applicants participating in funding mechanisms such as BTP, helping them identify what types of resource can qualify as ‘match’. Further, whilst most groups recognised match funding as an important part of BTP’s criterion for achieving success, groups across the research sample frequently tended to understand the demonstration of substantial community involvement and plans for long-term care of trees as more significant. The achievement of match was sometimes considered by groups to be a fairly neutral element of BTP grant priorities or even unimportant, whereas community and tree planting goals were never reported as such. This suggests that the role of match funding within projects and its role in achieving a successful application to BTP may have been under appreciated by some participants and that, again, further advice in this area could be valuable to applicants to similar schemes.

Case Study

Group name: Forest of Mercia (FoM) Location: Midlands Main focus: Community forest focused on increasing tree cover and connecting people in urban areas to their local, natural environment. Level of deprivation: not in the 30% most deprived areas in England

Project description: FoM were successful in gaining funding for a variety of planting projects, acting as an umbrella organisation for smaller local groups. Groups they were looking to support included Parish Councils, community groups and Friends of the Forest of Mercia, with the overall aim of increasing tree cover within the community forest area.

About half of the planting took place during National Tree Week, with most planting being carried out by local groups and supervised by FoM’s forestry team. In certain circumstances the forestry team carried out the planting.

FoM offer assistance with carrying out tree aftercare and long term maintenance, but also offered training to enable groups to carry this out themselves.

It was anticipated that the project would create links between groups and FoM that would result in partnership working such as courses and tree related activities.

Meeting the challenge of match funding: FoM achieved a match funding rate of 66% through accessing multiple sources, both cash and in-kind. In-kind support came through their engagement of skilled volunteers from various local community groups, and local councils. They were in the fortuitous position of being hosted by Staffordshire County Council, although not funded by them directly, which enabled them to access a specialist forestry team from the Local Authority to assist

35

with planting and long term maintenance where beneficiary groups felt they wanted or needed assistance.

FoM also contributed a significant amount of in-kind match funding in the form of their staff time to support community-led events to plant trees. In addition, as an umbrella organisation, they provided ongoing support for groups in implementing long-term management plans and tutored groups in sustainable tree care.

This close relationship with the local council also led to cash match funding being secured from Staffordshire County Council’s Adult and Community Learning Service for FoM staff to deliver skills training to local group members to enable them to carry out their own long term tree management.

It is interesting to consider whether the beneficiary groups would have been able to access these cascades of learning and expertise without the facilitation of FoM.

FoM also utilised an existing partnership with Featherstone Prison in South Staffordshire, who grew trees from local seed, some of which were used for the BTP project. All beneficiary groups were given a free copy of the Tree Council’s “The Good Seed Guide” in support of this additional activity.

This Community Forest appears to have drawn successfully on existing associations with and links to organisations possessing significant and complementary human and financial resources to generate match funding. Much of the effect of this match has centred on the movement and sharing of expertise within the network of relationships FoM has created around their BTP project.

2.3.3 Inappropriate species choice This potential challenge to easy application and participation within BTP was only experienced by one group engaged in this research, alongside the need to address a high unit cost. They re- submitted their application with the addition of the planting of whips, which significantly reduced their unit cost per tree, but the original species proposed were retained in the second application which was unsuccessful.

The majority of successful applications consisted of 100% native species in the project proposals, but some projects with an element of non-native species were also successful. All applicants in this study had ensured the appropriateness of their planting proposals to some degree. However, some considered appropriateness to be the species that were wanted by the local community, rather than assessing the suitability of species for the specific site/s.

Advice on the suitability of species for sites was accessed by groups in a variety of ways. Groups planting orchards Image courtesy of Birmingham Trees for Life sometimes relied on the suppliers of orchard trees to 36

provide guidance on the appropriate local and specialist varieties. This was usually sought through forming new connections with local suppliers and the knowledge resource they provided was considered by a few groups within the research sample to be beneficial to their successful participation within BTP, particularly the long-term success of their project. One respondent, for example, reported that despite having significant knowledge of trees himself, his group chose to source advice on fruit tree species selection from a local specialist nursery to ensure “...the right rootstock and the correct tree for the area we were planting and also to ensure that they would pollinate themselves”. Further, it was felt that not accessing this advice “…would have had a detrimental effect on the legacy of the project”.

Local council Tree Officers were frequently cited as involved in choosing species of street trees, if only to approve choices already made by the BTP groups and local residents. BTP groups in this study regularly utilised these members of their local authority in this capacity and others.

2.4 Participation within BTP: further tactics for successfully meeting challenges and barriers in application to and compliance with scheme

This section explores further challenges respondents identified to their ease of application and participation within BTP. Some groups appear to have found the entire process, particularly application, straightforward to understand and did not encounter barriers in engaging the community, with their scheme or in developing their project. The different aspects of engagement within BTP’s processes of application and compliance and the ways in which applicants overcame complexity or obstacles within these are discussed immediately below, all of which can be reviewed in relation to the intended reduction of bureaucracy in its delivery.

2.4.1 Making appropriate financial arrangements The ability to make appropriate financial arrangements to cover the costs of BTP projects before receiving the funds and requiring the capacity to manage BTP funds were described by one group within the study sample as a barrier to application. Research with umbrella organisations however, undertaking application to BTP in order to facilitate other beneficiaries participating within the scheme, indicates that they also believed that smaller communities and groups would not have been able to accommodate the financial arrangements associated with the scheme.

It is important to note that BTP did allow the payment of funds into a nominated account where the group did not have their own bank account and the application form also provided the option of requesting some funds in advance of tree planting for groups with limited financial resources. Both of these options were accessed by a small number of groups in this study, opportunities which were significant in enabling them to benefit from BTP.

37

Case Study

Group name: Tree Officer (did not give permission to be identified) Location: South West Main focus: to increase tree cover and manage existing trees within the local area Level of deprivation: not known

Project description: A Tree Officer enquired to BTP on behalf of a group of Tree Wardens. Wardens wished to plant trees at various sites around their district at locations they already had identified as appropriate for tree planting. BTP had been seen as an opportunity to help them further their aims of increasing tree cover in their district.

The challenge of making appropriate financial arrangements: The Tree Officer reported that the financial requirements of the application were perceived to be too onerous for individual Tree Wardens to take on and hence no application was made.

Whilst Tree Wardens in the area had accessed funding for planting in the past, these were usually small amounts and it was understood that a large project would require financial management above their level of experience. In addition it was believed that creating bank accounts for the Tree Wardens to use for receipt of BTP funds would be burdensome (although BTP do not require that the applying group has its own bank account). In the past this group frequently used Woodland Trust tree packs as a source of trees, but funds for the planting of individual trees, rather than woodland planting, were felt to be infrequently available, so there was disappointment when they felt unable to benefit from BTP.

2.4.2 Meeting BTP application deadlines Meeting BTP application deadlines was felt to impact on ease of participation with BTP by one group participating within the research. This umbrella organisation felt that the deadline for application was too close to the planting season, resulting in little time to prepare for planting and deal with individual delays and problems within their beneficiary groups, once funding is approved. This issue was not raised widely however.

2.4.3 Communicating with BTP and accessing advice The majority of groups described communication routes with BTP and the receipt of advice from the scheme positively, commonly identifying in particular that the BTP hotline had been helpful in answering concerns and addressing confusion when it occurred. For these participants within the scheme advice on their application to the process, for example, had been easy to access.

However, a small number of respondents found communicating with BTP difficult to some degree, leading to frustration and uncertainty in some cases. One group for example reported difficulty in getting advice through the hotline number which was particularly frustrating for them in light of trying to meet BTP deadlines. All those experiencing difficulties were small groups, with three of 38

them applying for their own project and two acting as umbrella organisations. All apart from one of these groups also reported difficulties accessing advice on how their project could be developed to meet BTP criteria. Of those citing access to advice from BTP as challenging their participation, all again were small groups either applying for their own project or acting as an umbrella organisation on behalf of multiple beneficiaries.

2.4.4 Understanding the application process and form Most groups did report that understanding the BTP application process and application form affected their ease of participation within the scheme. Those recounting challenges in this area also sometimes found understanding BTP priorities demanding. These were mostly smaller groups, but difficulties were faced by a broad range of applicants.

Applicants suggested that some of this challenge was related to understanding the target unit cost per tree. One group, for example, found that the way in which the average cost per tree is calculated to be unclear, but also struggled with various aspects of the application guidance. They advised that improved clarity regarding cost per tree would make it easier for applicants to understand how their application would be processed. As previously described, a review of the application forms also suggested that whilst respondents did not frequently report understanding how to identify and describe match funding as an issue within the application process, this also appeared to be an area which was not always interpreted effectively.

These types of challenge were experienced by a range of groups, but larger umbrella organisations seemed to face fewer issues with both navigating the application process and in communicating with BTP. This could be linked with a greater level of experience in applying for funding, as well as higher levels of access to expertise and resources held within their organisation, resulting in less advice being sought from BTP. In particular, small groups with little or no experience of applying for funding for this type of project, appeared not to be fully aware of what qualified as in-kind match funding or how it contributed towards reducing the average cost per tree.

2.5 Local Community engagement

This section explores the way in which local community engagement has taken place within the BTP projects, both at the application stage and during participation in BTP, including resources and strategies that allowed groups to successfully overcome challenges and barriers to such engagement.

A variety of methods of community engagement in both project development and delivery were evidenced in the application form review. Most BTP applicants within the research sample engaged communities in some form of consultation about the project and all engaged communities in planting.

2.5.1 Project development: Consultation and gaining support Some applicants had access to existing consultation documents which indicated that their project was needed, and would be supported by the local community. These included village plans and a

39

variety of community surveys, including some consulting on the wider activities of the applying group and some that had been carried out for planning applications to develop specific areas.

Access to these types of document, recording collective ideas and ideals and ranging in formality, equipped groups with a view of what their community wanted and reduced the need to find and access other resources (human and financial) in exploring this whilst developing their project. It also acted as evidence of need and community support in their application to BTP.

Others carried out consultation and got community support directly in relation to their BTP project via a number of methods. Door to door consultation was employed by some groups, potentially providing local residents the opportunity to support or object to plans and make their opinions on issues such as species choice and planting locations known.

Petitions were used by a small number of groups to gain local support for their project and several groups held a stall at village events to promote their project and discuss concerns and ideas with community members. One group used this opportunity to gain sponsorship from local community members and organisations for their trees to help fund longer-term maintenance costs.

Applying groups within the research sample tended to draw on existing consultative exercises or carry out community consultation themselves, but a small number of groups drew on links with larger organisations to gain help with carrying out this aspect of project development. Local Council Tree Officers were a frequently accessed source of assistance for these groups where street tree planting was taking place, but some groups accessed support in other areas. Again, this potentially reduced time, knowledge and money pressures on applying groups and also helped attract community engagement where the larger organisation had a greater profile within the community.

Consultation specifically for BTP projects may have acted to ensure that projects delivered were wanted by the target communities, but could also serve as a mechanism for increasing a group’s profile within the community and their potential volunteer resource for both tree planting and aftercare.

40

Case Study

Group name: Plymouth Tree Partnership (PTP) Location: South West Main focus: conserving and improving trees in the city of Plymouth Level of deprivation: planting sites are in the 30% most socially and green space deprived areas in England

Project description: PTP acted as an umbrella organisation responding to requests from groups of people, residents and individuals wanting trees planted in their area. These were primarily semi- mature trees in streets, parks and other public places but some planting of whips took place around sports pitches and community greens.

The aim of the planting was to help residents and community groups to improve their local area; to create a sense of community ownership; create higher quality tree cover and improve the visual amenity of the city.

One planting site within their project has been subject to an isolated incidence of vandalism. The damaged trees are likely to grow stunted and fail to provide the desired amenity value. At the time of this study plans have been made to prune the affected trees to the best of their ability and decide on a potential re-stocking programme following further discussions between the BTP panel and the PTP.

Meeting the challenge of public consultation and gaining support during project development: Public consultation was felt to be an important part of their project development and a corresponding amount of effort was put into this area to ensure that the trees being planted were wanted by the local communities and that the right species and locations were selected. Once requests had been received for trees in a certain area the PTP wrote to each householder in the places where tree planting was planned to gauge support and opposition and to collect requests for certain species and locations. This was then followed up with another letter inviting these residents to a planning session, where canes were positioned to indicate where trees would be and the community could comment on placement and make amendments to plans. Trees were only planted where at least one member of the community agreed to take on the long term care of the trees. Some engaged residents became Tree Wardens to serve this purpose. The PTP feel their consultation activities acted to ensure planting was appropriate for local residents' needs, fostered a sense of community ownership, and also gained them volunteers to plant and look after the new trees.

2.5.2 Community engagement in Project delivery All groups engaged in this research proposed that planting be carried out at least in part by community members, whether by local residents or communities of interest. There was only one project where community involvement in planting was not seen as possible and this may have

41

contributed to the lack of success of this application, coupled with a high average unit cost. This group had wanted to include the community in planting, but the project’s design for tree planting in a busy street environment resulted in the local highways authority requiring that contractors were used in this capacity. Subsequently, it had been hoped that the community would still take an interest in the planting and go along to watch. A conflict between community engagement in tree planting and safety concerns was an issue for a small number of groups that were undertaking street planting, but most of these applicants identified other opportunities for community led planting and built them into their project.

Most groups appear to have used a variety of methods to try and engage the local community in project delivery. Within the research sample, the use of promotional material to recruit volunteers was the most common means employed. A range of promotional material was produced including posters for display in well-used or prominent places within appropriate neighbourhoods, articles in local newspapers, magazines and newsletters, and on village and project Image courtesy of Birmingham Trees websites. for Life

Accessing existing volunteers directly from established local environmental/community organisations, was found to be an almost equally common strategy. These included engaging voluntary support from residents’ associations, ‘friends of’ groups and other local community groups. For some BTP participants this recruitment took place via existing social connections, whereas for others BTP facilitated the forming of new bridges with similar organisations, and links to groups with greater volunteer resources than the applying group. Some respondents anticipated that these new associations will be built on in the future through collaboration on future projects.

Fostering a sense of community ownership was considered an important strategy for engaging community members with project delivery. Groups suggested this could be achieved by involving communities in the consultation and development stage to provide them with a sense that planting was being done on their behalf. Another method of growing community ownership of projects was to offer a financial stake in the scheme via sponsorship opportunities. This approach also contributed towards match funding and in securing finance for the longer term maintenance of trees. Engaging the community in after care of the trees was another frequently employed means of stimulating a sense of local guardianship of new plantings and spaces. Some groups did this through stipulating that areas could only have new trees if a group or individual would agree to take on the aftercare requirements. Responding to requests for trees in certain areas was felt to ease the difficulty of securing long term aftercare, as the anticipated sense of local ownership might ensure long-term community participation in the project.

Offering a variety of ways for people to get involved was felt to be an important route to engaging local volunteers, as well as organising work parties at times suitable for the community. This recognition of the importance of differentiating approaches perhaps demonstrates that making

42

efforts to ensure that the most people possible could be involved was frequently important to groups.

Offering training as a method of engaging the community in project delivery was a strategy employed by some within the research sample. This had the potential to provide a skilled resource at planting events and, again, to provide those receiving training with a greater sense of involvement and engagement within the project.

Making direct contact with representatives from local organisations, institutions and groups was a method of engagement used by some groups within the sample. This regularly involved letters being sent to schools and local groups to invite them to take part and was considered by its users to be a successful approach. BTP groups formed new connections with other local associations or bodies to engage them in the project. This technique was frequently employed by umbrella organisations to invite others to take part in designing planting schemes in their area and by groups that wished to involve school and youth groups in planting.

Inviting prominent people to planting events was also a Image courtesy of Forestry Commission strategy used by some to encourage greater engagement. Local council members, well respected forestry professionals and even royalty were mentioned as attending. Groups felt that links between these people and the BTP projects increased the respectability and perhaps the legitimacy of their events, acting to attract more participants.

Several factors may have contributed to the consideration many BTP projects within the research sample gave to local consultation and the engagement of communities within project delivery. For some the commonly perceived need to identify community support and involvement or routes toward it, in order to meet BTP’s priorities, may have acted as a driver. For others the need to access voluntary resources for planting and long-term care in order to reduce costs under their BTP proposal may have also acted as a motivation. However, the recurrent identification by BTP groups of a relationship between local ‘ownership’ of the trees and spaces they wished to create and their long-term thriving, also appeared motivational in the creation of a diverse range of community engagement opportunities. Some groups seemed to rely more on existing social bonds, local networks and established visions to capture such involvement, whilst others forged new links and associations in order to meet this need.

Case Study

Group name: Long Buckby Green Space Group (LBGSG) Location: Midlands Main focus: developing and managing a 9 acre area of land to form a park and wildlife area for conservation purposes and for use by the local community as a recreational and educational resource

43

Level of deprivation: not in the 30% most deprived areas in England

Project description: LBGSG successfully secured BTP funding to plant an area of native trees to increase tree cover in the parish and to establish a community orchard. The orchard has been planted with a range of fruit species of local provenance in the hope that the community will harvest free food in the future.

Meeting the challenge of engaging the community in project delivery: Community engagement appeared to be at the heart of their project, both in terms of an understanding of its anticipated benefits, as well as meeting the need to secure local involvement in the project. In their application LBGSG stated “We envisage expanding our group and involving other local organisations such as schools and uniformed groups, and Long Buckby Gardening Club, in the planting, care and enjoyment of these trees.”

LBGSG provide an example of how their existing connections with individuals and groups were used to achieve a successful project with high community involvement and how the requirements of their BTP project sometimes catalysed new opportunities to gain wider community support. The group carried out extensive community consultation and offered a wide range of ways for volunteers to get engaged in project delivery including, involving existing volunteers, approaching established connections in local youth and community groups for participation, advertising for voluntary engagement via local media and running events with “the intention that these activities will raise interest in the project and encourage participation”.

The group’s opportunistic and effective use (and enhancement) of their social networks to gain wider community involvement and financial support in the form of individual tree sponsorship is interesting to explore. One group member used their longstanding involvement in the ‘Buckby Feast’ - a village celebration and fundraising event – as an opportunity to promote their BTP project and achieve their first list of tree sponsors. Similar established social bonds were drawn upon to stage a display at a local jumble sale, again successfully promoting the sponsorship of their trees. At this event LBGSG were approached by an individual willing to create a website for the community orchard aspect of the project which in turn attracted a great number of sponsors for these trees.

A planned planting day, postponed a few times due to bad weather, resulted in the need to repeatedly publicise its rescheduling which LBGSG believe resulted in greater awareness of the project within the community. By the time the planting day happened they had gained enough sponsors from local community members and groups to cover the costs of protection and weed matting for all the trees and thus were able to plant more than originally intended. Some of these sponsors were also keen to carry out long term maintenance of the trees in order to maintain their involvement, for as LBGSG reported, they “want to continue the link”.

44

2.5.3 Challenges in community engagement Within the research sample, approximately half of respondents felt they hadn’t encountered any barriers to engaging people or groups within their projects and fed back on the active desire of communities to become involved.

Groups with a tree, or environmentally focused aim were more likely than community focused groups to find engaging the community in project development or project delivery challenging, with a small proportion facing problems with either stage. This may be due to community focused groups having greater existing connections with their target community, an established reputation of serving the communities’ needs and wants, existing experience in community engagement or a combination of these resources.

A perceived lack of understanding of the importance of trees appeared to be one of the most commonly identified difficulties groups felt they were encountering in involving communities with project development. Interestingly, this issue only persisted into project delivery for a small number of groups, perhaps indicating that communities are more easily engaged in the actual planting of trees than with other aspects of BTP participation, such as project planning. In some instances it might demonstrate that this perceived lack of understanding was overcome during the project’s initiation.

A number of applicants also found difficulty in engaging people in project development who weren’t already volunteering elsewhere and some similarly experienced this issue in recruiting volunteers to project delivery. This was one of few areas of generating local and voluntary action with which community focused groups had struggled. A reliance on existing connections and volunteer resource could place projects at risk of encountering ‘volunteer fatigue’ where the energy (and contribution) of those already participating in civil society elsewhere or to a high degree within the project, could decline. For some the solution for attracting new volunteer resource was to identify the project’s particular appeal and search for the appropriate audience. One group reported “…it was mainly just finding a way to inspire community and/or reach the appropriate person in the local community that was interested in taking forward such a project. Once “hooked” the local community reps were usually very enthusiastic”.

An issue less frequently reported as challenging the engagement of communities was competing demands being made on individuals’ time by already busy lifestyles. This difficulty was reported slightly more frequently at the project delivery stage.

Methods to engage specific groups within the community, perceived unlikely to volunteer within such a project without an outreach effort being made, were employed by three groups within the research sample. One involved young offenders in their project delivery, another engaged volunteers through the local job centre. This approach was felt to have the additional benefit of increasing the skills and employability of such participants.

45

Table 7: Challenges faced by BTP participants in engaging communities in project development and delivery (n=23 answering question at survey stage of research).

Challenge to community Project Development (n = 23) Project Delivery (n = 23) engagement

A lack of understanding of the 7 4 importance of trees

Engaging those that aren’t already 7 5 engaged in volunteering

Project located in an area of high 2 2 deprivation

Target community socially isolated 3 3

Time demands on an already busy 2 4 community

Lack of resources or experience to 2 2 meet community needs and project aims

Negative perceptions of street trees 2 2 present within community

Other issues a priority for 3 2 community

Existing lack of trees in area 2 -

46

Table 8: Summary of challenges and barriers to successful application.

Summary

Factors effecting Who for? Strategies and resources enabling successful ease of application and participation within BTP application and participation within BTP

Unit cost per tree Groups planting orchards Increasing whip planting and larger trees, including street trees Accessing more land for increased whip planting Wide variety of applicants – large to small Reducing the maturity/number of expensive organisations trees

Smaller groups, with less Reducing quality and cost of tree protection access to land Re-using tree planting resources such as mesh and stakes

Engaging wider communities to plant increased numbers of whips

Receiving donations of whips from local community and engaging community based growers

Paying staff to spend more time achieving solutions and managing implications of reducing cost per tree through whip planting

Identifying lower cost suppliers of trees

Identifying sources of free trees with additional benefits of local provenance

Using match funding to cover some of the cost of trees

47

Match Funding Small groups with a Finding match with group’s existing funds (direct and in variety of resources and kind) experiences Achieving Grants from local authorities

Possibly Achieving Grants from parish councils underappreciated as a Achieving Grants from non-governmental grant factor in successful giving bodies application by a variety of groups with a range of (grants sometimes leveraged through resources successful securing of BTP funds)

Raising capital through BTP specific fund- raising activities

Receiving donations of time by local professionals

Accepting donations of time by local skilled volunteers

Receiving donations of time by group’s existing employees

Achieving donations of trees

Receiving donations of planting accessories

Appropriate Accessing advice from specialist tree suppliers species selection Receiving guidance from Local Authority Tree Officers

BTP application Primarily smaller Using BTP to fund one element of a larger process organisations and project with wider resources already in place projects Accessing local sources of advice and support

Receiving support from the BTP hotline

Larger organisations accessing internal resources and knowledge

Entering the project under an umbrella organisation

48

Engaging the A range of groups Implementing existing community plans and community in visions achieved via previous consultation project design Environmental or tree focused groups Door to door consultation on preferences and concerns

Consultation by letter to residents in planting areas

Planning sessions where tree planting is mapped and discussed

Petitioning local residents to gain support for proposed design

Having a presence at local events

Accessing support in carrying out consultation from local authorities and third-sector organisations

Engaging the A range of groups Recruitment of volunteers via local publicity community in project delivery Environmental or tree Recruiting existing volunteers from local focused groups community and environmental groups

Some community focused Fostering local ownership of project via: groups comprehensive consultation & involvement in Those facing practical development of project; barriers such as bad weather offering a financial stake in project via sponsorship

engaging volunteers in aftercare of trees

meeting established local demand

for new trees in particular sites

Offering multiple opportunities for engagement

Offering convenient opportunities for engagement

49

Targeting opportunities towards potentially disengaged members of the community

Providing opportunities to gain skills

Making direct contact with local organisations, institutions and groups to recruit volunteers

Recruiting prominent local figures to project events

Identifying the correct inspiration or ‘hook’ for involvement

Repeated publicity

2.6 Research on two significant strategies for successful participation within BTP

Two significant routes to achieving a successful BTP application are explored in more detail below.

2.6.1 Accessing External Support and Experience Within this study, both employing existing social networks and links and forming new relationships to enable access to external support, knowledge and experience with project development and delivery, were found to be important facilitators of success. Most BTP applicants taking part in the survey stage of this research had accessed formal external support in the form of advice or professional services. Areas in which applicants most commonly sought such support were budgeting of the project, species choice and planting design.

Respondents reported that many enquiries about budgeting were related to the target average unit cost per tree and that Groundwork London were the most accessed source of information on this topic. Support with species choice and design was commonly accessed from suppliers of trees, landscape architects and council Tree Officers. This indicates that successful groups were able to identify and access sources of advice in areas that the BTP hotline was unable/not intended to assist. Notably support from sources other than BTP guidance or the hotline were perceived to be more helpful in developing a project that was going to be of most benefit to the community.

Areas in which support was sought other than budgeting, species choice and design, in order of commonality were: securing match funding, after care and maintenance of trees, application form writing, community involvement, creating long term benefits for the community, community consultation, correct location of trees, and project management.

50

Some BTP participants accessed support when first hearing of the scheme, before developing a project proposal. The fund administrators were the most commonly accessed source of advice by these groups, with council Tree Officers also being an important source. Advice from Groundwork London via the BTP hotline was reported by the majority of respondents as being critical in securing the best chance of future success.

A higher proportion accessed external support after developing a project, but prior to submitting a draft in order to develop it further and demonstrate its fit with BTP priorities. At this stage Local authority Tree Officers appear to be the most commonly accessed source of support, with the fund administrators also remaining important. Other sources of support were tree focused or environmental third sector organisations such as the Tree Council (including previous applicants to BTP) and forestry or tree professionals. Other participants also reported identifying relevant information and advice via internet searches.

Applicants engaged in a group without a specific tree focus were most likely to seek advice on species choice and planting design. For example, the design for a local amenity group’s planting was created by a landscape architect as part of a larger project, of which their BTP project forms part. This group feel the spend on employing a professional has been justified, as having detailed specifications has resulted in lower costs on earthworks. The plan consisted of planting details including spacing, location and species choice. Due to the group’s lack of experience in this area this support was felt to be an important element of the success of their project.

Groups with a tree focus were less likely to access advice on species choice. However, due to the location of planting, some groups still consulted with local council Tree Officers for approval for their plans.

Some groups with considerable existing knowledge and experience still accessed further advice in particular areas. Groups who perceived themselves as having an appropriate level of experience in writing funding applications and running projects sought advice regarding more defined and specific areas characteristic to their particular project. This is perhaps why advice on species choice and design are more frequently sought by these groups, than other aspects of project development, as these issues are site specific.

Local Authorities were a well-used source of support, particularly where groups had established links with them. Parish Councils and larger umbrella organisations were found most likely to have such existing relationships available to draw upon. Tree Officers, as described, were of particular assistance and were mentioned by a large number of groups as being important in determining appropriate species choice, planting location and assisting with utilities checks for street tree planting elements.

Pre-existing links with other organisations played an important role for many BTP participants in allowing them to access support easily. This included a wide variety of support from the provision of volunteers, advice on planting design, planting methods and provision of training information to provide to groups.

51

Other less commonly accessed sources of expertise were also key in the success of particular groups. The formation of associations with similar groups carrying out similar projects, enabling the applying group to learn from the experiences of their peers, was an important resource for a small number of groups within this study. Some groups were referred to past BTP applicants for advice by Groundwork London, whereas others were referred to similar non-BTP projects by other sources of advice that they had accessed. For example, one group sought support from a regional orchard project that provided advice and knowledge and also referred them to other community orchard projects so that they could share information and learn from each other’s experiences. This type of support was perceived to have ensured the effectiveness of their project and to have helped the group to sell the project in a more informed way in their BTP application. For certain groups lacking knowledge or experience, this facilitation of bridge building between themselves and other projects with applicable understanding, eased their participation within the scheme.

Developing new connections with suppliers of trees has been of particular use to those groups wishing to plant fruit trees. In all cases where suppliers have been engaged in decisions, they have been given the responsibility of choosing appropriate species and advising on planting design.

Other sources noted by a small number of groups were knowledgeable or skilled local people, some professionals in landscape architecture or tree surgery, others keen amateurs with many years experience of gardening and other green space management. These individuals could be very significant suppliers of expertise and practical assistance for groups able to access this type of resource within their community networks. As well as assisting project development, they were also commonly involved in the project in a longer term capacity, providing future assurance that the projects will continue with appropriate support if and when needed.

Some groups sought a considerable amount of support from multiple and various sources, particularly where groups were aware that they lacked the expertise to be sure their project would be carried out effectively and appropriately. This was particularly the case with fruit tree and orchard plantings where the planting arrangement, species choice and long term management are of particular importance to the survival of the trees and success of producing fruit. Groups that accessed several sources of information frequently took advantage of networks of people and organisations that could refer them on to appropriate sources for different aspects of guidance.

It appears that the majority of groups accessing little or no external support held significant internal knowledge and skills. These groups perceived their existing knowledge and skills resource to have been essential to the success of their projects. Only two groups who reported not accessing any external assistance at all were successful in their BTP participation. One was a well-established organisation with internal applicable knowledge located in their forestry team, a community liaison officer and experience of fund raising. The other group were unsuccessful applicants, reportedly due to offering low value for money and a lack of street trees in their proposal.

Applicants were asked whether any additional support would have been of benefit to them, and if so, what kind? Many successful applicants felt they were able to access all the support they required and didn’t feel that further assistance would have improved the success of their participation within BTP. This perhaps demonstrates that often, appropriate support was available 52

where needed and that these groups possessed the appropriate skills, knowledge and networks to access those sources or could be successfully directed to them by others.

A small number of BTP projects, however, identified areas in which they felt they would have benefitted from further advice and assistance. Three felt that further support from the fund administrators in developing their project would have been helpful. Further support with community engagement would have been of benefit to some groups, with small numbers of applicants feeling that they would have been more successful, or found the project easier, if they had received more assistance in promoting their project through special interest and community networks and in seeking community engagement expertise. One group for example thought providing a ‘what worked for others in engaging the community’ in the application guidance would have been helpful inspiration. Another felt they would have benefitted from assistance with facilitating Q&A sessions with the local community and in accessing information on tree aftercare. These participants in BTP perhaps represent those projects who were unable to access external experience and expertise in areas they lacked knowledge of themselves and who were not successfully signposted to where such resources might lie.

A small number of applicants felt that they would have benefitted from further support in the project delivery stage. One umbrella organisation with significant experience of running planting projects felt that they would have appreciated assistance - “I would suggest that to run a project on the scale of [our] project, with at least 14 sites being planted per season, it is necessary to have a person in place specifically to work with local community groups, schools etc., to engage them in tree planting, otherwise it is too time consuming for the person who is co-ordinating the whole project to achieve.” Although able to successfully deliver their project with the resources they possess, they were not able to meet the needs of their scheme as fully as they would have liked, relying upon the human and financial resource supplied by their organisation.

Further specific types of external aid respondents identified as potentially beneficial to their participation within BTP included: assistance with the promotion of volunteering opportunities through the BTP website and networks; promotion of volunteering opportunities through access to special interest groups and community networks; support with seeking community engagement expertise from existing organisations local to them; and similarly facilitation of support from local bodies for their project development. Though many schemes felt able to identify and receive external advice and support for their project, the varied particularities of each scheme perhaps suggest that it would be possible for this assistance to be augmented.

53

Case Study

Group name: Vision Redbridge Culture and Leisure Location: SE & London Main focus: the management of Local Authority leisure facilities within Redbridge including parks and open spaces Level of deprivation: not in the 30% most deprived areas in England

Project description: Working closely with Trees for Cities (TfC), Vision Redbridge were successful in securing BTP funding for a large project focused on the improvement of a recreational park through planting 1500 whips to create a woodland. Their aim was to “improve the biodiversity value of the park providing much needed age and structural diversity within the Redbridge tree population”. Planting was focused on a damp area close to a river which was ideal for a wet woodland, a priority habitat in the London Biodiversity Action Plan.

The majority of the planting was undertaken by various local groups including schools, corporate volunteers and a community planting day was held to involve members of the public. This was supervised by Vision Redbridge and TfC staff. However, due to misunderstandings with match funding the group ended up planting twice as many trees as originally planned so ended up employing contractors to do the final stages of the planting before the end of the planting season.

Accessing external support and experience as a strategy for success: Vision Redbridge used to be part of the local council and continue to work very closely with them on green space projects, so already hold considerable relevant knowledge and experience. However, they also chose to work with TfC on their BTP project, building on an existing partnership and benefiting from TfC’s extensive experience of tree planting projects. The group felt they relied on TfC quite substantially throughout the application process and project delivery. They assisted the group in multiple ways: securing match funding on their behalf; providing access to tree specialists and landscape architects; supplying volunteers; and carrying out consultation activities. TfC were considered to be the driving force behind the project, and the group believe they would not have achieved such a large scheme without their support.

2.6.2 Role of umbrella organisations The research suggests that umbrella organisations played an important role in enabling small, inexperienced groups, with a lack of financial, social and human capital and/or those with small planting projects, to access BTP funding. The review of application data demonstrated that groups applying directly to BTP with small tree planting projects (fewer than 50 trees) were unlikely to be successful. The quality of the data in the applications of these type of project perhaps tended to be less well developed than that of the most successful applications, with less detail provided and a more informal writing style, possibly suggesting that these groups were less experienced at applying for such funding.

54

Significantly all umbrella organisations taking part in this research felt their beneficiary communities would not have applied to BTP directly due to the small size of their groups and proposals and/or being unable to cope with the burden of financing planting before receiving funding. Umbrella organisations within the research sample suggested that the type of groups they apply on behalf of, in the most part, lack the assets, resources and capacity to apply for this type of funding directly. Additionally, it was perceived that the very small scale of some of their beneficiaries preferred schemes would not have felt like a worthwhile exchange, in terms of the resources (particularly time and finance) such groups Image courtesy of Plymouth Tree would have to locate to participate successfully. Partnership

One umbrella organisation specifically asked their beneficiaries if they would have applied directly to BTP. All reported that they wouldn’t have, the feedback being “They’re too small and it’s the paperwork and the administration time.”

All participants in interviews that were non-umbrella organisations were asked if they felt that they might have accessed the assistance of an umbrella organisation if the opportunity had arisen. With the exception of one group, all felt they would definitely have considered such an option depending on how much it would have reduced their BTP associated work load and that they hadn’t been aware that this kind of opportunity existed. It was considered by some groups that despite successfully navigating the application process, they had found it time consuming and resource intensive and would have appreciated assistance where possible. One group reported being aware of other small groups that had struggled to understand the financial aspect of the application and believed that this had dissuaded some from applying. These are the types of groups this respondent felt could potentially benefit from having access to the resources of an umbrella group.

By contrast however, one applicant group felt very strongly that they would not have used an umbrella group, even if the opportunity had presented itself. This group had coped particularly well with the application process and with developing their project, accessing a lot of internal experience and knowledge. They reported feeling that there are too many such organisations redistributing grants, perceiving the result of this to be that less funding reaches the grass roots organisations than should.

The significance of this particular route to participation within BTP can also be explored by looking at the levels of social deprivation associated with the communities where projects were located, across the research sample. All but one of the projects focused upon communities living in areas identified as the most socially deprived 20% in England were applied for by umbrella organisations, on behalf of beneficiaries. Non-umbrella groups in the sample also carried out projects in areas of relative social deprivation, but these were amongst the most socially deprived 30% in England or less socially deprived than this.

55

It appears to be the case that, within the research sample at least, umbrella organisations provided a significant mechanism of enabling projects associated with communities experiencing the highest levels of social deprivation to participate within BTP. It is these groups that such organisations identify as lacking the assets and routes to achieving them, necessary for the kind of flexible, multifaceted strategies best employed for successful participation within the scheme. The wider validity of this evidence is perhaps corroborated in BTP’s adaptable use of social deprivation as a determining factor in deciding eligibility of applications. As stated above, some flexibility in interpreting this criterion was exercised in order to achieve the scheme’s targets. This could be correlated with limited applications being made from areas of high social deprivation, where potential projects may have lacked the resources and social networks appropriate to participation.

These connections within the research sample were not, however, consistent for green spaced deprived areas, with applications from these locations distributed more evenly between umbrella and non-umbrella organisations and groups.

Case Study

Group name: Trees for Cities (TfC) Location: London based, but with projects in London and nationally Main focus: creation of community cohesion through tree planting and management in urban locations around England and globally and to inspire others to plant trees Level of deprivation: projects carried out largely in areas amongst the 30% most deprived in England

Project description: TfC were successful in securing BTP funding for three large projects, one based in London and the other two based in cities around England. They work closely with project partners and community members to deliver a range of projects in these areas, targeting the most deprived areas in the cities.

The aim of their planting projects was to work with people that would not otherwise access tree planting schemes, and to enable them to make visible improvements to their local environment. These projects are used to “grow stronger neighbourhoods, enhance urban landscapes and improve health and happiness for city residents.”

The role of umbrella organisations as a strategy for success: TfC were able to allow communities to benefit from BTP funding and assist with the development and delivery of tree planting projects. They provide a wide range of support and resources to beneficiary community groups where needed, including running community consultation activities; designing planting plans; securing landowner permission and maintenance agreements; engaging volunteers; providing appropriate training; and facilitating the formation of new bonds between mutually beneficial groups and networks.

So, for example, a beneficiary project South Park User Group accessing BTP funding via TfC, reported having a very good experience of building a new relationship with TfC through the umbrella- beneficiary relationship and working closely with them to achieve their tree planting aims. A small informal group in a deprived area, they described themselves as having neither the experience nor 56

the financial capital and social networks through which to access resources that might enable them to carry out such successful planting independently. Though they had worked with TfC on a proposal to secure lottery funding, this was unsuccessful and their project was funded solely by TfC’s BTP project (who drew in and secured match for the funding). TfC supported the group in a multitude of ways including: assisting with community consultation; species choice and planting design; engaging volunteers; organising and publicising tree planting events; and taking on a proportion of tree aftercare. The group suggested that although they may have eventually found alternative funding to plant trees, the resultant project would not have been as successful and would have been unlikely to have achieved the extent of community engagement and support that their TfC supported BTP work has.

A case study of how Vision Redbridge & Culture benefited from assistance from TfC to enable them to apply to BTP directly is on page 54.

2.6.3 Conclusions The perception by participants within BTP of tree-planting as an activity associated with multiple resulting community and environmental goods was notable within this research. Motivations for engaging in tree planting were broad and varied in recognition of groups’ frequent understanding that a variety of benefits to locality and community could be achieved via involvement within it. Though groups sometimes found their engagement of local people in developing and delivering their project challenged by a perceived lack of understanding or valuation of urban forestry and trees, they by contrast appeared to have compelling interpretations of the worth and importance of such endeavours.

Successful groups within the research sample were frequently able to employ BTP as a route to achieving established aspirations and plans in these areas. In particular, funding different types of planting and approaches over a wide budget range has made BTP a valuable resource that is reportedly lacking in funding to this sector. Retaining this flexibility in future schemes would be of benefit to many groups wanting to plant trees. However, it is notable that BTP was perhaps not an easily accessible route to tree planting for smaller groups with little existing experience and skills within this area or resources to access these externally, which may have limited the number of applications from groups with smaller scale planting proposals who had not entered this or similar spheres of activity previously.

Whilst many groups possessed a good understanding of BTP’s priorities for application and participation and how to try and meet them, certain areas of involvement presented more challenges than others. In particular, the need to keep the cost to BTP of trees at a particular level tested ease of participation for a range of groups, but tended to be best addressed by those with a range of internal and externally accessible resources that could be relatively creatively and flexibly called upon (human, financial, etc.) However, changing plans and altering strategies could also be associated with costs to the quality or sustainability of proposals.

57

The issues of what ‘in kind’ match funding was and how important an element match might be within a proposal appeared to be the area of participation perhaps least well understood by groups. 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 administrators, designed in principle to limit supervision, paperwork and technicality. 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.

The role of social networks in enabling groups to access resources to enable flexible and creative approaches to participation within BTP was notable across the research sample. To access skills, expertise, capital and support, groups frequently drew upon and consolidated: existing social bonds within their community; links to groups similar to theirs in scale or interest; and connections to organisations of great influence and resource. In addition the need to achieve BTP priorities, such as achieving value for money and engaging communities effectively, appear to have actively catalysed new bonds, links and bridges, expanding social networks and potential cascades of knowledge across these. The use and expansion of such networks was also associated with the growing of values which facilitated transactions across them, such as reputation and trust, during successful participation within BTP, Social capital (the membership of such networks and potential access to the resources they can leverage) can be seen as a significant factor in enabling ease of participation within BTP. In very broad terms it appears that the greater social capital a group possessed the more likely they to gain access to assets with which to participate innovatively and successfully with the scheme. However, the obverse also appears to have been the case, that the less social capital a group possessed, the less easy their involvement in BTP.

Groups participating within BTP also appeared to have greatly appreciated facilitation of new associations between themselves and organisations with complimentary experience or resources enabled by the fund administrators or external supporting bodies.

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 in terms of knowledge exchange, with those offering support possibly gaining community connections, trust and understanding and those receiving it the chance to acquire new understanding and expertise in relation to tree planting, community engagement, etc. The building of such relationships via BTP can be seen to extended the social networks described above and may have helped to actively increase understanding of issues surrounding urban forestry and trees within the localities participating, from various points of view.

Also notable within the research, as described above, was the support provided to small projects and groups from areas of higher deprivation by umbrella organisations. It appears that

58

organisations acting in this capacity provided an important route for their beneficiaries to successful participation within BTP, able to supply resources that otherwise such groups might lack access to. These assets included cash, time, expertise, equipment and the social networks through which to leverage further sources of support to the project if necessary. Such organisations can be seen to have, in various ways, provided an infrastructure through which small and less resourced groups and proposals could access the BTP scheme.

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. As described above, various factors may have played a role in this including: the commonly perceived need to identify community support and involvement or routes toward it, in order to meet BTP’s priorities; the need to access voluntary resources for planting and long-term care in order to reduce costs and create value for money within BTP proposals; but also the recurrent identification by BTP groups of a relationship between local ‘ownership’ of the trees and spaces they wished to create and their long-term success. This equation and further aspects of BTP groups’ understandings of local people and place will be explored further in the next chapter.

59

3 Outcomes Obtained by Groups from application to and participation within BTP BTP funding can be seen to have facilitated a wide range of benefits beyond the material impact of new trees for project participants, local communities and the applying groups. The beneficial outcomes are discussed below in terms of how different types of assets and resources have facilitated these outcomes and how BTP has contributed toward reinforcing such assets and contributed toward knowledge exchange.

3.1 Benefits for participants within BTP funded projects

3.1.1 Psychological well-being: Positive functioning The gaining of new skills was cited as a resultant benefit for project participants by a significant proportion of the groups engaged within the research. The majority of groups who had successfully participated within the scheme felt that this was a key outcome for project participants, with tree planting and after care being reported most frequently as expertise gained. For a small number of projects volunteers were also trained in how to run tree planting events. Obtaining such skills was in most cases enabled by the existing knowledge resource of people within groups who passed on their expertise. In these instances BTP projects may be seen to have precipitated cascades of Image courtesy of Birmingham Trees for knowledge and skills within the social networks it Life brought together, which might potentially be drawn upon by participants within the project in order to contribute toward future tree planting initiatives and associated community engagement.

Umbrella organisations frequently offered training to all beneficiary groups that felt that they would benefit from it. Again, such knowledge flow could contribute towards the skill resource of these often smaller groups, increasing their capacity to engage in similar work in the future.

The gaining of these skills may also be key in ensuring the long term sustainability of planting, with groups increasing their expertise in this area and potential practical ability to care for trees.

For a small number of groups BTP spaces were planned to provide access to an ongoing educational resource for participants and other audiences. One such project was built around the involvement of young people in orchard planting, envisaged by the group as the start of a long-term learning opportunity encompassing tree care, harvesting produce and making products. One group whose project involved planting at a primary school reported that the BTP planting the school children took part in has been part of an educational school project “…they call it a Growing Together Project and they want to have a little whip [tree] for each child at the school. They want to teach them to look after them, and then to eventually be able to transfer them to somebody else who wants a tree, so everybody sort of gains by that and the children learn about the trees…” 60

A potential increase in the personal confidence of project participants was also reported by a proportion of groups, which it was hoped could translate into further volunteer work in the future through participants feeling more equipped to engage in such activity and to generate change within their community. Other associated benefits, identified by BTP groups as outcomes of engagement within their schemes, were increases to self-esteem and perceptions of self-worth.

3.1.2 Physical and emotional/mental well-being Improved physical and mental well-being were understood by approximately a third of research participants to be one of the main benefits to those involved in planting. A small number of groups additionally reported that their project had provided an escape from ‘normal life’ which may indicate that schemes had the potential to provide respite from issues which threaten emotional well-being.

3.1.3 Social well-being The formation and strengthening of social bonds such as making new friends and becoming more involved in the community were highly recognised as beneficial outcomes of participation in groups’ projects. One group representative commented that “There were also two little greens where we planted where people came out to help with the planting – I mean even if they only stood there, I think that helped with them having a sense of community and talking to their neighbours and so on, you know, it felt like a shared thing.”

BTP has also been reported by some groups as facilitating collective social bonding for individuals that are traditionally difficult to engage, with some respondents suggesting that involvement in a Image courtesy of Long BTP project could produce a sense of belonging for marginalised Buckby Green Space Group community members. These projects however, were specifically focused on including potentially harder to reach groups such as young offenders.

3.1.4 Personal/collective benefits: associated positive functioning and social cohesion An increased level of pride in the local community, local area/environment and a sense of personal achievement were each identified frequently by respondents as associated benefits to project participants. For example, one group reported that the main benefit felt to have been gained by local residents is both a sense that they have achieved something and are positively involved within their community. They suggested that the plaque next to each tree, naming who it is dedicated to, may act as a reminder of the communities’ involvement and of their planting event. They feel that their project has brought people together and helped generate a ‘sense’ of community.

This outcome is perhaps closely related to participants gaining a sense of personal responsibility for the area, which was recurrently reported as a potential and actual benefit of participation. One group reported that the main perceived benefit for participants was the provision of the opportunity

61

to get involved and contribute towards the improvement of the local area, and to gain a sense of personal purpose and pride from that. Another applicant felt that the planting participants, particularly children, had really enjoyed themselves, with a positive ‘buzz’ being created locally. The group were hopeful that people would go back to visit the trees they had planted and re-experience a sense of pride towards what they had achieved. In these ways groups fairly frequently associated outcomes of personal, psychological well-being and social connectedness with the successful generation of ‘community’ or ‘community ownership’. It is interesting that the marker of change provided by newly established trees (or plaques, as above) were sometimes understood to act as potential prompts to participants’ recollection of these outcomes.

3.1.5 Biophilic well-being An increased connection to nature was identified as a beneficial outcome of participation of local people within their project by a large proportion of groups in this study. A sense of ownership of trees and the provision of the opportunity to be outside were also considered to be benefits of participation in BTP projects, which were understood by some groups to be a rare opportunity in more deprived areas.

One group, for example, reported that they have equipped children with the idea and confidence to ask to go outdoors more. “We have given many children the chance to take part in tree planting - many of whom have no garden, have never wielded a spade, and whose parents do not encourage outdoor activities at home. The experience they have with [us] will hopefully give the children the idea and the confidence to ask to spend more time outdoors and engaging with nature. We always have great feedback from Image courtesy of Birmingham Trees the teachers and tons of enthusiasm from the kids.” for Life

A sense of ownership towards BTP planted trees was interpreted as an important effect for both project participants and upon the long-term sustainability of projects as it was felt by respondents to encourage greater and longer term community engagement in tree aftercare.

For one group the positive environmental impacts of their BTP scheme were perceived to be the most important and demonstrable. These respondents were not sure that any benefits which might contribute to well-being were experienced by participants or at least with any lasting effect. However, they too suggested that involvement in planting would both empower the community to a degree and alter participants’ relationship to nature by challenging their attitudes towards trees and highlighting their role as caretakers.

3.1.6 Personal wellbeing outcomes and participation within BTP projects It is beyond the remit of this research to establish how participants within BTP schemes themselves report any well-being outcomes achieved via their involvement and to compare these with BTP groups’ perceptions of such impacts. However, it is striking that BTP groups were able to articulate a range of impacts related to the well-being of the individual, mostly volunteer, participants they 62

engaged in tree planting and associated activities. Tree planting activities were frequently understood to have multifaceted effects upon those engaged within them. Whilst the material change created by new trees were highly motivating for groups participating within BTP, the need to correspondingly create change amongst their community to ensure local ‘ownership’ and potentially long-term maintenance of trees also appears often keenly perceived.

3.2 Benefits to the wider community

3.2.1 Enhancing material and social surroundings The anticipated benefits of BTP funded projects to the wider community were broad and varied, with some being common to most projects and others identified by fewer groups. Some of these could perhaps be described as material benefits, with the improvement of the aesthetics of the local area being the most frequently reported, with for example, a group within the research sample anticipating that this would result in a rise in the value of Image courtesy of Willingham Action local properties. Another reported that their project had Group enhanced the appearance of the local area, making it feel less run down. However, as with understandings of personal well-being benefits available to project participants, BTP groups sometimes associated the impact of material change with other outcomes that could ultimately result in changes to the collective social setting. The group cited in the second example above suggested for instance that their projects’ improvements to place had triggered an increase in feelings of social cohesion. They mentioned that whilst project planting was taking place, a notable number of community members came out of their homes to watch and comment on their personal sense of pride in the fact that the neighbourhood was working together to improve the environment and the village.

Other anticipated material changes and services associated with increased tree cover include: improved local air quality; provision of a physical gathering space for groups; improved links between green areas; and much less frequently the provision of a woodfuel resource for the local community.

Other expected outcomes are perhaps more focused on enhancing community cohesion and engagement with locality, with groups frequently reporting feeling that their project would improve social bonds within the community and that they were expecting improved relations between local environmental and community groups.

As reported in the previous chapter, groups provided considerable evidence of the ways in which social networks within their communities had been accessed in resourcing their participation within BTP. The requirements and ethos of the scheme can both be seen as factors precipitating such activity. Groups actively drew upon such networks in accessing not only finance or longer term capital investments such as land, but human assets in the form of local expertise and industry. Such networks were understood by BTP groups to be important conduits for knowledge and skills flow, as

63

explored above. Additionally, the successful employment of local social networks to provide support may also have led to a local strengthening of values that can be connected with such networks flourishing, such as trust, reputation and mutuality. In these instances BTP may be associated with the enhanced community cohesion that groups participating within the scheme regularly expected to see as a result of their project.

Social connections amongst community organisations were also understood by certain groups to be valuable longer-term outcomes and resources. So for example, the development of new or strengthened associations between their own and other environment and community groups locally were understood to be significant outcomes.

As reported in the previous chapter, BTP groups both drew upon existing associations with other community bodies and were keen to be facilitated in creating bridges between themselves and other local or similar groups. Again, this was understood to be an important route to expertise, experience and possibly volunteer resource. In the longer-term it is possible these strengthened or newer connections could lead to novel partnerships, the development of further projects and the sharing of knowledge to increase project success. This in turn might provide further opportunities generating both local material change and chances for the local community to get involved in voluntarism, gaining from the wider multi-dimensional personal and social benefits it potentially provides.

The provision of long-term volunteering opportunities to the wider community was also understood to be a desirable outcome of BTP projects, which can be seen as another route to enhancing community cohesion in its engagement of local place and people. As described previously, many BTP groups, though focused upon generating material changes, reported a need to effect changes in local community relationships and perceptions in order to ensure the longer term sustainable management of their newer green spaces.

3.2.2 Enhancing the natural and cultural value of places and the services provided by them Improving amenity for the local area was considered an important and significant outcome for some groups. An improved quality of life as a result of greater access to natural capital and various cultural goods associated with it was mentioned in a number of application forms as being an anticipated benefit for local communities through access to trees, produce and wildlife.

For some groups improving amenity was the main aim of their project, but the value of improving the natural capital of spaces with new trees and the habitats they create, also lay in the opportunity to enhance the Image courtesy of South Stoke Amenities cultural services these places could provide for the Committee wider local community. An example of this was reported by one group representative who stated “…the number of people using the recreation ground now compared with before has been terrific, even through this lousy winter.”

64

One group, for instance, described the improvement of a recreational ground as providing a more interesting space for people to use than the ‘green concrete’ that was previously there. It is also hoped that as the wildlife value of their BTP site increases there will be more birds for bird watchers to enjoy. This understanding of the opportunity to grow the attraction of sites through increasing their natural diversity was sometimes framed as creating a ‘destination’ for walks or providing more opportunities for the community to witness wildlife.

A perception that the wider community was experiencing raised environmental awareness associated with projects taking place was also reported amongst the research sample. Comments included “I think we’ve had good local publicity and so on and I’d like to think that it has raised awareness of the importance of trees and the need for trees, you know for all those kind of environmental reasons” and “I just hope it makes people feel more responsible for their environment really, and realise the benefit of trees and of green spaces.”

Some groups anticipated that a longer term benefit for the wider community lay in the provision of a new material learning opportunity, particularly via the creation of wildlife habitats or where fruit tree planting took place. These groups commonly reported this as providing a resource that was previously lacking. So for example some groups anticipated the planting of fruit trees could encourage healthy eating. One group planted a number of fruit trees intended to provide fruit for the local community, particularly in view of what they perceived to be the risk of potential future food shortages. Local people already harvest fruit from existing trees and the group interpreted this as evidence that this resource would be well utilised. Ideally these BTP participants would have liked to have established a community orchard to serve this purpose, but lack of land in the area caused the group to compromise their designs. Another group planting fruit trees, hoped “that the community will ‘go and grab an apple’ whilst out for a walk”.

Some groups anticipated the creation of a new space that would help create a cultural service related to heritage. So, for example, one umbrella organisation gifting packs of fruit trees to communities, although not present at planting events, believe that it’s scheme will have helped people connect with the local heritage of orchards and created a “Lasting visual legacy of local history and something to talk about and see on a regular basis”.

One umbrella organisation simply felt that increases to opportunities for well-being were the largest benefits for local communities surrounding BTP projects, as the planting and resultant increase in natural capital has created areas for them to interact with and enjoy that weren’t previously there.

These types of anticipated or perceived outcome for the wider community frequently made a clear connection between increasing or enhancing natural capital and providing cultural services that communities could draw upon as a resource of wellbeing. Some groups anticipated that drawing upon such goods could result in longer-term behavioural change.

65

3.3 Outcomes for applying group

3.3.1 Achievement of local and organisational aims All interviewees felt that success at applying to BTP has helped their groups to achieve their aims and objectives. For groups focused on tree planting and environmental improvement the scheme has facilitated them in achieving aims of increasing tree cover and creating usable green spaces in their local communities. For groups with a specific focus on community support and development, achieving community engagement appeared to be the most important aspect of projects, in both the short and long term. All community focused groups interviewed felt that BTP had enabled them to provide opportunities and resources for the community to be successfully engaged in meeting perceived local needs, resulting in an improvement in quality of life for local communities.

3.3.2 Raised profiles, new and enhanced links A raised profile within the local community was frequently reported to be a result of carrying out a BTP project. The fund enabled some groups to carry out larger projects than they had previously, involving and benefitting more people and subsequently raising community awareness of the group.

For some involvement in BTP appeared to supply them with a sense of increased credibility within their community and similarly some respondents felt it might enhance their standing with funding bodies in future bids. One group reported undergoing a ‘renaissance’ since being involved with BTP and becoming more well-known throughout their county, although they also linked this to other projects they had undertaken concurrently. Another, acting as an umbrella organisation during their participation in BTP, reported that since starting their scheme they have been routinely contacted by a major developer in the city to comment on their planning proposals. Without their involvement in BTP they feel they would not have achieved this relationship and the ability to influence tree planting on new developments in the city. This rise in profile was also reported as assisting groups to achieve their aims through attracting new links with other groups and organisations, with the potential for development of new projects with these new partners.

For others, participation within BTP and the raised profile it gave them appeared to have strengthened existing relationships with organisations. One group of Tree Wardens, for example, found that their relationship with local authority tree officers at both borough and county level has improved as a result of their involvement in BTP. In their experience, the Council Tree Officers have experienced difficulties interacting with local community, especially volunteers and those that wish to make changes to their local environment. It is felt that receipt of a large amount of funding through BTP has led to Tree Wardens and their ideas and work having a greater standing with the council. This research has emphasised the importance of the formation and maintenance of links with local councils in resourcing groups’ development and management of projects, so the strengthening of this relationship could potentially have significant benefits for this group.

66

Case Study

Group name: Natural Enterprise Location: SE Main focus: to contribute to the social, economic and environmental well-being of the Isle of Wight and its communities Level of deprivation: some project sites amongst the 30% most socially deprived in England

Project description: Natural Enterprise planted trees at various sites around the Isle of Wight where they were aware there was an existing desire for them amongst local residents. Some planting sites were on roads named after trees such as Oakfield and Elmfield, but which no longer had any tree cover. The project aimed to bring back those particular species to the neighbourhoods where appropriate. They involved residents and local community groups in species choice, location, planting and commitments to long term after care. The project was used to train, enthuse and encourage young people to be involved and gain a sense of enjoyment from taking on the responsibility of caring for their local area.

Due to achieving their project under budget they were also able to set up a community tree nursery where unwanted trees from residential locations and development sites are donated, cared for and gifted to people and groups that want to re-home them. The trees for the project are also kept there until the sites and communities are ready to plant them.

Raising the group’s profile and creating new and enhanced links: The group worked in partnership with a local Housing Association to develop and run the project. They had existing connections through the group representative who works for both organisations, but the BTP project enabled the formation of a strong link between them through working together to achieve the common goal of improving the living environment of local people, particularly those in deprived areas. This link gave them access to land for planting, and to tree maintenance teams who will look after the trees as part of on-going maintenance plans. They also gave them access to brownfield land to use as the community tree nursery. In addition, they have plans to build on this link by collaborating in delivering a schools programme which engages school children to plant trees in deprived neighbourhoods.

They worked with a range of community groups with which they already had existing links, but felt that this project facilitated the strengthening of these links, particularly with one group of vulnerable young adults who had previously been very hard to engage. It was felt the project offered a ‘hook’ to attract this group with opportunities being provided to use equipment like a chipper and a quad bike to carry out work as well as planting trees. For one young adult who was particularly hard to engage the group representative eventually managed to get him to join in with creating the tree nursery, but once he was there he enjoyed it and gained a huge sense of achievement. He has now gone on to gain an apprenticeship working for the Housing Association on their ‘Natural Wight’ project.

It has also helped raise the profile of their work in particular their ‘Green Towns’ project which encourages the community to improve their local environment. They feel that “For a lot of people,

67

tree planting is their thing, so that encourages more people to get involved in Green Towns. So I think it helps get people that we’re working with to buy in to improving the environment, which actually helps us all round really, because that’s what we’re here to do.”

3.3.3 Growing confidence and momentum Just over half of groups within the research sample either anticipated or had experienced increased confidence and momentum in developing further community projects, which perhaps evidences that BTP can act as a catalyst to further tree planting and other community benefit projects. For example, one umbrella organisation felt that securing BTP funding gave them the confidence to make commitments to other funders: funding drawing in additional funding. The gaining of skills was also mentioned by several respondents. These are skills in the development and managing of a project of this type and as well in tree planting and aftercare. This may well benefit the groups in the long term as they will be better equipped to run similar projects in the future.

3.4 Ways in which further tree planting will be encouraged and embedded through the BTP funded projects

All applicant groups had plans either for carrying out further tree planting projects themselves and/or to inspire and encourage others to plant trees, with the majority of groups proposing multiple methods. This provides one indicator of the potential for BTP to generate a legacy of community involvement in tree planting and community led environmental improvement for the benefit of the community. Of the groups that planned to carry out further tree planting themselves, the most frequently reported method was through further tree planting projects in alternative locations, followed by plans to expand their BTP initiated project in the future via schemes such as ‘adopt a tree’ and actively using BTP projects to develop partnerships enabling the development and resourcing of future projects. Though this last approach was not always formally recognised as tool towards embedding further tree planting and green space enhancement or creation, as described above, BTP engagement appears to have initiated or strengthened a range of relationships between organisations providing what might be considered a latent resource toward this activity.

One participating group felt that there were few opportunities for similar planting in their area, but that a couple of sites for individual trees had already been identified. Another had plans for a town based biodiversity project, including further tree planting and environmental improvements.

The intention to inspire other groups to carry out tree planting projects was frequently reported by successful groups. Some planned to achieve this through setting an example, others through more direct action and activities. Other groups felt that their project or future activities would serve to raise environmental awareness and generate a wider spread desire to plant further trees. One group described the development of a cascading model from their BTP participation, with plans to roll out their project regionally through supporting partners to copy their activities.

68

One group has noticed that since their BTP project there has been an increase in the number of community orchards planted locally. It is not clear whether this is directly associated with the influence of their project, but some of these were in areas where BTP trees were gifted to groups, so it is possible that it acted to inspire the planting of more trees for the benefit of the community or contributed towards this outcome.

Various strategies for encouraging and assisting other groups and individuals to plant trees were proposed by applicants. These included the provision of planting stock by growing trees to gift to community members for planting and running a seed swap project. Some groups planned to encourage other groups and individuals through pursuing a strategy of continuing to promote tree planting through on-going activities and projects, leaflets, press releases and other promotional material.

Other approaches centred on the passing on of the BTP groups accumulated expertise by offering advice on tree planting to community organisations and schools and training volunteers within the BTP project to run further events. One unsuccessful group planned to do this through training some project participants to become ‘nature leaders’ to promote natural enhancements of their local communities. Again, whilst this strategy was formally acknowledged by particular groups, there is the possibility that the knowledge and skills cascades created within social networks associated with BTP can act as a resource toward future tree planting in further instances.

Several respondents hoped that there would be a continuation of BTP or a similar scheme to enable them to carry on with tree planting. They felt there was an established need for this type of funding to enable communities to run beneficial projects. One umbrella organisation stated that they would like to see another BTP type scheme that operates year on year to ensure the future of large tree planting projects, particularly in urban street settings. Their Local Authority lack a tree replacement budget, so they feel this could provide a mechanism for reinstating lost street trees. These participants within BTP also felt it was advantageous that BTP funded resources are made available through community groups, rather than via local councils. They felt this increased the chances of it being well received by local people, removing the possibility of them viewing tree planting as a ‘top- down’ imposition. They consider that a more ‘friendly face’ consulting communities on the location and species of street trees can be better accepted by residents.

3.5 Consequences of lack of success

The survey-based stage of this research with unsuccessful applicants high-lighted some of the impacts experienced by the groups unsuccessful in securing BTP funding. A financial loss resulting from their time spent on their BTP application, a loss of confidence in applying for funding and loss of support for their project from the local community were all reported as negative consequences. One group also stated that they felt that their lack of success had led to a material loss of native trees and improvement to conservation and wildlife in their local area.

A small number of group representatives made contact with the researchers to express their feelings about being unsuccessful, giving permission for their application data to be included in the research, but not being willing to take part in further research to be explore their experiences more fully.

69

These representatives described feeling misled as to the likelihood of the success of their application. The majority of these respondents believed that their time had been wasted during a process where they raised concerns with BTP advisors about some of the criteria which they thought they may not achieve, were advised to apply anyway, and then had their application rejected due to the issues they had originally raised their concerns about. This has resulted in experiences of anger or exasperation and frustration for some groups and individuals and a negative perception of the administration of the BTP fund for a small number of people.

3.6 Conclusions

Evidence exploring the outcomes groups understood to be available to localities and communities adjacent to and participating within their project again suggest their understanding of tree planting as an activity with many possible, positive impacts.

In terms of the benefits available to individuals participating within their projects, groups frequently viewed skills gain as an important effect of their work. The potential of the social networks, consolidated or expanded during participation within BTP, to distribute expertise to local people was also frequently recognised. Skills gain through project involvement, alongside opportunities to increase self-esteem and perceptions of worth, were each ways in which groups hoped to improve the positive functioning of members of their community. Umbrella groups frequently acted as distributors of knowledge and skills within the social networks brought together via their beneficiaries’ projects.

The promotion of community pride and opportunities for local residents to invest more strongly in local social relationships and places were very frequently seen as positive outcomes of BTP ventures. A growth in collective spirit was often regarded as closely associated with improvements to individual residents’ social and psychological health, improvements potentially gained through volunteering within projects. Positive changes in residents’ attitudes towards both themselves and local places and people were frequently understood by respondents as important in establishing community ‘ownership’ of BTP plantings. Potential opportunities to connect with nature through tree planting were also seen as a potential stimulus to such feelings. As described above, while the material changes created by planting were very compelling for groups participating within BTP, the perceived need to correspondingly create change amongst their community to ensure ownership and long-term maintenance of trees also appears to have been motivational in projects’ attitudes and approaches toward engagement of local people.

In terms of benefits to the wider community, again the physical changes associated with BTP projects were regularly regarded as a significant outcome of schemes. Groups also appeared to see a common benefit to local communities of such change as manifested in its enrichment of the goods provided by the local places. Increased tree coverage was often aimed at enhancing natural capital to create more bio-diverse, productive and engaging places. The improvement in quality of local green space brought about by planting proposals was anticipated to offer multiple services to neighbourhoods: mainly cultural (such as opportunities for education, inspiration, well-being), but sometimes through provisioning them (fuel or food) or regulating their environment (improved air quality).

70

Also common was a focus on the benefits of strengthened social bridges between (non-BTP) community groups that BTP projects could catalyse. New relationships and partnerships forged between local organisations and institutions during BTP were created as potential resources of complementary expertise, skills and energy for the projects participating within the scheme, but it was also anticipated that these newer social associations could help localities resource novel projects and further local voluntary opportunities.

Similarly, groups regularly understood the benefits of BTP participation for themselves to be located in the bonds, bridges and links formed during the scheme. Some emphasised how involvement with BTP had enhanced their confidence and also their reputation, helping to establish or consolidate both these social connections closely associated with BTP and links or opportunities whose benefit lay in the future. There are indications that BTP has the potential to have established a legacy of consolidated and expanded social networks capable of bringing about environmental and neighbourhood change and knowledge flows and accumulations within communities around tree planting and care (and associated people engagement and project management). At this stage in the project’s duration (final round of funding), it is difficult to ascertain how sustainable such a legacy is without a stimulus (funds and ethos) similar to BTP.

Many groups had plans to continue tree planting in their localities through various methods including extensions of their existing BTP scheme, new projects undertaken by their group and cascading their experience or model to others. Some respondents also emphasised the potential role of BTP type funding in enabling such expansions or flows, hoping that some type of continuation of the scheme would exist beyond its stated lifetime.

The impacts upon proposed projects of unsuccessful participation within BTP were difficult to establish as this group were reluctant to engage in further time spent in association with the scheme. They included direct financial loss, but also the opposite of effects BTP appears to have catalysed well for successful participants, including a loss of reputation amongst their target communities. A number of respondents felt that better, more consistent guidance could have helped address their problematic participation in BTP.

71

4 Approaches to Tree Planting This section discusses the approaches that applicant groups took to designing and implementing their planting schemes. This includes how planting plans were created to meet individual groups’ project aims, who carried out tree planting and how communities were engaged in planting activities. It also looks at how the effectiveness and long term sustainability of the planting was ensured.

4.1 Aims

4.1.1 Effecting existing visions for spatial, social and cultural change Most research participants’ planting proposals were proposed to contribute towards on-going socio- cultural and/or spatial change. For some, BTP was helping to enable the continuation of the groups’ existing work and aspirations. This was sometimes to increase tree cover in their target locality, commonly focused around improving the aesthetic appeal of an area. Whereas for others it was supporting the enhancement of natural capital in treed and non-treed green spaces, such as improving amenity in recreation spaces and community centres or providing a diversity of wildlife habitats in a particular area. What is again notable however, is that planting proposals were frequently constructed not as isolated material changes, but part of delivery mechanisms of associated socio-cultural impacts.

Case Study

Group name: Ideal for All Location: Midlands Main focus: encouraging independent living and improving and maintaining the health and well- being of people in Sandwell, particularly those with disabilities Level of deprivation: in the 30% most socially and green space deprived areas in England

Project description: Ideal for All’s BTP project consisted of planting over 2000 native trees and setting up a children’s tree nursery to produce trees for schools and the community. Planting was carried out by local people, community and school groups of a variety of ages and abilities through a series of supervised planting and activity days.

Effecting existing visions for spatial, social and cultural change: Ideal for All run a wide range of services and projects including a community agriculture initiative called ‘Growing Opportunities’ which offers a range of garden based activities. Their BTP project formed part of this initiative, contributing towards the on-going aims of providing opportunities for people to gain knowledge and skills in growing plants, food and other natural products. It also contributes towards the organisation’s on-going work of improving the visual amenity of the area; improving individual and public health; increasing citizen inclusion and independence; developing community cohesion and increasing the capacity and skills of service users.

72

4.2 Planting plans

BTP participants planting plans for their projects where established as part of the application stage in the majority of cases, with some being developed following confirmation of sites, and each reflect the individual aims of each project. All interviewees stated their planting plans had so far proved to be effective at achieving such aims. For many groups it was felt to be too early, however to say for sure if all their aims had been met, but planting had gone to plan and anticipated outcomes were still expected to be realised.

Some groups had sufficient knowledge and experience within their membership to design the planting scheme themselves. Others were able to draw upon their local social networks to reach advisors with sufficient expertise to guide their planning or access knowledgeable individuals within their community. Some larger groups had access to professional services that formed part of their wider organisation.

Other groups utilised external advice or assistance. Where external professional support had been engaged within the research sample, groups provided a brief stating what they hoped to achieve from the planting, suggested locations, types of planting and any ideas that they had for species. For example, one group employed a landscape architect to design their planting plan as part of a larger landscape development project to improve the amenity value of a recreation ground. They provided the architect with their aims for the planting and the architect then developed a plan including species, density and location. The group feel that the plan reflected the aspirations of the project and has so far been considered effective. These respondents reported that having a landscape architect design planting was well worth it as it has achieved their intentions for the space effectively.

Umbrella organisations reported frequently assisting beneficiary groups with the design of their planting scheme where they did not have the skills or confidence to develop it themselves. This was consistently aimed at being carried out in close consultation with the beneficiary group and other stakeholders. This evidence may also be indicative of the central role umbrella groups have played in enabling certain groups, lacking particular human, social and financial assets, to participate within BTP.

73

Case Study

Group name: Polesworth Abbey Location: Midlands Main focus: management of Polesworth Abbey and its grounds Level of deprivation: not amongst the 30% most deprived areas in England

Project description: Their BTP project formed the second stage of a 5 year community project to develop derelict land adjacent to the existing churchyard to create a new churchyard and a wildlife area with a pond. The wildlife area had been created as the first stage with funding from the Borough Council. The BTP project enabled trees to be planted in the new churchyard to create a tranquil environment for use by everyone along with the wildlife area. It is intended that the space will be used as a “destination for walks in the village as well as a reflective area for burials …and remembrance”. Schools and local people were very supportive of the project and were involved in consultations and project delivery.

Approach to developing a planting plan: A public consultation was undertaken to establish how the community wanted the area to be developed, and historical data was researched to establish the history of the churchyard to inform the planning process. A landscape architect was employed to develop a clear plan for the whole development site including the BTP project. The architect was provided with information from the consultation process and a brief of what was required. They then chose appropriate species and designed the planting plan on behalf of the group.

4.3 Diversity of planting schemes

There were a wide range of planting designs proposed in the applications that were reviewed as part of this research.

4.3.1 Replacing and regenerating existing plantings Planting schemes were sometimes aimed at replacing and regenerating existing trees or treed spaces. Street trees were proposed to both replace trees that have been removed and to improve streets lacking trees. Trees being replaced had usually been lost to old age or disease, but a few had been subject to vandalism. Other replacement plantings reported included that of failed trees planted on the green space surrounding new developments. Developers have only a limited responsibility to plant and maintain trees on their sites, so this group have responded to the fact that many fail after the first few years, leaving new developments with treeless areas. As reported previously, as a result of their BTP project the group now work regularly with a developer to advise on planting.

Another example of a regenerative type of design, was a project that included the clearing and pruning of two neglected and overgrown street verges, and the planting of fruit and beech tree avenues, grass and bulbs in their place.

74

Case Study

Group name: St Allen Parish Council Location: South West Main focus: responsible for the maintenance and development of the local parish Level of deprivation: not in the 30% most deprived areas in England

Project description: The BTP project consisted of two phases, the first being the planting of semi- mature beech trees around the perimeter of the church car park in the parish’s main village. The aim was to ensure a wooded ambience around the church to be enjoyed by future generations.

Phase two of the project was to regenerate two overgrown road verges running through the village.

Effecting the replacement and regeneration of existing planting: At each end of the village the road has overgrown verges that had been neglected for a number of years. Work at the western end of the village started with the clearance of existing vegetation which was then chipped and used as ground cover for a council owned shrub garden in the village. Removal of this vegetation exposed a Victorian ornamental hedge which was then levelled, scattered with grass seed and planted with a row of beech saplings. These were then under-planted with bulbs and wildflower seeds by local school children.

The verge at the eastern end of the village which runs between the road and the pavement had existing daffodil planting and was shaded by overhanging sycamore trees. The project involved the pruning of the sycamores to allow more light to the verge and then fruit trees were planted as a linear orchard. It is intended that the fruit trees will be used by school children and other community members whilst walking along the pavement to harvest free fruit. Any surplus fruit will be turned into chutneys and jams and distributed to elderly residents in the parish.

These types of planting often occurred on council land. In some cases groups were able to draw upon existing links with Local Authorities to gain access to both land and services. For groups participating successfully within BTP that did not have these established connections, the scheme appears to have acted as trigger towards their development.

4.3.2 Productive Planting The planting of fruit trees was included, at least in part, in roughly a fifth of the sample in six projects within the sample. Some of these were planted as community orchards and others as smaller groups of trees. Orchards varied from being more traditional specific fruit growing and harvesting areas to a line of fruit trees along a residential street. Most were being planted for the benefit of the wider local community, with all encouraging the harvesting of fruit by their users. Several were for the benefit of specific community groups such as those on school or community centre grounds.

All orchard and fruit tree planting were perceived to be tools of either actively promoting healthy eating as part of a larger project or of provisioning a resource that will encourage healthier eating in the community through its accessibility. 75

Packs of three fruit trees were given to groups and individuals via one BTP project. The aim of this project was to raise awareness of orchards and their value in the landscape and for biodiversity. Groups of three were provided to ensure that pollination would occur.

Some orchards were planned to be used to produce and distribute produce. One group focused both on the potential use of produce within their café and on encouraging a group of young people to use the orchard produce to make and sell products as a social enterprise. The other project was primarily focused around encouraging the community to pick Image courtesy of Long Buckby their own fruit, but any surplus is planned to be made into Green Space Group products and distributed to the elderly in the community.

Case Study

Group name: Leading Link Location: North Main focus: supporting and linking the community to enable people to make positive changes to their lives through the development of personal and group leadership skills Level of deprivation: not in the 30% most deprived areas in England

Project description: The BTP project is part of an on-going larger project focused around the building and development of a facility called ‘The Lodge’ on the grounds of a school. It is intended to be for the use of the school, local community and families. The BTP project consisted of planting semi- mature trees in a sensory garden area, an area of whips, and a community orchard.

The aim of the project was to provide a place for community groups and members to gather and to provide space and resources to work with youth groups and school children to enable them to learn new skills.

A wide range of community groups and families were involved in the planting including a youth group ‘The Community Warriors’ who are part of a horticultural group working closely with a local agricultural college. The trees have been dedicated to the individuals, groups and organisations involved with each being marked by a plaque as a reminder to foster a sense of ownership.

Approach to planting orchards: The orchard aspect of the project was planted by different members of the local community to encourage a wide range of people to connect with and use the space. In particular, a youth group called ‘Pickled Fried Chickens’ were involved in the planting and will also be closely involved with the long term care of the trees. The group aim to use the produce from the orchard to set up a social enterprise marketing and selling fruit products made from the orchard. This will enhance the enterprise and business skills of the group. Leading Link also plan to run competitions for the best use of produce from the orchards such as jams, pies and the healthiest dishes.

76

4.3.3 Enhancing natural capital through trees and new woodland Most groups reported improving the natural capital of the project area as a motivation for planting trees. For some projects this was the main aim and the planting approach was focused primarily around achieving this. This included the extension of wooded habitat on nature reserves and other treed areas in a small number of projects. One such plan has aimed to extend an existing area of trees to create wet woodland, a priority habitat in their local Biodiversity Action Plan. Another extended an area of scrub and woodland to provide a habitat of increased bio-diversity for birds.

4.3.4 Improving Aesthetic Appeal Most groups reported an improvement in the aesthetic appeal of the area as a long term benefit of their project. This was also frequently a motivation for groups to plant trees and represented in the development of planting proposals. The planting of trees to improve the look of derelict land, non- treed streets, footpaths and to act as a visual screen around car parks and along roads were among locations mentioned.

4.4 Planting methods

The majority of BTP applications reviewed identified tree planting as a task to be carried out by community members. Some focused on using particular groups such as schools and youth groups for this task, whilst others were planning on engaging local residents.

4.4.1 Community planting

Local residents and community groups were frequently engaged in the planting of BTP projects. Many groups held Image courtesy of Leading Link planting days which were open to the general public as well as community groups. These events and activities were perceived by groups to encourage community cohesion and offer an opportunity for the group managing the project to provide assistance to help the community plant trees effectively. Other groups ran planting days for certain groups of people such as school or youth groups. Again these were often focused on fostering a sense of ownership amongst their participants and were frequently part of longer term plans to engage the groups with the trees. Such planting days and activities had the potential to reinforce existing relationships and provide opportunities for new social connections to be made amongst their participants, whilst facilitating the flow of appropriate knowledge and skills within these networks. As has been described previously, groups successfully participating within BTP often appeared mindful of a need to encourage wide attendance at plantings in order to create a skilled and motivated resource for ensuring the sustainable aftercare of new trees.

One beneficiary group of an umbrella organisation planned an innovative approach to planting to enable greater community involvement. Various local groups were involved in planting and a digger was hired so that disabled volunteers from local groups could join in with digging holes for the trees.

77

4.4.2 Community planting and safety For some projects it was felt that community involvement as a planting method had to be limited for safety reasons. This was the case in a small number of projects where groups had chosen to use machinery to assist with the planting of large trees, and where street trees were being planted in potentially hazardous locations such as busy roads. For the majority of groups this involved engaging contractors or skilled members of the group to carry out these tasks, and was ameliorated by the design of other aspects of the project where the community could be more actively engaged. One group for example, used a mini-digger to plant semi-mature apple trees in a new orchard. Feeling it was unsafe to involve children in this aspect of the work they actively provided other opportunities for young people to participate via the underplanting of trees with daffodils.

For applications where street trees were proposed, the local council would not always allow community planting of trees due to safety concerns. This is discussed further in the following sub- section below.

4.4.3 Engaging contractors The majority of groups that employed contractors to carry out street or large tree planting also involved the community in other aspects of their planting scheme, with just one unsuccessful applicant suggesting that all planting be contractor led. For most groups in this situation contractors only carried out aspects of projects where semi-mature trees were being planted in busy street settings, or in locations where groups lacked the skills and resources to be able to plant effectively. Situations where this appeared to be the case included a street where tarmac need to be dug up to plant new street trees. Whilst young people were carrying out most of the scheme’s planting, it was felt that they could not effectively transplant large trees.

In another example, a misunderstanding of match funding requirements required a group to plant twice as many trees as anticipated by the end of the season. The group ran out of time for this to be completed by community members and decided to employ contractors to plant the remaining whips.

Contractors were engaged from both local councils and the local highways authority. Some groups were able to draw upon existing relationships to facilitate contractor engagement and others formed new relationships for their BTP project. None of the groups in the study reported facing any challenges involving contractor teams with their projects.

4.4.4 Public planting celebration events A few groups held launch events for their projects focussing around planting activities, but also including other entertainment to attract local community involvement. Free family activities were frequently on offer, as where opportunities to learn more about the group’s BTP project and attendees were usually all welcome to join in with planting. Some groups were able to secure the attendance of dignitaries from environmental and forestry organisations and council members, which they felt added a sense of importance and respectability to their event and attracted more community members. One group recognised the potential importance of celebration events in

78

encouraging community engagement stating that they “encouraged” communities “to use the trees as a focal point for other celebrations and…coincide management of the trees with other community events and celebrations”.

Such events provide evidence of a common approach to community participation under BTP, where tree planting and management provide a mechanism both of enabling engagement with local social networks and potentially creating a skilled and informed voluntary resource. In addition, their celebratory nature may help generate a sense of collective identification with the material and imagined resource under development, helping to generate the sense of community ownership and pride that BTP projects regularly aimed to produce. Groups might use such events to communicate the short-term history of their site and long-term vision for their scheme, inviting skilled or notable individuals to the event who may give these ideas increased credibility and encouraging local people to feel part of both the real and projected asset generated under BTP.

4.5 Effectiveness & sustainability of planting

4.5.1 Enrolling and sharing existing experience and skills Within the research sample, several methods were employed by applicant groups to ensure the effectiveness of planting carried out by community members, with some groups employing more than one approach. Most of these centred on cascading knowledge on from professionals or skilled volunteers to participants within the project.

The most common approach was for planting to be supervised by suitably experienced and knowledgeable people. Some groups had suitable people within their organisation or membership, but others engaged external people to assist on planting days. Many BTP participants Image courtesy of Birmingham Trees within the research sample were able to draw upon existing for life relationships and internal resources to meet this need with a knowledgeable and experienced individual within the group being fairly common, but it should be noted that some of this expertise was provided by umbrella organisations to their beneficiaries.

One umbrella organisation was able to provide assistance and supervision at planting events through their forestry team, as well as providing tools for the projects to use. All but one of their beneficiary groups had no prior experience in this area, so the applying group perceive this assistance to have been vital in ensuring effective planting. Training was also available for group representatives, through a grant, secured by the umbrella body, to enable groups to devise and carry out their own management plans. At the time of this research it was too soon to be able to assess the success of this recent planting.

Some umbrella organisations uninvolved in planting lent expertise via guides to beneficiary groups. One umbrella group representative collated guidance from a variety of sources including his own knowledge and experience to create a detailed guide for the planting and maintenance of fruit trees. This was provided to beneficiaries along with the trees they received. This group didn’t attend any 79

beneficiary groups’ planting except one which was used as a launch event, where further assistance with planting was available. The group have visited a number of the sites subsequently, and have been pleased to see that everything appears to have gone well and all the trees appear still to be in situ and thriving.

Planting guides provided by BTP and other organisations were also frequently used to supplement supervision and training at planting events.

Some applicants used existing skilled volunteers and/or provided training sessions for project participants. Some training took place at the beginning of planting activities and some was delivered as a separate event. Some groups for example, tried to ensure the effectiveness of planting by using existing skilled volunteers, on hand to answer any questions that may have arisen, with most groups employing this method also providing a demonstration at the beginning of planting events. This flow of knowledge and skills between those with expertise and community members was generally perceived to have improved the skill sets of volunteers resourcing BTP funded projects and may have helped build a skills resource for the future.

A small minority of groups were concerned that community engagement in planting could lead to poor execution of proposals. One group reported experiencing some tensions between engaging the community and ensuring the planting was done properly. They were concerned that non- experienced people carrying out the work might lead to some poor quality planting. However, group members checked afterwards and corrected any ineffective efforts. However, they consider that generally it had been done competently and mistakes were easily amended. This experience has given the group confidence that this type of project can be carried out effectively by non-skilled community members. Another suggested that poor weather had hampered the efforts of their volunteers who were unused to both working in wet conditions and carrying out this activity. The group feel that some of this planting was not carried out very well, with trees planted too closely to an adjacent hedgerow and mulching done incorrectly. Many lessons were learned for the next time they carry out a similar project.

4.5.2 Tree Aftercare All applicant groups had identified plans for the long term aftercare and maintenance of their projects.

4.5.2.1 Managing aftercare within the community

Some groups are maintaining aftercare themselves, with group volunteers taking on the responsibility or tasks being delegated to community members, sometimes on a rota system. These groups have access to individuals with the ability and time to commit to such activities. For some groups that ran sponsorship schemes it is planned and hoped that sponsors will continue their involvement with the trees through contributing towards their long term aftercare. The involvement of local residents and youth groups was quite commonly stated as a method of ensuring that trees are cared for. One guide group, for example, were cited as being very involved in the care of a project undertaken in their area, allocating time in their weekly meeting to check on trees and water them. BTP projects have frequently facilitated the involvement of community 80

groups and individuals in planting hoping that this would result in voluntary commitments to aftercare, reducing the long-term responsibilities of group members.

Some umbrella organisations will be supporting beneficiary groups in carrying out aftercare through inspecting sites and providing training aimed at enabling them to take on this responsibility or provide advice to others in this capacity. Some larger umbrella groups also offer maintenance services to groups. Approaches to this included assisting groups that felt unable to carry out this work themselves due to a lack of human resources or expertise on an ongoing basis and engaging groups in fixed term management agreements, after which responsibility reverts to the beneficiary group or landowner. The length of such agreements depended on the type of planting scheme, experience and resources of the community.

Some umbrella organisations were happy to leave aftercare carried out by the community unsupervised. In some cases, aftercare guidance was provided along with trees, but no other involvement was planned. One group using this approach reporting having not received any contact from beneficiaries asking for advice or reporting problems, so it has been assumed that all has gone relatively well. It was noted by the group that there are a lot of relevant skills held in the local community which they anticipate supporting the success of the project and aftercare.

Many groups responding to requests for tree planting in certain areas expected a commitment from local residents or community groups in the aftercare of the trees before agreeing to site trees in those locations. This commitment was achieved variously through landowner and group agreements and via the recruitment of Tree Wardens. One umbrella organisation asked for volunteers to become Tree Wardens and look after newly planted trees in their area. This was perceived to be a very successful strategy, with new Tree Wardens recruited and each trees care becoming the responsibility of one of this team. Support is available for all these new Tree Wardens to ensure that they are able to carry out their role effectively.

4.5.2.2 Sharing aftercare beyond the community

Projects on council owned land frequently had agreements in place with the council that their contractors would take on long term maintenance of the trees. This often involved new trees being incorporated into existing local management regimes. This source of aftercare was sometimes used in conjunction with long term community voluntarism making it a joint responsibility. Being able to access council resources in this way enabled groups with little access to land or human resources to carry out projects without having to face the challenge of supplying long term care from within the community.

4.6 Survival rate of trees

Respondents were asked about the survival rate of their planting so far. For more recent projects it is too early to assess this accurately. Of those that could answer this question all reported success rates of between 70 - 100% for whip planting ranging over one or two growing seasons. The project experiencing a 30% loss reported that this was due to extremely bad weather. Survival rate of semi-

81

mature trees has been reported to be higher, with one group reporting a 95% success rate so far, and all others reporting no losses to date.

Vandalism has effected tree survival in some projects. One groups interviewed reported that vandalism had led to a loss of trees in one particular area. One of these reported that through identifying the offending group of people and engaging them in the project this vandalism had reduced significantly. This evidence supports the understanding that many groups had of a relationship between effective engagement of local communities within BTP schemes and an increased potential for the schemes survival past the short term. The other group described the consequences of the vandalism explaining that the trees will need to be replaced, potentially at a cost to the group, in order to retain the amenity value they were planned to provide (this is explained further in the case study on page 41). They did stress that this was an isolated incident and that recent very dry weather was likely to have a greater effect on the survival of trees in their project.

It is still early days for all projects, but this research indicates that survival rates are currently good, an indicator that planting has been of sufficient quality and that aftercare is currently being carried out as planned.

4.7 Conclusions

Evidence explored in this section supports and expands upon the findings established in the previous two chapters.

It similarly draws attention to the ways in which, in order for locally appropriate and successful planting proposals to be achieved, groups and organisations drew upon internal resources, social bonds with experienced and skilled individuals within their communities, associations with organisations with complementary experience and links to other bodies and agencies able to offer advice, guidance, capital resources and support.

It also reinforces the important role the third sector and local authorities appear to have played in the provision of such resources.

The aims of plantings were varied and interrelated, but have been broadly understood here in terms of achieving: the replacement and regeneration of woodland and trees; productive planting such as the establishment of orchards; enhancement of the natural capital of sites; and improvements to aesthetic values.

Such plantings were very frequently accomplished through engaging local communities (including specific sections within them or community groups) to undertake this work. Involving communities with planting (and aftercare) often appears to represent a particularly active stage of knowledge exchange within BTP projects. Groups reported multiple strategies for cascading and embedding relevant tree expertise toward community planters, whilst they perhaps learnt more about the capacities of their communities and appropriate ways to develop and sustain them. As described previously, it was considered a high priority for many groups that communities take ownership of such plantings and local residents’ informed participation in tree planting and maintenance were

82

regularly seen as a mechanism of achieving this. The exchange of knowledge initiated by BTP plantings potentially represent a substantial consolidation of tree care expertise now established within local communities.

A proportion of groups reported the effectiveness of combining planting events with celebrations of their BTP project. Again, such events were seen as opportunities to engender a sense of local community ownership of both trees and project ethos. Such celebrations may help to generate a sense of collective identification with the material and imagined resource under development, promoting the sense of local pride and engagement that were regularly seen as significant to projects’ long-term thriving. As described, groups might use such events to communicate the developing story of their site and their plans for its future, encouraging local people to feel part of both the real and projected asset generated through BTP. This evidence can be seen in relation to other references to BTP projects employing national and local opportunities to celebrate tree planting or use of tree planting as a marker of celebration. The association of tree planting with celebration of national and local culture and heritage appeared a potentially effective method of engaging communities with tree planting.

The research currently suggests that survival rates of trees planted under BTP are good and this could indicate that the levels of knowledge and ownership established within local communities during the scheme is active and of appropriate depth. However, it is difficult to make an effective assessment at this relatively early stage.

Further research into the sustainability of BTP tree planting and continued community engagement could be beneficial in understanding the long term impacts of BTP. At the time of this report it is too early to assess fully aspects such as survival of trees, effectiveness of after care plans, and whether expected continued community engagement will be sustained.

Further research into the outputs and outcomes of BTP including examining the well-being benefits of tree planting activities for those involved in BTP projects may reveal more about long term benefits of BTP projects. This would include researching changes in pro-environmental behaviours subsequent to participation in BTP.

83

5 Typologies

This section looks at the way in which groups in the research sample can be characterised in terms of their assets and resources and the extent to which these eased application and participation within BTP. Types of groups have been identified on the basis of their key defining features including motivations; relationships; resources; actions; and outcomes and how these affected the ease of application and participation within BTP.

Based on the similarities and differences between them, applicant groups have been categorised into group types, labelled 1-6. These typologies can be used to enable the categorisation of groups and to provide an indication of how groups of that type are likely to experience application and participation within a scheme such as BTP.

5.1 Type 1 – Large Umbrella Organisations

Table 9: Typology for group type 1.

Defining features  Large organisation with tree or environmental focus  Large scale project aimed at working with multiple community groups to plant in multiple locations usually over a large area or even nationally  Focused on deprived and non-deprived areas, but where deprived areas were targeted these generally had a higher level of social deprivation than project sites for other types of group  Tended to focus on urban locations and communities  Significant prior experience of applying for funding and running this type of project  Held significant existing resources within organisation  Held a significant level of social capital through connections with a wide range of organisations, professionals, community groups and individual volunteers  Supported beneficiary groups and project partners through providing access to a wide range of resources, assets and social connections. Motivations  Groups’ aims are primarily focused around tree planting but community engagement and visual amenity change are also considered important  Tended to be attracted to the scheme by the amount of money available Internal resources, assets & skills  Significant experience of community engagement & consultation

84

 Appropriate knowledge and skills to design planting plans  Appropriate knowledge and skills to supervise planting events and provide training where needed  Commonly possessed equipment and tools that were made available to beneficiary groups for planting events  Pre-existing connections to a wide range of relevant organisations to access man-power or skills not held by the organisation  Pre-existing links with a wide range of volunteers and groups able to provide volunteers External resources accessed  Projects frequently took place on council owned land, although other land owners were also engaged  Some accessed external assistance via pre-existing relationships to deliver aftercare of trees Ease of application  Applications of good quality written in a formal tone and very comprehensive  Commonly had high levels of match funding from a range of sources, both cash and in-kind with in- kind sources valued and demonstrated effectively  Some reported facing some challenges with the application around understanding BTP priorities, demonstrating how their project met these, and securing match funding.  The BTP hotline was the most accessed source of advice for this type of group Ease of participation  Commonly tackled project development and delivery with ease  Some faced challenges with engaging the community, particularly in deprived areas but these were overcome successfully Outcomes  A wide range of community focused and environmental outcomes were expected/realised by these groups, with some reporting more environmental impacts, and others focusing more on community impacts  Beneficiary groups often benefitted from the creation of bonds with similar organisations and links to organisations more experienced and better-resourced than themselves  Pre-existing social connections were strengthened  New social connections were formed with community groups  A raised profile within the community sometimes leading to greater involvement in local consultations, and an expansion of their work

85

Conclusions This type of group is able to deal with the application process, project development and project delivery well. They possess many skills and resources that facilitate their involvement in BTP, and are capable of drawing upon pre- existing social connections where internal resources and knowledge are lacking. Through this they and are able to access all forms of support that they require and overcome any challenges that they may face. Their ability to work closely with and for the benefit of beneficiary groups, particularly those in the most deprived communities, is of key importance to BTP.

5.2 Type 2 – Small Umbrella Organisations

Table 10: Typology for group type 2.

Defining features  Medium or small organisation with tree or environmental focus  Large scale project aimed at working with multiple community groups to plant in multiple locations, but projects were smaller than those proposed by large umbrella organisations and were over a smaller geographical spread, generally focused on one city or town  Tended to be urban focused  Tended to have experience of applying for funding and running this type of project  Held significant existing resources within organisation, but usually less than large umbrella organisations  Held a significant level of social capital through connections with a wide range of organisations, professionals, community groups and individual volunteers  Sometimes supported beneficiary groups and project partners through providing access to a range of resources, assets and social connections, but this was not always the case Motivations  Groups’ main aims are primarily focused around tree planting and environmental improvement for conservation purposes  Motivations to carry out tree planting projects were also frequently focused on providing community benefits  Improved visual and amenity motivations were also considered important  Tended to be attracted to BTP by a perceived good fit with eligibility criteria 86

Internal resources, assets & skills  Tended to have appropriate experience in community engagement & consultation  Appropriate knowledge and skills to design planting plans  Appropriate knowledge and skills to supervise planting events and provide training where needed  Pre-existing connections to a range of relevant organisations to access man-power, knowledge or skills not held by the organisation  Pre-existing links with a wide range of volunteers and groups able to provide volunteers External resources accessed  Projects frequently took place on council owned land, although a few other land owners were also engaged  Tended to engage communities in tree aftercare and long term maintenance but also accessed pre- existing relationships with LAs to secure aftercare for trees on their land  Tended to access advice and support with species choice and planting design from the Tree Council and Local Authorities/Tree Officers utilising existing connections  Were likely to access imagined capital to support their project in the form of linking with events such as Tree Week or the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Ease of application  Applications of good quality written in a formal tone and very comprehensive  Commonly had good levels of match funding from a range of sources, both cash and in-kind with in- kind sources valued and demonstrated effectively  Some reported facing some challenges with the application around understanding BTP priorities and demonstrating how their project met these  Tended to seek advice and guidance on the application process, particularly budgeting, from the BTP hotline Ease of participation  Commonly faced few challenges with project development and delivery  Challenges that were faced were commonly around engaging the community and having enough resources within their group to develop and manage the project Outcomes  A wide range of community focused and environmental outcomes were expected/realised by these groups, with some reporting more environmental impacts, and others focusing more on community impacts

87

 Pre-existing social connections were strengthened  New social connections were formed with community groups  A sense of ownership of trees was fostered in the communities, commonly through responsibility for tree care  A raised profile within the community sometimes leading to greater involvement in local consultations, and an expansion of their work Conclusions This type of group is able to deal with the application process, project development and project delivery well, but tend to face more challenges than large umbrella organisations. They possess many skills and resources that facilitate their involvement in BTP, and are usually capable of drawing upon pre-existing social connections where internal resources and knowledge are lacking, or form new connections where required. Through this they are usually able to access all forms of support that they require and overcome challenges with relative ease. Alongside large umbrella organisations they play a key role in enabling small community groups and those with small planting aspirations to carry out projects, in some cases this can be a very small number of trees. Some groups in this type may benefit from more support in managing their project, particularly in the development stage where considerable organisational resources are in demand.

5.3 Type 3 – Small groups able to draw on internal resources and existing social capital

Table 11: Typology for group type 3

Defining features  Small group applying directly for their own project  A range of types of group; tree, environmental, community focused and parish councils, but most were tree or environmentally focused  Tended to be located in non-deprived areas but with some being in areas of high deprivation  Commonly applied for between £1000 and £5000 for projects of between 100 – 1000 trees, but some applied for larger, more expensive projects  Were able to access knowledge and skills within the group and through existing links and bridges 88

to facilitate project development and delivery  BTP projects were a mixture of on-going projects contributing to on-going spatial change and stand- alone projects Motivations  Tended to have a wide range of motivations for planting trees, with improving the look of the area; improving the nature conservation value of the area; and providing a meeting place for groups being the most common  Improving bonds with the local community was also an important motivation along with fostering a sense of community spirit and pride  Motivations to apply to BTP tended to be focused around a perceived good fit with the eligibility criteria, but a perception of a straightforward application process and the amount of money available were also attractive to these groups Internal resources, assets & skills  Tended to have some prior experience of tree planting or similar projects that equipped them with knowledge, skills and relationships that facilitated their project development and delivery  These were the most likely group type to be planting on their own sites, but other sites and council owned land were also accessed External resources accessed  Tended to access advice and support fairly early on, either before developing a project or after project development but prior to submitting a draft application  Commonly accessed advice and support from tree or environmentally focused organisations and groups and from Local Authorities/Tree Officers  Tended to have some existing bridges and links with environmental and community organisations and groups that helped to facilitate their project  Bonds with knowledgeable and skilled individuals within the community were also commonly utilised  The BTP hotline was also frequently utilised by this group, but not as much as group 5, potentially due to greater experience and confidence in accessing this type of funding, and a perception that the application process was straight forward  Those with a tree or environmental focus were more likely to access advice and support with community engagement aspects of their project  Those with a community focus were more likely to access advice and support with species choice and planting design  Tended to access volunteers from other local community groups through existing and new 89

bridges and links  Were the most likely group to access imagined capital to support their project through linking it to events such as the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee and Tree Week Ease of application  Application forms tended to be written well in a formal style indicating experience of completing this type of funding application  Outcomes for communities were demonstrated well, potentially enabling the success of a few groups that had higher average unit costs  Match funding tended to come from a range of sources both cash and in-kind, with in-kind funding generally demonstrated in the financial aspect of the application  Tended to achieve a unit cost per tree close to the £4 target  All groups within this type faced few challenges with the application process and were successful, indicating that their perception of a straight forward application process was accurate for groups of their type Ease of participation  Tended to face little difficulty in engaging the community in project development and delivery using a wide range of methods to achieve this  Tended to successfully run planting events and celebration events to attract community engagement  Existing bonds and bridges with community members and groups acted to ease participation through providing volunteers with tree planting and aftercare Outcomes  This group reported the widest range of anticipated and perceived outcomes for each group covering community and environmental benefits  An improved look of the local environment was the most commonly recognised outcome but this was very closely followed by improved bonds within the community; improved relationships between community groups and environmental organisations; and improved air quality amongst others  Applying groups benefitted from strengthened and newly formed links and bonds and a greater profile within their community leading to support for future projects to be run Conclusions This group type is the most represented by the research sample.

90

They tended to cope well with the application process facing few challenges and having the ability to overcome them with relative ease where they did occur. This is likely to be due to the possession of a reasonable level of internal experience, knowledge and skills and the pre- existence of links, bridges and bonds with relevant organisations, groups and individuals. Their experiences were less challenging than other small groups with less experience at this type of project and less internal social capital and fewer resources (type 4). Being the group type most likely to have access to their own land for planting is likely to have eased participation as it removes a barrier that has challenged others. Other project sites were frequently gained through existing links with their Local Authority, particularly in the case of Parish Councils. They are the most likely to aim for a wide range of outcomes from their project. It is difficult to say at this point in most groups’ projects but outcomes so far appear to have been realised as expected. Where groups are environmentally focused they may benefit from support in community engagement, and where community focused, may benefit from referral to groups and organisations with specialist tree knowledge and skills.

5.4 Type 4 – Small groups building new social capital

Table 12: Typology for group type 4.

Defining features  Small group applying directly for their own project  Tended to be community focused group or a parish council  Generally in non-deprived, urban locations but some in more deprived areas  Held little relevant knowledge and skills within the group and few existing links and bridges to other groups and organisations  Relied on the formation of new connections to facilitate their project  BTP projects tended to be part of larger on-going projects being undertaken by the group contributing to local spatial change  Tended to have good levels of support from the local community with schools frequently providing planting sites and taking an active role in planting 91

Motivations  Groups tended to have a range of motivations, but these were more limited than umbrella organisations and type 3 groups.  Common motivations included an improved look of the local environment; an increase in the nature conservation value of the area; and to foster a sense of community spirit and pride  Tended to be attracted to BTP by a perceived good fit with the eligibility criteria and some were also attracted by the amount of funding available Internal resources, assets & skills  Groups generally had existing internal experience of developing and managing projects for the benefit of the community  Groups commonly lacked specific skills and knowledge required for this type of project such as knowledge on tree species choice and planting design, and skills in tree planting and aftercare External resources accessed  Frequently formed or accessed existing connections to gain access to land for planting  Sought advice and support from an early stage in the project, quite commonly before the development of a project proposal  The BTP hotline was a commonly accessed source of advice as well as Local Authorities/Tree Officers who offered assistance with species choice and planting design  Were likely to access imagined capital to support their project in the form of linking with events such as Tree Week, the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee or to carry out projects in commemoration of a locally significant event or person Ease of application  Application forms tended to be of lower quality than types 1-3 with some important information missing indicating a lack of experience and skills in completing this type of application form  Relied heavily on the BTP hotline for advice on application completion and budgeting of the project, particularly on reducing the average unit cost per tree  A range of levels of match funding were demonstrated by this group with many drawing funding from few sources  Commonly in-kind contributions that were mentioned in the application form were not necessarily recognised as such and so were not included in the financial calculations  Tended to reach a reasonable unit cost per tree but usually higher than the target £4  Despite usually reporting understanding the fund criteria, they commonly faced challenges with 92

seeking advice on how to develop the project to meet these criteria and how to demonstrate that they had been met Ease of participation  Despite good levels of community support, groups tended to face challenges with engaging those new to volunteering and finding that other time demands on a busy community inhibited involvement in project delivery  They also perceived that a lack of understanding of urban tree planting contributed towards challenges in community engagement in project development and delivery  Participation was eased by the engagement of external assistance, particularly in the form of LA Tree Officers Outcomes Expected/perceived outcomes tended to be focused around:  creating a sense of achievement for project participants and a sense of pride in the local area  an improved look of the local environment  creation of meeting place for local groups  increased bonds between community members  an increased motivation and confidence for the applying group to carry out further projects in the future and improved bridges and links to facilitate further work Conclusions This group type found application and participation in BTP challenging but most overcame these challenges through successfully seeking external advice and support. Some groups of this type were unsuccessful in their BTP application due to not reducing the average unit cost sufficiently and not providing enough community benefits to justify the higher costs to BTP. These tended to be in more deprived areas than others in this group type. This group type would potentially benefit from the facilitation of links with better resourced and knowledgeable organisations, particularly those with environmental and tree based experience. Some groups of this type would also benefit from access to community engagement expertise to help them build on existing connections to translate support into action. They may also benefit from clear application guidance including examples of in-kind match funding and how other groups have managed to achieve lower average unit costs per tree.

93

5.5 Small community focused groups with little experience not accessing assistance

Table 13: Typology for group type 5.

Defining features  Small groups with a community focus although their aims are sometimes realised through environmental activities  Very small projects consisting of fewer than 50 trees  Low level of community involvement in tree planting  Planting either solely or mostly street trees  Little or no experience of applying for this type of funding or delivering this type of project  Standalone projects  Tended not to access advice regarding application or project development Internal resources, assets & skills  Some had social connections that they drew upon to access in-kind match funding in the form of trees and reduced cost professional services  Good existing community relationships and support, fostered through previous work  Potentially lack access to land, limiting the size of project they are able to deliver External resources accessed  Contractors were engaged by some due to street tree planting in busy highway locations  LAs were also engaged for access to long term tree maintenance services and for access to land Ease of application  Applications of poor quality, often brief and written in an informal tone with little detail  Commonly attract low levels of match funding and from a single source, although where multiple sources have been accessed match funding is higher Ease of participation  Reported facing few challenges with project development  Did not commonly access advice in the development of the project (this may have been a significant factor in lack of success)  An inability to reduce the average unit cost to an acceptable level, commonly applying with an average unit cost of £100-£500 Outcomes  All of these groups were unsuccessful in securing BTP funding  None received alternative funding for their project Consequences of a lack of success include:  A financial loss through time and money spent on 94

developing the project  A loss in confidence in applying for funding  A loss of community support for the project  A loss of potential environmental improvement including habitat creation Conclusions This type of group finds successful application to BTP the most challenging. This is perhaps due in part to not accessing enough advice and assistance with project development or application completion, possibly due to an underestimation of the difficulty of successful application and/or the level of competition for funds through lack of relevant experience. Reducing average unit cost per tree was the greatest issue for this group with average costs being significantly higher than the recommended target. A lack of community engagement in tree planting was another key area that was likely to negatively affect their chances of success. Accessing advice tailored to the fund may have resulted in these two challenges being overcome. This type of group are likely to benefit from the assistance of an umbrella organisation in order to access the resources and assistance they could offer, and so that their lack of available land and other resources and assets can be averaged out with other projects. However, due to this group of applicants not contacting the BTP hotline prior to submission of their application, this would make referrals to umbrella organisations difficult.

5.6 Type 6 – Umbrella organisation beneficiary groups

Table 14 : Typology for group type 6.

Defining features  Small groups applying indirectly via an umbrella organisation  Small or very small projects  Little or no experience of applying for this type of funding or delivering this type of project  Where projects were located in deprived areas they were more likely to include areas amongst the 20% or 10% most socially deprived than project sites proposed in deprived areas by other types of groups. Internal resources, assets & skills  Lacked experience in running this type of project  Held little internal financial resource  Tended to lack appropriate skills and knowledge External resources accessed  Accessed a wide range of resources through links with an umbrella organisation including expertise 95

and manpower in: o designing and developing ideas for their project o securing project sites o consulting the community o engaging the community and volunteers in planting o training group members and project participants in planting, and supervising planting events o organising, publicising and running planting events o carrying out aftercare or training group members to enable them to carry out this successfully in the long term Ease of application  Did not apply to BTP directly  Most groups did not have to formally apply to the umbrella organisation for funds Ease of participation  Groups tended to have the offer of a great amount of support to enable participation in their project  Many groups were offered training in tree planting and aftercare  Groups were offered assistance with community consultation and the publicity and running of planting events, easing the challenge of community engagement Outcomes Due to difficulties in engaging this type of group in this study little is known of the outcomes their projects produced  Links with more experienced and well-resourced organisations were formed and bridges with similar groups to themselves were facilitated  Groups tended to increase their knowledge and skills in tree planting and aftercare  In some cases groups were supported to increase their capacity to carry out further similar projects in the future Conclusions If this type of group had applied to BTP directly they are likely to have found it very challenging due to a lack of experience, resources and small size of their projects. It would be unlikely that they would have been successful.. Their participation in BTP was facilitated through forming links with a larger, more experienced and better resourced organisation. Participation in BTP is likely to have benefitted this type of group greatly through increasing their social capital, internal skills and knowledge and confidence in running

96

this type of project. Umbrella organisations tend to report feeling that through involvement in the scheme this type of group will have a greater capacity to develop and deliver further projects in the future. However, due to difficulties in engaging this type of group it is not clear whether this will be the case for many groups.

5.7 Summary of Group Types

The table below presents a summary of the group types described by the above typologies. This table can be used to compare the social capital held and accessed by each type and the ease with which they are likely to apply and participate in BTP or similar funding schemes.

Table 15: Key for typology summary table.

Key for typology summary table - Less likely/tendency toward -- Much less likely/tendency toward + More likely/tendency toward ++ Much more likely/tendency toward 0 Neither more or less likely/tending to

* This type could be in a deprived or non-deprived area, but where projects were located in deprived areas they were more likely to include areas amongst the 20% or 10% most socially deprived than project sites proposed in deprived areas by other types of groups.

** Groups reportedly would have found application & participation to BTP very difficult if applying directly, but due to assistance from umbrella groups found it much easier.

97

Table 16: Summary of typologies

Type

Size of Size

Example

influence

resources

members)

proposal/s

BTP impact BTP

orgs./groups orgs./groups

Umbrella org. Umbrella

greater scale or or scale greater

beneficiaries or or beneficiaries

External links to to links External

Tended to make make to Tended make to Tended

existing internal internal existing

Scale of planting ofplanting Scale

Tended to access access to Tended access to Tended

Multiple projects Multiple focus Geographic

existing bridges to to bridges existing

external bridges to to bridges external

organisation/group

Focuses of intended ofintended Focuses

resources from similar similar from resources similar from resources

resources (either staff, (either resources

resources from orgs. oforgs. from resources

rural

larger larger urban

capital capital capital capital

smaller smaller

knowledge knowledge knowledge knowledge

Tended to cascade knowledge &/ or or &/ knowledge cascade to Tended

Ease of application and participation and ofapplication Ease

Tended to access cultural (imagagined) (imagagined) cultural access to Tended

community change

Project/s in area of relative deprivation ofrelative area in Project/s

experience beyond applying group/org. applying beyond experience

practical skills/energy practical skills/energy practical skills/energy practical skills/energy

env/ecological change visual/amenity change

Type + -- + ++ -- ++ + + -- ++ + + ++ ++ + - - + ------++ ++ ++ Trees for 1 Cities Type -- + + + -- ++ - + -- ++ - + + ++ + + + + + - + - - - ++ + +

2 Herefordshire Orchard Topic Group

Type -- + -- - + - 0 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - - - ++ - + South Stoke 3 Amenities

Type -- + -- - + - 0 + + + + + - - + - - + + + + ++ ++ + + - - Canterbury 4 Society Type -- + -- -- ++ -- + ++ -- - + + + + + - + ------Oaten Hill & 5 District Society Type -- + -- -- + -- +* + - + + + n/k n/k n/k n/k n/k n/k n/k n/k n/k ++ ++ ++ n/k n/k ++** TfC 6 beneficiary groups

98

6 Summary of recommendations

Recommendation 1: Ensure the eligibility and criteria of tree planting/environmental grant programmes encourage a diversity of applications and flexibility to suit local circumstances

This could mean ensuring national schemes are able to accommodate and respond to a broad range of application types and scales or that administration of schemes take place at more regional/local levels able to recognise and react to priorities in that area

Recommendation 2: Recognise and value funding support mechanisms appropriate to:

 helping kick start communities toward formulating new plans and ideas around tree planting/environmental projects and carrying these out

 helping communities to take forward relatively established longer-term visions for social and spatial changes that use tree planting as a vehicle toward this

Meeting these recommendations could require understanding the likely gaps in participation in a large scale scheme such as BTP and meeting these through provision of different levels of support, or it could involve assessing which existing funding schemes are successfully addressing which audiences and establishing how these might benefit from support and where gaps could be usefully filled.

Recommendation 3: Create varied, creative, flexible and comprehensive application and compliance guidance appropriate to varied audiences

This recommendation does not suggest that guidance accompanying application and compliance procedures needs necessarily to be more complex, but that it could take different and innovative forms in recognition of the varied levels of experience and expertise possessed by potential participants.

The centrality of the BTP hotline in helping participants better formulate and carry out their participation underlines the appropriateness of offering comprehensive, accessible and flexible support.

99

Recommendation 4: Recognise the role of existing advice and support providers to the urban forestry sector, their resource needs and explore gaps

It is possible that this recommendation could be met in part by recognising which sources of external support helped address applicants’ advice and resource needs within BTP and how continued provision of these could be facilitated and gaps addressed. Within future similar schemes, referrals by the fund administrators to relevant organisations and groups could be beneficial to applicants and might reduce the pressure on administrators to provide detailed advice in multiple areas.

Recommendation 5: Ensure clarity (clearly worked examples in guidance) over which areas of funding application and participation are fundamental to success

In the context of BTP, for example, it became clear relatively early on that a target average unit cost per tree was required to provide applicants with a guide as to what was considered value for money. This kind of clarity and guidance is important in developing applicants’ awareness of how their application will be treated and to prevent their use of precious resources developing and submitting schemes that do not meet these priorities.

Recommendation 6: Continue to develop existing understandings of the potential role of social networks when designing funding mechanisms similar to BTP or when assessing the impact and scope of existing ones and gaps within these

Whilst the idea of social capital is implicit within ideas such as the Big Society and associated schemes that devolve responsibility to local people and communities, for this to occur with any consistency it may be necessary to recognise:

 where the consolidation and expansion of such networks might be facilitated or encouraged  where partnership or collaboration as a way of gaining access to resources could be formally promoted and endorsed  where insufficient social capital has the potential to hinder success  how social deprivation may be associated with lack of social capital  pathways that successfully support communities lacking social capital to participate within such schemes.

100

Recommendation 7: Consider the sustainability of sources of support that exist for communities wishing to plant trees/enhance their environment and how changes in their provision might challenge the success of projects of similar ethos, approaches or aims as those taken forward under BTP

As successful participation in BTP was frequently resourced through access to external advice and support provided by the third-sector and local government, it is important to consider how sustainable this support for urban forestry will be in the future and what strategies can help address any emerging gaps.

Recommendation 8: Consider establishing a route to funding and support for tree planting/environmental improvement via organisations acting as umbrellas to beneficiaries

Accessing funding via umbrella organisations has been a route to BTP application for many communities. Allowing and encouraging this method of participation within tree planting funding mechanisms, in addition to opportunities for direct application, could better enable engagement of small inexperienced groups lacking social, human and financial assets. Its retention as an option for groups that are less likely to be successful independently is recommended for any scheme similar to BTP in ethos and operation. However, it would also be important to monitor the benefits to all parties of these arrangements and any potential dis-benefits, to build understanding in this area.

101

Recommendation 9: Explore the potential of strategies for supporting social and cultural legacies of BTP and similar schemes beyond their immediate lifetime

BTP has established substantial increases in tree coverage at sites. In association with this, a potential legacy of social networks appropriate to bringing about local environmental and neighbourhood change and increased knowledge resources around tree planting activities and projects, has also been established within local communities.

Whilst BTP guidance stressing the importance of building in long-term care plans for plantings was taken on fully by the groups within this research, it is possible that the sustaining of relationships and expertise related to urban forestry may not be similarly planned for. Whether such communities of knowledge could be usefully supported and sustained and how, could be explored by organisations working with BTP at a national and local scale.

Any such strategy might:

 help maintain the contacts gathered under BTP  establish, signpost them toward and assist them to take advantage of opportunities likely to enhance and sustain the relationships and knowledge they have consolidated  continue to research with them their aspirations, experiences and support needs in order to inform future support and provision for Urban Forestry.

Recommendation 10: Continue to recognise the value of creating opportunities to create cultural celebrations of trees and use them as symbolic markers, at national and local events

Within the context of BTP, planting trees for events such as Tree Week or the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee can be seen as a tool for driving community involvement in tree planting and generating a broad cultural purpose, containing ideas and imagery which can be drawn upon by diverse individuals or communities as motivational. In this research it was also thought by some groups to add reputability to their planting aspirations and events. Sometimes BTP itself supplied this sense of unified cultural purpose and credibility. Sometimes the focus was on marking more locally symbolic people or dates.

This recommendation could be taken forward through:

 reviewing the impact and effectiveness of existing opportunities to celebrate trees and their potential for enhancement or expansion  Supporting the establishment of additional opportunities at national and local scales

102

Recommendation 11: Further monitoring, evaluation and research into BTP impacts and legacy in order to inform future funding schemes and approaches to Urban Forestry

It would benefit understanding of the long-term impact of BTP to undertake further research into:

 sustainability of BTP plantings

 continued levels of community engagement with plantings

 self-reported well-being outcomes achieved by communities surrounding BTP plantings, caring for them or using them pro-environmental behaviours achieved by communities surrounding BTP plantings, caring for them and using them

103

7 References

Anderson, K. (2004) Nature, culture, and big old trees: Live oaks and ceibas in the landscapes of Louisiana and Guatemala. University of Texas Press.

Austin, M. E. (2002) 'Partnership opportunities in neighborhood tree planting initiatives: building from local knowledge'. Journal of Arboriculture, 28 (4). pp 178-186.

Bixler, R. D. & Floyd, M. F. (1997) 'Nature is scary, disgusting, and uncomfortable'. Environment and Behavior, 29 (4). pp 443-467.

Blair, D. (2009) 'The Child in the Garden: An Evaluative Review of the Benefits of School Gardening'. Journal of Environmental Education, 40 (2). pp 15-38.

Bloniarz, D. V. & Ryan, H. (1996) 'The use of volunteer initiatives in conducting urban forest resource inventories'. Journal of Arboriculture, 22 pp 75-82.

Bodin, M. & Hartig, T. (2003) 'Does the outdoor environment matter for psychological restoration gained through running?'. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4 (2). pp 141-153.

Brown, B. B. & Altman, I. (1983) 'Territoriality, defensible space and residential burglary: An environmental analysis'. Journal of environmental psychology, 3 (3). pp 203-220.

Brown, B. B. & Bentley, D. L. (1993) 'Residential burglars judge risk: The role of territoriality'. Journal of environmental psychology, 13 (1). pp 51-61.

Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R. D., Copeland, J., Stukas, A. A., Haugen, J. & Miene, P. (1998) 'Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: a functional approach'. Journal of personality and social psychology, 74 (6). pp 1516.

Cloke, P. & Jones, O. (2003) 'Grounding ethical mindfulness for/in nature: trees in their places'. Ethics, Place and Environment, 6 (3). pp 195-213.

Cloke, P. & Jones, O. (2004) 'Turning in the graveyard: trees and the hybrid geographies of dwelling, monitoring and resistance in a Bristol cemetery'. Cultural Geographies, 11 (3). pp 313-341.

Cloke, P. & Pawson, E. (2008) 'Memorial trees and treescape memories'. Environment and planning. D, Society and space, 26 (1). pp 107.

104

Coley, R. L., Sullivan, W. C. & Kuo, F. E. (1997) 'Where does community grow? The social context created by nature in urban public housing'. Environment and Behavior, 29 (4). pp 468-494.

Dandy, N. (2010) Climate change & street trees project: The social and cultural values, and governance, of street trees. Forest Research. [online] Available at: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/place_and_communities_inventory_report_Oct2010.pdf/$FILE/plac e_and_communities_inventory_report_Oct2010.pdf. (Accessed: 22.04.13).

Defra (2012) Big Tree Plant competition details and project specification.

De Vries, S., Verheij, R. A., Groenewegen, P. P. & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2003) 'Natural environments- healthy environments? An exploratory analysis of the relationship between greenspace and health'. Environment and Planning A, 35 (10). pp 1717-1732.

Forestry Commission (no date) Aims of the Big Tree Plant Funding Scheme [online] Available at: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-8bhlv4 [Accessed 08.07.2013]

Glover, T. D. (2004) 'Social Capital in the Lived Experiences of Community Gardeners'. Leisure Sciences, 26 (2). pp 143-162.

Gov.uk (no date) Community and society [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/topics/community-and-society [Accessed 26.06.2013]

Greater_london_Authority (2005) Connecting Londoners with Trees and Woodlands. London. Available at: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDQQFjA A&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.london.gov.uk%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fuploads%2Fltwf_full.pdf &ei=GHbtUPjKCNGz0QW1-4DgCA&usg=AFQjCNE01obVUW0GC7K5_- cpgkPMaagbjg&sig2=GBZM8s0Lcp-HvjHISfog8g&bvm=bv.1357316858,d.d2k (Accessed: 09.01.2013).

Groundwork London (2011) Groundwork Report: The Big Tree Plant Analysis December 2011 [online] Available at: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/BigTreePlantAnalysisDec2011.pdf/$file/BigTreePlantAnalysisDec20 11.pdf [Accessed: 15.08.2013]

Groundwork London (2012) The Big Tree Plant Grant Scheme: Analysis Report 2 December 2011/12 [online] Available at: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/BTPAnalysisReportDecember2012FINAL.PDF/$file/BTPAnalysisRepo rtDecember2012FINAL.PDF [Accessed: 15.08.2013]

105

Hansmann, R., Hug, S. M. & Seeland, K. (2007) 'Restoration and stress relief through physical activities in forests and parks'. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 6 (4). pp 213-225.

Hartig, T. (2008) 'Green space, psychological restoration, and health inequality.'. The Lancet, 372 (9650) pp 1614-1615.

Hartig, T., Evans, G. W., Jamner, L. D., Davis, D. S. & Gärling, T. (2003) 'Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings'. Journal of environmental psychology, 23 (2). pp 109-123.

Hartig, T., Mang, M. & Evans, G. W. (1991) 'Restorative effects of natural environment experiences'. Environment and Behavior, 23 (1). pp 3-26.

Helliwell, J. F. & Putnam, R. D. (2004) ‘The Social Context of Well-Being’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London B. 359, pp1435–1446 [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1693420/pdf/15347534.pdf accessed 15/08/13]

Hewson, M. (2001) 'Horticultural therapy and post traumatic stress recovery'. Journal of Therapeutic Horticulture, 12 pp 44-47.

Hull, R. B. (1992) 'How the public values urban forests'. Journal of Arboriculture, 18 (2). pp 98-101.

Ingen, C. (2004) 'Therapeutic landscapes and the regulated body in the Toronto Front Runners'. Sociology of Sport Journal, 21 (3). pp 253-269.

Jones, O. & Cloke, P. (2002) Tree cultures: the place of trees and trees in their place. Berg Publisher.

Jordan, B. (2008) ‘Social Capital in Welfare Policy’, Chapter twenty-three, pp 652-676 in Castiglione, D. W. van Deth, J. & Wolleb, G., The Handbook of Social Capital, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Kim, J. & Kaplan, R. (2004) 'Physical and psychological factors in sense of community new urbanist Kentlands and nearby Orchard Village'. Environment and Behavior, 36 (3). pp 313-340.

Kuo, F. E. (2001) 'Coping with poverty impacts of environment and attention in the inner city'. Environment and Behavior, 33 (1). pp 5-34.

Kuo, F. E., Bacaicoa, M. & Sullivan, W. C. (1998) 'Transforming Inner-City Landscapes Trees, Sense of Safety, and Preference'. Environment and Behavior, 30 (1). pp 28-59.

106

Kuo, F. E. & Sullivan, W. C. (2001) 'Aggression and violence in the inner city effects of environment via mental fatigue'. Environment and Behavior, 33 (4). pp 543-571.

Lohr, V. I., Pearson-Mims, C. H., Tarnai, J. & Dillman, D. A. (2004) 'How urban residents rate and rank the benefits and problems associated with trees in cities'. Journal of Arboriculture, 30 (1). pp 28-35.

McCulloch, A. (2001) ‘Social environments and health: cross sectional national survey’, British Medical Journal, 323, pp 208-209 [http://www.bmj.com/content/323/7306/208.1.pdf%2Bhtml accessed 15/08/13]

Miavitz, E. (1998) 'Grief gardening'. Journal of Therapeutic Horticulture, 9 pp 17-21.

Miller, D. & Rivera, J. D. (2007) 'Landscapes of disaster and place orientation in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina'. The sociology of Katrina: Perspectives on a modern catastrophe, pp 141-154.

Moskell, C., Broussard Allred, S. & Ferenz, G. (2010) 'Examining volunteer motivations and recruitment strategies for engagement in urban forestry'. Cities and the Environment (CATE), 3 (1). pp 9.

Moskell, C., Broussard Allred, S. & Ferenz, G. (2011) 'Examining volunteer motivations and recruitment strategies for engagement in urban forestry'. Cities and the Environment (CATE), 3 (1). pp 9.

Nucifora Jr, F., Langlieb, A. M., Siegal, E., Everly Jr, G. S. & Kaminsky, M. (2007) 'Building resistance, resilience, and recovery in the wake of school and workplace violence'. Disaster medicine and public health preparedness, 1 (Supplement 1). pp S33.

O' Brien, L., Williams, K. & Stewart, A. (2010) Urban health and health inequalities and the role of urban forestry in Britain: A review. Forest Research & The University of Melborne. Available at: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/urban_health_and_forestry_review_2010.pdf/$FILE/urban_health_ and_forestry_review_2010.pdf (Accessed: 22.04.13).

O' Brien, L., Townsend, M. & Ebden, M. (2008) ‘I like to think when I’m gone I will have left this a better place’ Environmental volunteering: motivations, barriers and benefits', Forest Research & Deakin University. Available at: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/Env_Volunteering_Full_Report.pdf/$FILE/Env_Volunteering_Full_R eport.pdf (Accessed: 22.04.13)

Pretty, J., Peacock, J., Sellens, M. & Griffin, M. (2005) 'The mental and physical health outcomes of green exercise'. International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 15 (5). pp 319-337.

107

Pudup, M. B. (2008) 'It takes a garden: Cultivating citizen-subjects in organized garden projects'. Geoforum, 39 (3). pp 1228-1240.

Putnam, R. D. (2000) Bowling Alone, New York: Simon & Schuster

Quinn, J. (2010) Learning Communities and Imagined Social Capital: Learning to Belong. London & New York: Continuum

Roberts, K. (No Date) Securing urban trees through community involvement: Planting street and community trees in disadvantaged urban locations. Available at: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDkQFjAA&url=htt p%3A%2F%2Fwww.treesforcities.org%2Findex.php%2Fdownload_file%2F351%2F141%2F&ei=CWbt UPCUJ4jK0QW75oCwAg&usg=AFQjCNGPx2CKrlivpsZTj5W5NkgCEE3liQ&sig2=3UpxONnfzRxR- whcp_D0_g&bvm=bv.1357316858,d.d2k (Accessed: 09.01.2013).

Snyder, M. & Omoto, A. M. (2008) 'Volunteerism: Social issues perspectives and social policy implications'. Social Issues and Policy Review, 2 (1). pp 1-36.

Sommer, R. & Cecchettini, C. L. (1992) 'Street tree location and sidewalk management preferences of urban householders'. J. Arboric, 18 (4). pp 185-191.

Sommer, R., Learey, F., Summit, J. & Tirrell, M. (1994) 'The social benefits of resident involvement in tree planting'. Journal of Arboriculture, 20 pp 170-170.

Szreter, S. & Woolcock, M. (2004)‘Health by association? Social capital, social theory, and the political economy of public health’, International Journal of Epidemiology, 33 (4), pp. 650-667 [accessed 13/06/13, http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/4/650.full

Still, D. & Gerhold, H. (1997) 'Motivations and task preferences of urban forestry volunteers'. Journal of Arboriculture, 23 pp 116-129.

Stewart, A. & O' Brien, L. (2010) Inventory of social evidence and practical programmes relating to trees, woods and forests and urban/peri-urban regeneration, place-making and place-shaping. Forest Research. Available at http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/place_and_communities_inventory_report_Oct2010.pdf/$FILE/plac e_and_communities_inventory_report_Oct2010.pdf (Accesssed: 23.04.2013).

108

Sullivan, W. C., Kuo, F. E. & Depooter, S. F. (2004) 'The Fruit of Urban Nature Vital Neighborhood Spaces'. Environment and Behavior, 36 (5). pp 678-700.

Summit, J. & Sommer, R. (1998) 'Urban tree-planting programs—A model for encouraging environmentally protective behavior'. Atmospheric Environment, 32 (1). pp 1-5.

Takano, T., Nakamura, K. & Watanabe, M. (2002) 'Urban residential environments and senior citizens’ longevity in megacity areas: the importance of walkable green spaces'. Journal of epidemiology and community health, 56 (12). pp 913-918.

Tanaka, A., Takano, T., Nakamura, K. & Takeuchi, S. (1996) 'Health levels influenced by urban residential conditions in a megacity—Tokyo'. Urban Studies, 33 (6). pp 879-894.

Taylor, A. F., Kuo, F. E. & Sullivan, W. C. (2001) 'Coping with ADD The surprising connection to green play settings'. Environment and Behavior, 33 (1). pp 54-77.

Taylor, A. F., Kuo, F. E. & Sullivan, W. C. (2002) 'Views of nature and self-discipline: evidence from inner city children'. Journal of environmental psychology, 22 (1). pp 49-63.

Tidball, K. G. & Krasny, M. E. (2007) 'From risk to resilience: What role for community greening and civic ecology in cities'. Social learning towards a more sustainable world, pp 149-164.

Tidball, K. G. & Krasny, M. E. (2012) Greening in the Red Zone: Disaster, Resilience and Community Greening. Springer.

Tidball, K. G., Krasny, M. E., Svendsen, E., Campbell, L. & Helphand, K. (2010) 'Stewardship, learning, and memory in disaster resilience'. Environmental Education Research, 16 (5-6). pp 591-609.

Tyrväinen, L. & Miettinen, A. (2000) 'Property prices and urban forest amenities'. Journal of environmental economics and management, 39 (2). pp 205-223.

Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kaźmierczak, A., Niemela, J. & James, P. (2007) 'Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review'. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81 (3). pp 167-178.

Wakefield, S., Yeudall, F., Taron, C., Reynolds, J. & Skinner, A. (2007) 'Growing urban health: Community gardening in South-East Toronto'. Health Promotion International, 22 (2). pp 92-101.

Wells, N. M. (2000) 'At home with nature effects of “greenness” on children’s cognitive functioning'. Environment and Behavior, 32 (6). pp 775-795.

109

Westphal, L. M. (1993) 'Why trees? Urban forestry volunteers values and motivations'. Managing urban and high use recreation settings, pp 19-23.

Westphal, L. M. (2003) 'Urban greening and social benefits: a study of empowerment outcomes'. Journal of Arboriculture, 29 (3). pp 137-147.

Westwood A., (2011), Localism, social capital and the 'big society', Local Economy, 26 (8) , pp. 690- 701 [accessed 13/06/13 http://lec.sagepub.com/content/26/8/690.full.pdf+html ]

Williams, A. (2007) Therapeutic landscapes. Ashgate.

110

Appendices

Appendix A - BTP Management and delivery structures

Table 1: Structures and organisations engaged in development and managing of BTP

BTP Partnership Board The Partnership Board, drawn from organisations from the forestry, environmental, voluntary and community sectors, advised on the development of the application process, prior to the launch of the scheme and provide links to advice for applicants, frequently via their organisations’ websites. Some partners, such as the Tree Council, have also used their established networks to provide direct support and advice to applicants. Partners have additionally contributed towards the ‘Barriers and Drivers to Planting and Retaining Urban Trees’ report published in 2013, aimed at supporting BTP and a sponsorship exercise led by Defra to increase funds available for tree planting.

Member organisations are the Tree Council (Chair); England’s Community Forests; FC England; Greater London Authority; National Forest; Trees for Cities; and Woodland Trust.

Groundwork London An environmental regeneration charity contracted to manage the administration of BTP, manning the BTP hotline, advising on the eligibility of applicants and projects and providing general guidance on how to apply. They also collated and processed application forms, prior to their assessment by a Grants Panel, using a scoring system to compare the benefits of each project. This assessment and scoring system provided the Grants Panel with a summary of each application and recommendations on its potential success.

BTP Independent Grants Panel Decisions on the allocation of funding are made by the (independent) Grants Panel who meet following each funding round’s deadline to

111

decide which applications are successful. For applications under £25,000 the Panel receives the summary of each application and make decisions based on value for money, community benefits, sustainability and the level of risk associated with a project. In early rounds, projects considered good, but in need of improvement, were deferred to the next round, with applicants given advice on how to increase their suitability. This deferral process ceased in later rounds, with a move towards the awarding of conditional offers of funding based on minor changes to project proposals. For applications greater than £25,000 the Grants Panel review a greater level of detailed information for each project.

Current Grants Panel members are Peter Wilkinson (Chair); Nerys Jones; Tony Kirkham; and Dr Allison Millward.

112

Appendix B – Campaign Partners

Table 1: Campaign organisations

Member Organisations

Civic Voice Department for Communities and Local Government

England’s Community Forests Forestry Commission England

The Greater London Authority Groundwork

Keep Britain Tidy Kew

The Local Government Association Mayor of London

The National Forest Natural England

Tree Council Trees for Cities

The Conservation Volunteers Woodland Trust

113

Appendix C - Methodology

This section describes the methodology used to carry out this research. It also discusses how representative the research sample is of applications to BTP and the framework the research team have used to analyse the data in detail.

Methods Literature review - A focused review of literature around factors promoting and challenging successful community engagement was carried out by Stephanie Merchant, Research Assistant at Plymouth University. The cited literature included in the literature review was primarily drawn from academic, policy and government documents which have been written since 1990. These were located by initially searching the keywords: ‘tree’, ‘planting’, ‘urban green space’, ‘community’, ‘project’, ‘forestry’ and ‘volunteering’ using the Google Scholar search engine. The reference lists of relevant literature obtained through this search were then combed to fill in any gaps left in the original search.

This review was used to inform the initial development of the framework for analysing key characteristics and behaviours of BTP community groups and to contextualise results.

Review of applications and existing data – A review of the existing data collected during the application process and on-going monitoring of BTP was undertaken. Quantitative data collected by Groundwork was explored for associations between variables of successful/unsuccessful application. Qualitative data contained within applications was thematically analysed to begin the development of understandings of characteristics of community groups engaging in BTP, developing a framework for analysis and the design of a survey tool to test and expand project understanding, subject to informed consent of applicants. All applicants were approached via Groundwork to inform them about research and ask for informed consent to: a) use their application data, b) approach them with the survey (consent being given for either, neither or both) c) be contacted to arrange a follow-up telephone interview d) use of photos as part of survey to be used in follow up events and publications e) for their group to be identified. Consent could be given/not given for any of the above aspects of the research. Consent was provided to review thirty two application forms, which included panel summary reports where available. All applications that were made from round 2 onwards also had summary reports that were created by Groundwork to present to the Grants Panel. These were the main tool used by the Grants Panel to make decisions on success of applications. A further two panel summary reports were reviewed where application forms were not available. These two applications were made by the same organisation, with the second application being submitted as a re-application of the first unsuccessful application with amendments.

Stakeholder interviews - Telephone interviews were undertaken with key stakeholders in the application process to explore how applications were appraised for comparison with how the same criteria were interpreted by applicants to provide a possible first learning point in understanding barriers to successful application.

114

User group – The formation of a project user group composed of BTP applicants and partners within the BTP was planned to: inform and feedback on development and application of research methods; reflect on emerging findings; act as critical friend; be a location of knowledge exchange; and potential path to impact. This formed part of the participative research approach aimed at achieving consistency with the ethos of BTP and engagement of end users with findings. Members of the steering group for this research project, who are also partners in BTP and eventually seven applicants to BTP were recruited on to the user group and provided feedback on development of methods, initial findings and reporting.

Piloting and delivery of survey – A survey was developed, piloted and delivered to collect evidence on: motivations, relationships, resources, actions and outcomes, typifying successful and unsuccessful BTP projects; challenges and barriers to successful BTP application; outcomes obtained by groups and organisations from their participation within BTP (both successful and non-successful applicants); the range and success of approaches under BTP to creating/extending and managing treescapes. The survey gathered data on key characteristics and behaviours of BTP applicants, testing and developing a framework for analysis and resulting typologies. Project understandings of key factors, developed during the literature review, review of application data, stakeholder interviews and piloting with the project user group, assisted the design of closed questions presenting options rather than open responses in order to increase return rates, speed analyses, allow quantitative exploration of association between variables and facilitate reporting (although an ‘other’ option was always available for comments and additional responses). A survey was sent to all successful and unsuccessful applicants and enquirers that gave consent for this aspect of the research. The survey was designed to take respondents down the route appropriate to their grouping (successful/unsuccessful/enquirer). Consent was provided by 28 successful applicants, 6 unsuccessful applicants and 7 enquirers. The survey was completed by 23 successful applicants, 3 unsuccessful applicants and 2 enquirers. One successful applicant did not complete the survey but did take part in a telephone interview.

A second more participative section of the successful applicant route through the survey invited the submission of 4 images or photos with brief written commentary capturing 1) how groups engaged people, including obstacles to engagement 2) what the tree planting was for, 3) unexpected outcomes and 4) potential for future impact. These were intended, with the necessary permissions, to resource dissemination and knowledge exchange, further insight into BTP participants’ perspectives and prompts for focus group discussion. Four groups submitted photos, but none provided any commentary to accompany them. To maximise return rates, surveys were delivered electronically, with options being given to complete it over the phone with the researcher or via a paper copy, depending on respondents’ preferences, although all participants completed it electronically. Completions were incentivised by entry into a single free prize draw for £250 worth of trees/tree planting/management or inspection advice. Groups completing the survey were also invited to indicate if a member of their group would be prepared to participate within further discussion group events.

BTP applicant and participant interviews – A series of focus groups with community groups engaged in BTP were planned, to enable collection of focused, rich qualitative data expanding and developing understanding in all areas. However, invites to such events received a limited response, and focused 115

telephone interviews were carried out as a preferred method. Semi-structured telephone interviews focused on exploring the data gathered via survey and knowledge of the outcomes of participation for groups and their local communities and the impact and subsequent management of the new treed landscapes and spaces.

Follow-up telephone interviews - Targeted semi-structured telephone interviews were undertaken to collect data addressing any further gaps in evidence identified during interim analyses, reporting and knowledge exchange.

Research Sample In order to assess how representative the research sample has so far been, the geographical location and size of group was compared with data held by Groundwork London on all groups that were successful in obtaining BTP funding. The data for comparison was taken from the Big Tree Plant Analysis December 2011 report (Groundwork London, 2011). The 2011/2012 report was also viewed, but comparable data was not available. Local groups are projects run in a specific locality by local communities. Large organisations are large or medium sized organisations who apply for and manage funding for projects affecting more than one community or a wide geographical area.

Table 1: Comparison of BTP applicants in year 1 and in research sample, by group size.

Group size All applications year 1 (%) Research sample (%)

Local group 71 62

Larger organisation 29 38

Table 2: Comparison of successful BTP applicants in year 1 and in research sample, by group size.

Group size All successful applications year Successful applications – 1 (%) research sample (%)

Local group 61 57

Larger organisation 39 43

The above comparison tables show that the research sample is fairly representative of the distribution of local groups and large organisations applying to BTP and of those that are

116

subsequently successful in their bids. However, the distribution of successful applications is more representative than unsuccessful applications.

In order to compare geographical spread, the amount of grant requested by successful groups in each region in the first year of BTP has been compared with the grant amount requested by the successful groups in each region in the research sample. This is shown in the table below. It would have been preferable to compare the number of applications in each region in the research sample with the number of applications from each region over the life of the BTP scheme as this would have eliminated the bias that can be caused by anomalously large or small applications. However, this data was not available in a complete enough form to use in this research.

Table 3: Percentage of funding allocated per region in year 1 and in research sample. Research sample data taken from 30 successful application forms.

Region Percentage of total grant Percentage of total grant requested -all successful requested – successful applicants year 1 (%) research sample (%)

National 22.0 36.2

E. Midlands 10.2 0.4

London 17.6 16.3

Yorkshire & the Humber 4.2 0.1

N. East 0.6 0.2

N. West 23.3 27.0

S. East 4.3 6.0

Eastern 1.3 0.8

S. West 6.5 3.1

W. Midlands 10.1 9.9

This table shows that generally the amount of funding allocated for projects per region in the research sample is representative of all funding allocated per region in year 1. However, the research sample is currently under-represented in the East Midlands, Yorkshire & the Humber and over-represented by national schemes. 117

There were no figures available for the geographical location of unsuccessful applicants

Framework for analysis The approach to analysis of data has been to identify key themes emerging from each stage of the research and use these to refine the questions being asked of the evidence, in an iterative process.

The first stage of the research, reviewing application data from participants, highlighted themes around the differing types of resources and relationships groups applying to BTP appeared to possess and the kinds of impact this may have had upon the success or otherwise of their application. The next stage of the research, the e-survey, complicated and added to this data, suggesting in particular that social networks and relationships of various types appeared to function as key assets in enabling successful engagement with BTP. This evidence was used to refine the questions taken forward to the next stage of the research. The third round of data collection, individual interviews of group coordinators or members, confirmed further that the social economy and capital had a large role to play in the ease with which applicants participated within the scheme and in the benefits it appeared to produce. This evidence confirmed that analysis of the data and characterisation of groups participating in BTP, in terms of the assets that facilitated involvement was an appropriate approach. Working with the idea of social relationships and behaviours associated with them as assets or capital, belonging to groups, allows it to sit alongside other aspects of BTP that require or generate assets , such as its creation of natural capital (new, natural environments) and its utilisation of economic and human capital (skills and expertise).

There have been various interpretations and criticisms of social capital as a concept, but its place within the Big Society idea, which can be seen to engage with and employ the theory (Westwood, 2011), make it a particularly appropriate way of exploring how a scheme emerging from this background has unfolded.

The use of the notion of social capital within this research refers to the idea that ‘social networks have value’, to their members and potentially, indirectly to others beyond that group (Helliwell & Putnum). In this understanding, social capital cannot belong exclusively to an individual or be traded as can other forms of asset. It is located within a network of relationships, accessible as a resource by members of that set of contacts (Szreter & Woolcock, 2004). Social capital is not simply located in social association or interaction, however. It is secured within the attitudes and conduct associated with successful social association, such as trust, the sharing of values, mutual expectations for behaviour, reciprocal support and collective action (Putnam, 2000). Voluntary activity, such as participation within BTP, can be seen as a significant resource (and possibly indicator) of social capital. Voluntarism can be seen to grow social capital through its generation and fostering of the connections and attributes that characterise it: social networks, trust, shared values and behavioural norms (McCullock et al.).

This research also understands social capital to be of different forms, depending on the relationship between the groups engaged in sharing it.

118

 ‘bonding’ social capital—trusting and supportive connections between people who believe themselves to be similar (shared social and cultural backgrounds for example), (Szreter & Woolcock, 2004)  ‘bridging’ social capital- considerate and reciprocal relationships between people who understand themselves to be different from one another (socio-culturally, demographically, for example), but believe themselves to be approximately similar in influence and status (‘’bridging’ is, after all, essentially a horizontal metaphor’ Szreter & Woodcock, 2004)  ‘linking’ social capital- trusting and mutually rewarding relationships between groups that traverse recognised (‘formal or institutionalised’ Szreter & Woolcock, 2004), differentials in their power or authority  ‘imagined’ social capital- connections between groups and a symbolic or imagined community or individual (a connection with a particular heritage or history or tradition for example.(Quinn, 2010)

Within this research, understanding the value of social networks in terms of capital also allows analysis of the impact of the positive health and well-being services such assets may leverage (Helliwell & Putnam, 2004). A spouse, loyal friends, affable neighbours and sympathetic colleagues have all been identified as elements of social networks that beneficially influence their participant’s wellbeing, including self-esteem, moods, diet, sleeping patterns and social integration (Ibid). It has been argued further, that research shows that levels of well-being can be best forecast by establishing the extent and vigour of a person’s social associations (Ibid). Some calculate that the positive effects of social capital upon well-being are substantial in comparison to those produced by prosperity (Helliwell & Putnam, 2004; Jordan, 2008). This framework for understanding some of the impact of social capital within BTP in terms of possible well-being services generated also sits well with understandings of natural capital that have equally explored it in terms of its potential for service provision (eco-systems services). This research explores some of the ‘cultural’ services potentially provided by the new natural spaces created under BTP (or ‘non-material’ impacts), such as well-being and education.

119

Appendix D – Definitions

Table 1: Definitions of terms used in the literature review and report.

Terms and Definitions

Peri - urban Immediately adjoining an urban area.

Urbanisation The increasing percentage of a population living in urban areas due to migration from rural areas, and natural increase in urban areas.

Umbrella organisation An organisation that applies for funding on behalf of multiple groups and then distributes the funding or trees to those beneficiary groups.

Unit cost per tree The average cost per tree claimed from the fund.

Urban forestry The management of tree populations in urban settings.

‘bonding’ social capital Trusting and supportive connections between people who believe themselves to be similar (shared social and cultural backgrounds for example), (Szreter & Woolcock, 2004)

‘bridging’ social capital Considerate and reciprocal relationships between people who understand themselves to be different from one another (socio-culturally, demographically, for example), but believe themselves to be approximately similar in influence and status (‘’bridging’ is, after all, essentially a horizontal metaphor’ Szreter & Woodcock, 2004)

‘linking’ social capital Trusting and mutually rewarding relationships between groups that traverse recognised (‘formal or institutionalised’ Szreter & Woolcock, 2004), differentials in their power or authority

‘imagined’ social capital Connections between groups and a symbolic or imagined community or individual (a connection with a particular heritage or history or tradition for example.(Quinn, 2010)

120

Appendix E – Stakeholder telephone interview questions

Independent Grants Panel Confirm consent. Ask for consent to record conversation. Any questions?

How straightforward do you think it is for groups to make an application?

 What do you feel groups found challenging?  What seemed to support groups in making their applications?  The application forms have changed over time; what were the reasons for this? How did the scoring system for assessing application work?

 How was the scoring system designed and priorities set?  How was funding allocated? eg. all over a benchmark score, the top scorers in the round  Was this process consistent between rounds? Was the scoring the main tool for judging successful application?

 Were applications prioritised in some way?  Were organisations with certain aims more likely to be successful? Were applicants aware of how their applications were going to be assessed?

How well do you feel the assessment process works?

 Are the scoring system and summary sheets appropriate and consistent tools?  How were priorities set? Thanks. Any further questions? Anything else to add?

121

Groundwork London Confirm consent. Ask for consent to record conversation. Any questions?

How straightforward do you think it is for groups to make an application?

 Were there particular areas that were commonly found challenging?  Where did groups get advice/support from? Was advice provided by Groundwork reflected in applications?

How aware were applicants of the assessment process?

 Were they aware of the importance of certain aspects?  Were there differences between types of groups and how they appeared to attribute importance to certain areas of the application? How well do you feel the assessment process works?

 Is assessment made purely on the summary and scoring system or are they prioritised in any way?  Is the assessment process appropriate and consistent How do Groundwork decide what information goes into the summary for the Grants Panel?

Thanks. Any further questions? Anything else to add?

122

Appendix F – Telephone interview questions – Successful applicants

Confirm consent. Ask for consent to record conversation. Any questions?

The target unit cost per tree to BTP was set at around £4. How did your group try to meet this target?

 Were you given any advice on how to achieve this?  What methods/strategies did you employ to do this?  Did the design or management of your scheme change in order to do this?  Do you feel there were any consequences of this change for your project (in terms of people’s involvement or the design and management of your project for example)  Would your project have been different if the target unit cost were higher? For umbrella organisations: What do you feel your role as an umbrella organisation was?

 Do you think/know if any or some of the groups that you gave funding/trees to would have applied directly without your support or similar?  How did you decide which groups to give funding/trees to?  For those that applied directly: Do you think you would have sought assistance in applying via an umbrella organisation if the opportunity had been there? Why? (especially those that were unsuccessful) (an umbrella organisation is one that put in a bid on behalf of multiple smaller organisations and then distributed the funding/trees) To what extent do you feel you depended on external advice or assistance in developing and/or managing your project?

 For which aspects did you seek external assistance? From whom? (if don’t already have from survey)  In retrospect do you feel that seeking further assistance would have helped the success of your application?  Do you feel that your application would have been as successful without the external assistance you received? What approaches did your group take to tree planting?

 Who designed the planting scheme? Would you have liked to have had someone else involved in this?  Was there a particular aim behind the design of the planting scheme?

123

 How were the species chosen for the selected design?  Do your group feel the design has been appropriate/effective?  How did your group facilitate effective planting?  What was the aim of planting the trees?  Has this aim been met?  Does your group feel that the long term management plans you have in place will be sustainable in the long term?

What do you feel the main benefits of the project have been to your community?  What benefits do you think there have been for project participants?  Have there been challenges for project participants during or following their involvement? (group members and other participants)  Does your group feel that your project has provided benefits for your local community?  Do you anticipate further, more long term benefits? Has your BTP project enabled your group to fulfil your aims and objectives? Thanks. Any further questions? Anything to add?

124

Appendix G – Telephone interview questions – Enquirers

Confirm consent. Confirm permission to record conversation. Any questions?

What were the main motivations for you enquiring about BTP?

 Did you have an existing project you were looking for funding for, or did BTP inspire you to develop a project?

 Did you enquire about other funds as well?

Why did you not go on to apply?

Did your project go ahead?

 If not, why not?

 Did you go on to apply to other funds or seek support for your project in other ways?

 If not, why not?

Thank you for participating. Any questions? Anything to add?

125

Appendix H – Survey questions

Included as separate file.

126

Authors: Victoria Norris and Alice Goodenough –Silvanus and Stephanie Merchant – Plymouth University

With thanks to: The project steering group, Groundwork London, the Grants Panel, all BTP applicants and enquirers that participated in the research project particularly those that acted as the project user group, Dr Jocey Quinn, Dr Sarah Vaughan and Stuart Norris for all their help and input.

All the images contained within the report are of projects undertaken as part of the Big Tree Plant scheme. We would like to thank the groups engaged with this research who provided them for inclusion.

Cover images: Photographs courtesy of Leading Link, Birmingham Trees for Life, Ryde South West Action Group and Willingham Action Group (clockwise from top left)

Silvanus Unit 4, Winstone Beacon Trematon Saltash Cornwall PL12 4RU

Tel: 01752 846400 Email: [email protected]

127