Findings and Recommendations

Year 1

Work conducted in 2021/22 characterised different land managers, their understandings of and attitudes towards natural colonisation, barriers to uptake, and support and information needs.

The research found variation in how natural colonisation is understood by different land managers, as well as in the language used to refer to it as an expansion strategy. Further, it highlighted land managers’ need for knowledge and support in the form of successful examples, guides on best practice, and information about grants.

The majority of land manager across all types understand natural colonisation as an effective strategy for the provision of biodiversity/natural habitat and nature restoration, rather than to achieve other benefits of woodland creation (e.g. carbon sequestration, timber production).

Land managers often select sites near existing woodlands or use enrichment planting to manage risk. A need for practical tools and guidance for site selection and outcome assessment was identified.

Our recommendations were that land managers and their advisors should be provided with tools and guidance. This should support site selection and assess the likely outcomes of natural colonisation processes. It should be relevant to their land holding type and landscape context.

Year 2/3

Focus shifted to improving communication strategies and evaluating the uptake of incentive schemes. Choice of incentive schemes showed significant geographical variation.

We found significant geographic variation in the uptake of incentive schemes. All schemes are open to a mix of natural colonisation and planting approaches (hybrid), although grant rates and conditionalities may vary. Most schemes are relatively young (established in 2021) and follow EWCO guidance for seed sources within 75 metres. Grant uptake is variable and influenced by factors such as grant stipulations, payments for outcomes, permanence of land use, and regulatory processes.

Work also identified which incentive schemes supporting natural colonisation have or have not been taken up by which kinds of land managers and the reasons behind this, to inform future scheme design and delivery.

Our recommendations were that messaging should be customised to fit land managers’ terminology and needs. Flexible communication strategies should be implemented to accommodate diverse land management goals. Messaging should be refined to be more inclusive and engaging, and incentive schemes should be adjusted based on feedback and observed patterns.

Effective communication should align with the language and goals of land managers. Tailoring language to land managers’ terminology and objectives is more likely to foster buy-in than leading with terms they might not like or identify with. Terms can be introduced later as part of the ‘toolbox’. Making space for hybridity in language and communication is crucial. Many land managers need and desire hybridity to meet their objectives, while some find language implying no intervention to be alienating or misleading. Other considerations, like grant stipulations and payments for outcomes, are more influential in woodland expansion uptake.