Place and Communities Review Report Oct2010

Place-making and
Communities:
A review of concepts,
indicators, policy and
practice
Amy Stewart
Place-making and communities
Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................... 5
1. Introduction .................................................................................................. 8
1.1 Background ................................................................................................8
1.2 Methods and Sources ...................................................................................9
2. Definitions ................................................................................................... 11
2.1 Active Citizenship....................................................................................... 11
2.2 Community Empowerment .......................................................................... 11
2.3 Community Capacity .................................................................................. 12
2.4 Community Resilience ................................................................................ 13
2.5 Community Cohesion ................................................................................. 13
2.6 Social Capital ............................................................................................ 14
2.7 Place and Public Land Management .............................................................. 16
2.7.1 Space and place ................................................................................... 16
2.7.2 Sense of place and place-attachment ...................................................... 17
2.7.3 Place-making ....................................................................................... 19
2.8 Place and Local Area .................................................................................. 20
2.8.1 Place-shaping ...................................................................................... 20
3. Government Policy ...................................................................................... 22
3.1 England.................................................................................................... 22
3.2 Scotland ................................................................................................... 25
3.2 Wales....................................................................................................... 28
4. Forest Policies and Programmes.................................................................. 30
4.1 England Forest Policy ................................................................................. 30
4.2 England Forest Policy in Practice: a case study ............................................... 31
4.3 Scotland Forest Policy................................................................................. 32
4.4 Scotland Forest Policy in Practice: a case study .............................................. 33
4.5 Wales Forest Policy .................................................................................... 34
2 | Place-making and Communities | Amy Stewart | 05/11/2010

4.6 Wales Forest Policy in Practice: a case study.................................................. 36
5. Evaluation measures and indicators ............................................................ 39
5.1 Community Empowerment .......................................................................... 39
5.1.1 England .............................................................................................. 39
5.1.2 Scotland ............................................................................................. 40
5.1.3 Wales ................................................................................................. 41
5.2 Community Capacity and Resilience.............................................................. 42
Figure 1: Deconstructing community capacity and resiliency (Donoghue and

Sturtevant, 2007: 908) ................................................................................. 44
5.3 Community Cohesion and Social Capital ........................................................ 44
5.3.1 UK ..................................................................................................... 45
5.3.2 England .............................................................................................. 48
5.3.3 Scotland ............................................................................................. 49
5.3.4 Wales ................................................................................................. 50
5.4 Place-making and Shaping .......................................................................... 50
5.4.1 England .............................................................................................. 50
5.4.2 Scotland ............................................................................................. 52
5.4.3 Wales ................................................................................................. 53
5.4.4 Other indicators for measuring place-making in public-spaces..................... 53
6. Discussion ................................................................................................... 55
6.1 Differences and Similarities ......................................................................... 55
6.2 Gaps in Indicators...................................................................................... 57
7. Conclusion ................................................................................................... 60
7.1 Key Points Relevant to Forestry. .................................................................. 60
7.2 Future Research Requirements .................................................................... 61
7.3 Changing Governmental Context .................................................................. 62
References ...................................................................................................... 65
Appendix 1 ..................................................................................................... 72

Indicators (proposed and in use) for community empowerment........................... 72
Appendix 2 ..................................................................................................... 75
Indicators (proposed and in use) for social capital and community cohesion.......... 75
Appendix 3 ..................................................................................................... 80
Indicators (proposed and in use) for place-making and place-shaping .................. 80
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Bianca Ambrose-Oji, Barbara Anglezarke, Bob Frost, Anna Lawrence,

Jake Morris, James Ogilvie, Gareth Price, Jonathan Starling and John Vaughan for
their assistance and input into this review.

Executive Summary
The social and community benefits of greenspace are well-established but there are
numerous related terms or concepts which are being used within UK government policy
over which there is less clarity. These terms include community empowerment,
community capacity, community resilience, community cohesion, social capital, and
place, place-making and place-shaping.
This review explores the usage and definitions of these terms within UK government-
wide and forestry specific contexts, outlines examples of their operationalisation within
UK public forestry and reviews current indicators used for their measurement. It
highlights potential gaps in terms of appropriate indicators, future research requirements
and discusses the changing governmental context in which this report was written and
how this might impact upon future government, and therefore forest, policy.
Community empowerment usually refers to giving communities more opportunities to

influence and control matters which affect their lives and to enhanced public
participation. On the one hand, increased community participation can be viewed as a
means of achieving improved outcomes. On the other hand, enhanced community
participation can also be viewed as an end in itself.
Community capacity usually refers to the ability of a community to face change,

respond to threats and seize opportunities to help satisfy the needs of its members. It is
multi-faceted, involving both community processes and structures and relies on the
presence of various types of assets such as physical infrastructure and civic
infrastructure or social capital. Community resilience is essentially about the
maintenance of community capacity over a long period of time.
Community cohesion usually refers to the need for social integration and for people
living alongside each other in a geographical area to do so with mutual understanding,
respect and shared values and where people have equal opportunities and equal access
to public services.
Social capital usually refers to more than non-physical assets within society; it is about
the relationships between people, organisations and institutions. Social capital is about
the networks, shared norms, values and understandings within or between groups which
foster co-operation and help people work together. It has been suggested that social
capital can take three forms: Bonding (interactions, networks and ties within groups);
Bridging (interactions, networks and ties – usually looser and weaker than those in
bonding social capital but more cross-cutting – between individuals from different
groups) and; Linking (the connections with people in positions of power or formal
authority, sometimes through involvement in organisations or institutions).

In relation to public land management, space focuses on the biological needs of people
and its instrumental or utilitarian value such as being able to provide recreational and
aesthetical activities and psychological restoration. Place is about how a landscape is
perceived in terms of regulation of identity, ‘self-reflection (experiences, achievements)
and social integration (values, norms, symbols, meanings)’ (Hunziker et al., 2007: 48-
9). In other words, when a person or group links a space to their own personal
experiences, cultural values and social meanings, it is transformed into a place for them
(Tuan, 1977 cited in Hunziker et al., 2007: 49).
Place has also been used to refer to local areas and the qualities that make them
somewhere people want to live which could include both ‘space’ related qualities as well
as the relationships people have with the area and the social interaction it affords them.
Place-shaping is a related concept and refers to a local area or neighbourhood and the
shaping element is about the role that local authorities should play in leading co-
ordinated efforts to respond to local challenges and address residents needs.
Place-making is a term used most frequently in practical implementation spheres. As a

concept, it tends to be used to refer to a specific approach to ‘revitalising, planning,
designing and managing public spaces’ (Greenspace Scotland, 2009). Place-making put
in simple terms is the process of place production, and can be further explained ‘as a
collective process of space arrangement with the aim to advance the usage and living
quality of a space and to appropriate the space in a socio-emotional way’ (Fürst et al.
2004 cited in Franz et al. 2008: 323).
Two key findings:

1. While most of the concepts discussed have been adopted by the three national
governments of Great Britain in various policy areas (including forestry), the
prominence given to them differs and they are not always used to mean the same
thing, especially with regards to the concept of ‘place’.
2. There are clear gaps in terms of indicators and measurement frameworks for the
concepts discussed, although the level of this problem varies between the concepts,
between the three countries, and between forestry and other policy areas.
Four key points relevant to forestry:

1. A full understanding and integration of the concept of place and the associated
concepts of place-making and shaping has not occurred within UK public sector
forestry and while the concepts of community cohesion and social capital have
received some attention in forestry policy, this has been limited.
2. The use of narrow, restricted or no indicators within forestry for most of the concepts
discussed may be a concern, although more work is needed to assess the
applicability of a range of indicators in the forestry context. In the case of community
capacity a lack of indicators is a common problem across government.

3. In terms of place, while forestry indicators for the physical and spatial elements of
place exist and these could be supplemented by other indicators used for community
empowerment measurement, there is a lack of focus on measuring people’s
perceptions of the places they live in and how this is enhanced or not by local
woodlands and their relationships with woodland.
4. For those forestry programmes with a community and/or place-making agenda, the
monitoring and evaluation has thus far been very poor, with a lack of baseline date
being collected and a lack of robust monitoring and evaluation frameworks being
developed and implemented.
Future research requirements:

 It would be beneficial to know much more about what the concepts discussed look like
in practice, how they can be operationalised and what are the most appropriate forms
of woodland-based intervention to achieve this.
 Further research into how place and place-making methodologies and place
attachment, dependence and identity measures can be integrated into forest
management policy, planning and implementation could prove fruitful.
 Further research into appropriate indicators for use within government and in
particular within forestry for all the concepts discussed would be pertinent.
Changing governmental context:

The majority of the research for this report was undertaken prior to the coalition
government coming to power in May 2010. Therefore, the governmental definitions and
policy analysis reported herein may be subject to some change, in particular with regard
to England.
For example, the government has abolished the Comprehensive Area Assessment or
CAA. Included in the CAA was an annual performance assessment of local authorities in
England, which included use of the indicators measured in the Place Survey. The
Place Survey has also been scrapped by the new government as part of its efforts to
make council accountable to residents rather than to Whitehall.
The other major area of change that could impact on the findings of this study relates to
Wales and the potential for further devolution since the coalition government has
pledged to hold a referendum on further Welsh devolution.
However, it would not appear that the values and thinking which are encapsulated in the
concepts of community empowerment, capacity, cohesion and social capital will be in
abatement, even if the terminology changes. In fact, there is a good chance that focus
on these concepts will only grow with the coalition government’s emphasis on ‘localism’
and ‘Big Society’.

1. Introduction
1.1 Background
There is a wide body of work on the social benefits of green space, which continues to
grow. These benefits include community benefits such as empowerment and inclusion,
and place-making benefits which can enhance people’s quality of life. Academics,
governmental organizations and other agencies are utilising a raft of terms in association
with these benefits. However, often there is a lack of clarity around these terms; many
of the terms or concepts are somewhat ambiguous and can be used by different
individuals and organisations to mean different things. Conversely, some of the various
terms are used by different bodies to mean the same thing. These terms and concepts
include active citizenship, community empowerment, community capacity, community
resilience, community cohesion, social capital, and place, place-making and place-
shaping.
This review was initiated because the Forestry Commission (FC) identified a need to gain
a more thorough understanding of these concepts to better meet both policy and
research requirements. These terms are being employed within national government
objectives and policies but it is not always clear what they look like in practice or how
they can be measured. The implications of this for the FC are clearly significant in the
context of the FC’s role in shaping the places where people live and helping build strong
communities. It is therefore imperative that as an organisation we more fully appreciate
how these terms are being used by different governmental bodies, how they are built in
to national policy objectives, how the FC is using and operationlising them across
England, Scotland and Wales and how their achievement is and can be measured.
This review links closely with other research being undertaken within the Social and
Economic Research Group at Forest Research such as work investigating the social
benefits of green space and trees, woods and forests, research looking at the links
between ‘successful’ communities, neighbourhoods and cities and greenspace and a
project to develop an inventory of social evidence, datasets and programmes relating to
place-making, community empowerment, social capital and trees, woods and forest.
In section two, this review will provide definitions for the terms and concepts being
focused on. Section three investigates how the terms are used within government policy
in England, Scotland and Wales. In section four, discussion moves on to the ways in
which these terms are reflected within country forest strategies and how they are being
demonstrated in projects on the ground. In section five, possible indicators and research
questions are explored. Section six draws together some observations gleaned from this
review, before the report is concluded in section seven with a review of the key findings
relevant to forestry, identification of future research requirements, and discussion of the

changing governmental context in which this report has been produced and the resulting
issues which will need to be considered going forward.
The majority of this study was completed between September 2009 and March 2010
when the Labour Party was in government in the UK. However, in May 2010, a General
Election was held and a new coalition government was formed between the Conservative
Party and the Liberal Democrats. Therefore, this report has been compiled in a period of
rapid change. The definitions used and policy analysis in this study reflect the state of
play as it was pre- the coalition government gaining power. However, in section seven,
we discuss the potential implications of the change of government for the place and
community agendas.
Before we move on to discussion of some of the key concepts in the community and
place-making agendas, it is worth briefly discussing the term community. In 1955,
Hillery developed a three-pronged typology of community which is still appropriate and
useful today:
5. Geographical location: a human settlement with a fixed and bounded territory;

6. Social system: the interrelationships between and among people living in the same
area;
7. Sense of identity: the focus on a group of people who share a particular set of values
even if they do not live in physical proximity (Hillery cited in Nadeau et al. 1999:
748).
These approaches or types of community are all valid and have their own strengths.
However, they are not necessarily distinct from each other and there are often overlaps
between them. The first conception of community is most commonly implied but as
Nadeau et al. (1999: 748) argue, the first approach ‘is limited in that it considers neither
the nature nor the patterns of the relationship between people’ and it is the power and
quality of these relationships between people which will be important with regards to
many of the terms and concepts we will now move on to discuss and the indicators
which can be used to measure them.
1.2 Methods and Sources

Although there is a wide body of literature on place-making and community related
concepts, this desk-based study was conducted with an emphasis on the ways in which
place-making and community concepts are being used within governmental policy in
Great Britain. The majority of materials used were therefore policy documents,
supplemented by academic resources and grey literature. This approach was taken
because as a governmental department it is of paramount importance that the Forestry
Commission understands the national governmental context in which it operates in order
to ensure that it can contribute to national policy agendas as fully as possible. There is

however no doubt that a broader review would prove useful, especially in terms of
widening the debate about interpretation of these concepts, their practical value and
about how their achievement can be measured.

2. Definitions
As is the norm with most social concepts, the ones included in this report can and have
been defined in a variety of ways. In keeping with the aims of this report, rather than
review all such definitions and enter into extensive academic debate, this chapter
elucidates on the most commonly used definitions that have been ascribed to the
relevant concepts within the UK. The focus is primarily from a governmental policy and a
public land management perspective but with further definitional elaboration coming
from other organisations’ and academics’ use of the terms, where this aids
understanding of their meaning or application in a UK governmental policy or public land
management context, or where there is a lack of definition within current government
policy.
2.1 Active Citizenship

The Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) (2007: 18) define ‘citizen’ and ‘citizenship’ as
being concerned with the role and contribution of people when they go beyond-self
interested behaviour to contribute to wider society and their communities of interest or
place. As the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) (2007a: 34)
state, ‘Active and enterprising individuals can play a crucial role in stimulating
community activity’. At a basic level, an ‘active citizen’ may be someone that simply
checks in on an elderly neighbour or participates in cultural or sporting activities (CLG,
2007a; HM Government, 2007), but the term is also associated with those individuals
who ‘initiate, influence and support positive changes in their local area’, drawing on and
contributing to ‘the social capital of their neighbourhood’ (Be Birmingham, 2009: 8).
2.2 Community Empowerment

Community empowerment is characterised by Buchy and Hoverman (2000: 18) thus:
At some level it may mean that power has been devolved or decentralised and
that people have a more effective say in the running of their affairs. At a more
strategic and individual level though empowerment reflects more a state of
personal development, a state of the mind through which people engage in a
learning process, increase their self esteem and confidence and are better able to
use their own resources’.
Community empowerment is essentially about enhanced community participation and

this can be characterised or defined in two ways. On the one hand, increased community
participation can be viewed as a means of achieving improved outcomes. On the other
hand, enhanced community participation can also be viewed as an end in itself. In other
words, the process of building community participation leads to the creation of more

empowered communities, whereby, the ‘more people are involved, the more they will
take part’ (Buchy and Hovernmen, 2000: 18).
In relation to democracy and public policy, where participation is viewed as a means the
‘rationalisation focuses on the effectiveness of policy delivery and considers how public
participation can assist in producing a ‘better’ policy outcome’ (Rydin and Pennington,
2000: 155). Where participation is viewed as an end in itself, the focus is on ‘the
democratic right to be involved in the public policy process and the importance of all
barriers to such involvement being reduced or withdrawn’ (Rydin and Pennington, 2000:
154).
It has been suggested (Buchy and Hoverman, 2000: 16) that both views can then
operate within one of two models: ‘either we believe that representative democracy
offers effective means of community involvement in public affairs through elections and
accept that the number of votes legitimise representativity or else we believe that
powers should be devolved to the local level to allow communities to make decisions
about affairs of consequence to them’. The natural extension of this second model is that
communities should be empowered to take control of their own lives, define their own
needs and find ways to address these needs themselves.
In Wales, the term community development is often used in close relation to the concept
of community empowerment. Although other conceptions of community development
exist, in this conception it is defined as a process through which citizens and
communities can be empowered, ‘whereby people work together around common issues
and aspirations in ways that enhance learning, encourage participation, and support the
development of a culture of informed and accountable decision making’ (CDC, 2007: 4).
In this sense community development generally ‘refers to an intervention using skilled,
and usually paid, staff which encourages people in communities to come together, share
and voice their concerns, and take action which addresses these concerns in a collective,
participative and democratic way’ (CDC, 2007: 7).
2.3 Community Capacity

Nadeau et al. (1999: 750) argue that community capacity ‘refers to the ability of a
community to adapt to an evolving set of economic, social, and political conditions’. It
concentrates on the community attributes which facilitate or hinder its ability to respond
to external threats and internal problems and it is the presence and quality of these
attributes and ‘the interactions between these elements [that] determine the ability of a
community to face change’ (Nadeau et al. 1999: 751). Community capacity is not just
about responding to negative threats however, it is also about the ability to take
advantage of opportunities, and to satisfy the social and physical requirements of
residents (Donoghue and Sturtevant, 2007: 903). As Donoghue and Sturtevant (2007:
903) argue, community capacity can be ‘considered to be multidimensional, involving

both community processes and structures, such as leadership, civic culture, employment
options, transportation, human resources, and natural resource utilization’. The
multidimensional nature of community capacity therefore makes it difficult to measure.
2.4 Community Resilience

Community resilience is closely linked to community capacity since it is also about the
ability of communities to adapt to change, take advantage of opportunities and meet the
needs of the population (Donoghue and Sturtevant, 2007: 907). However, as Nadeau et
al. (1999: 752) point out, the difference between the two concepts lies in the fact that
the concept of resilience is also concerned with ‘the development and maintenance of
this ability over a long period of time’. Both resilience and capacity are a reflection of the
various types of capital or assets present in that community, including foundational
assets such as physical infrastructure and mobilizing assets such as civic infrastructure
or social capital (Donoghue and Sturtevant, 2007: 907).
2.5 Community Cohesion

The WAG (2009a: 6) state that community cohesion, at its simplest, can be used:
to describe how everyone in a geographical area lives alongside each other with
mutual understanding and respect. Where every person has the equal chance to
participate and has equal access to services. It is about integration, valuing
difference and focusing on the shared values that join people together….It is also
concerned with supporting communities to be resilient when problems and
tensions arise.
For CLG (2006), community cohesion is about the fact that Britain has become a much
more racially, ethnically and culturally diverse society. The white paper, Strong and
prosperous communities, argues that while this has brought many social and economic
benefits, it has also created challenges which potentially threaten community cohesion
through fragmentation (CLG, 2006). Tackling this threat and the development of
community cohesion are seen as things that can be strategically led by local authorities
and other local partners with increased community participation in decision-making and
a greater role for community groups: ‘Community cohesion is about recognising the
impact of change and responding to it. This is a fundamental and growing part of the
place-shaping agenda and puts local authorities and their partners at the heart of
community building’ (CLG, 2006: 151).
For both the WAG and CLG (WAG, 2009a: 6-7), in a cohesive community people:
 from different backgrounds should have similar life opportunities;
 should know their rights and responsibilities;
 should trust one another and trust local institutions to act fairly.

There should also be:

 a shared vision and sense of belonging;
 a focus on what new and existing communities have in common, alongside recognition
of the value of diversity;
 strong and positive relationships between people from different backgrounds.
2.6 Social Capital

These shared values and norms are also a strong element in the concept of social capital
and this concept can be viewed as an important part of community capacity as discussed
above. Social capital has been defined in various ways. For CDC (2007: 39) it is the
‘assets within a community which are not physical e.g. people skills that can be
identified and measured within communities’. However, for many this conception is more
about human capital rather than social capital. As Portes (quoted in Crowther, 2008: 6)
argues, ‘whereas economic capital is in people’s bank accounts and human capital is in
their heads, social capital inheres in the structure of their relationships’. Social capital is
more than non-physical assets, it is about the relationships between people,
organisations and institutions, whereby the concept is associated ‘with social and civic
participation and with networks of co-operation and solidarity…that may provide access
to resources and social support’ (Franke, 2005: 1-9).
The UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) has adopted a definition of social capital
espoused by Cote and Healy (2001 cited in Brook, 2005: 114) of the Organisation for the
Economic Cooperation and Development where social capital is described as ‘ the
networks together with shared norms, values and understandings that facilitate
cooperation within or among groups’. Similarly, Putnam (cited in Hanna et al., 2009:
34), who has been instrumental in the field of social capital, characterises it ‘as features
of social organisation, such as trust, norms and networks that can improve the resilience
of society by facilitating and supporting coordinated actions’. Accordingly, ‘Social capital
is the glue that helps people, organisations and communities to work together. It comes
from daily contact between people as a result of their forming social connections and
networks based upon trust and shared values’ (Be Birmingham, 2009: 2).
It has been suggested that social capital can take three forms (Be Birmingham, 2009: 2;
Brook, 2005: 114; Office for National Statistics, 2010):
 Bonding: interactions, networks and ties within groups (such as
family, ethinc groups, close friends or people with similar interests).
 Bridging: interactions, networks and ties (usually looser and weaker than those in
bonding social capital but more cross-cutting) between individuals from
different groups (such as casual friends, associates, colleagues, people from
different ethnic groups).
 Linking: the connections with people in positions of power or formal authority,
sometimes through involvement in organisations or institutions.

From an advocates perspective, social capital is one element necessary to ensure

community capacity and resilience (Hanna et al. 2009: 35). It is argued that a
community with high levels of social capital is better equipped to deal with collective
problems because ‘people have the confidence to invest in collective activities, knowing
that others will do so too’ (Pretty, 2003: 1912). As a result, the community may
experience better health, improved educational achievements, enhanced economic
growth and lower crime rates (Be Birmingham, 2009: 8). Social capital does not operate
in a vacuum however, and other assets previously mentioned such as financial capital,
human capital and physical infrastructures also play a part. Social capital and social
networks therefore, ‘operate as a complement to other resources’ or to other capitals
and ‘can have a leverage effect in enhancing the value of those other resources, and vice
versa’ (Franke, 2005: 9-10).
It is important to note, however, that the concept of social capital does not come without
its critics and its virtues are highly contested. Indeed, the benefits of social capital are
somewhat naively trumpeted because social capital ‘relates as much to the negative
consequences of networks as to the positive’ (Haynes, 2009: 13). Social capital can help
to reinforce groups which in turn can lead to the exclusion of ‘non-members’ and the
advantages gained for some through social capital may be obtained at the expense of
others. For example, in discussion of the labour market, Brook (2005: 119) points out
that within a workplace:
while ‘bridging and bonding’ may help some people to progress in the
organisation, this may be to the detriment of others. This may be particularly so
where there is no equal opportunity policy to allow fairness in training and
recruitment or a human resources function to deal impartially with disputes. In
some cases this may lead to a breakdown in trust and become a barrier to
progression because of individual conflict, and in an extreme case to loss of
employment through increasing the likelihood of being selected for redundancy.
At the broader societal level, Crowther et al. (2008: 7) acknowledge that ‘as well as
having the potential to be a resource for challenging inequality by less powerful groups’,
‘social capital in a divided society may be used to mask and reproduce patterns of
privilege by the powerful’, a point Hanna et al. (2009: 35) concur with. Furthermore, the
concept of social capital is based on the premise that enhanced participation in social
networks will increase opportunities for those individuals and communities concerned,
but ‘this implies that there is a trade-off between features such as community solidarity
and individual freedom’, ‘while at the same time suggesting that increases in social
capital also enable opportunities for pursuing negative or anti-social ends’ such as
through Mafia families, youth gangs, and prostitution and gambling rings (Haynes, 2009:
14).

2.7 Place and Public Land Management

There is a growing literature on the concepts of place, place-making and place-shaping
and they are increasingly being incorporated into governmental policy. However, the
thinking behind these concepts is not always harmonious and ‘place’ can be used to refer
to different landscape or geographical scales and to mean different things. While it is
recognised that there is a vast literature on the subject and much associated debate,
this section explores place and its related concepts with reference to their potential
implications for public land management and the following section explores place in
terms of its more general application and usage in national governmental policy in the
UK.
2.7.1 Space and place

Academically, discussion of the concept of place often includes reference to how it differs
from space and this has important consequences for public land management. In terms
of how landscape is experienced and perceived, there is an important distinction to make
between space and place. Space focuses on the biological needs of people and its
instrumental or utilitarian value such as being able to provide recreational and
aesthetical activities and psychological restoration. Indeed, until recently, it was
presumed that public attitudes towards the management of public land were based
largely on these objective features and functional values (Farnum et al. 2005: 1).
The view now rising to prominence is that a more holistic evaluation is needed which
includes the relationships people have with spaces (Farnam et al. 2005: 1). Place,
therefore, is about how a landscape is perceived in terms of regulation of identity, ‘self-
reflection (experiences, achievements) and social integration (values, norms, symbols,
meanings)’ (Hunziker et al., 2007: 48-9).
In other words, when a person or group links a space to their own personal experiences,
cultural values and social meanings, it is transformed into a place for them (Tuan, 1977
cited in Hunziker et al., 2007: 49). Therefore place ‘is always socially constructed’ (Knox,
2005: 1).
Knox (2005: 2) maintains that place is:
a setting for social interaction that, among other things, structures the daily
routines of economic and social life; structures people’s life paths (providing them
with both opportunities and constraints); provides an arena in which everyday,
‘common-sense’ knowledge and experience is gathered; provides a site for
processes of socialization and social reproduction; and provides an arena for
contesting social norms.

Therefore, as people use and inhabit places, they progressively impress themselves on
the place, changing it to suit their needs. Simultaneously, they gradually adapt to their
physical environment and to the values, behaviours and perceptions of people around
them: ‘People are constantly modifying and reshaping places, and places are constantly
coping with change and influencing their inhabitants’ (Knox, 2005: 3). As Jones and
Cloke (2002, cited in Konijnendijk, 2008: 13) maintain, the concept of place is ‘a
dynamic and shifting phenomenon’. It has been suggested that trees can play an
important role as ‘place makers and ‘place enhancers’, helping to define space and
acting as markers of time and representers of place (Treib, 2002 and Jones and Cloke,
2002 cited in Konijnendijk, 2008: 13).
2.7.2 Sense of place and place-attachment

A related concept with growing use in the social sciences which expresses the
relationship between people and (local) spatial settings is that of sense of place. Indeed,
‘resource managers, planners, and researchers are beginning to view sense of place as a
critical concept both in understanding how to provide optimal recreation experiences and
in understanding the public’s reaction to and proper role in management decisions’
(Farnum, 2005: 1). However, Meyer (1996 cited in Farnum et al., 2005: 37) argued that
focusing on sense of place may not always be easily compatible with other management
concerns such as ecological variables, commercial factors, and sustainable tourism
because these different concerns can lead to contradictory management decisions.
Hunziker et al. (2007: 53) observe that ‘When a person or social group transforms space
to place through direct experiences and interactions, it becomes part of the person’s or
group’s ‘self’’. However, the same site can have very different meanings for different
individuals (Stokowski, 2002: 369). Once a space is imbued with meaning and becomes
a place it cannot simply be substituted or replaced by another site with similar
attributes. However, ‘attachment to place may be based on social relationships or
processes more than particular physical landscape characteristics, so that even if the
landscape changes, the sentiments do not change’ (Farnum, 2005: 4). While claims of
correlations between sense of place and a sense of commitment to or responsibility for a
place have not been fully substantiated, there is some empirical evidence ‘that strong
forms of sense of place…are correlated with feelings of intense caring for the
locale…[and] can therefore provoke people to react with high levels of concern about
management practices’ (Hunziker et al., 2007: 53).
Sense of place can contribute to social capital where it fosters social interaction
(Hunziker et al. 2007: 53). As Stokowski (2002: 373) pointed out, ‘The power of place is
not only in its aesthetic or behavioural possibilities, or its iconic status, but in its ability
to connect people in society, encourage development of personal and social identities,
and reinforce socio-cultural meanings. These are fundamental qualities of community’.

Similarly, Hanna et al. (2009: 33) conclude that ‘If social existence is produced and
perpetuated through place, then social capital is determined in no small measure by the
qualities and attributes of place – social capital is created in places’. Furthermore,
‘Findings from the Chugach National Forest (US) planning study suggest that people in
communities with strong place attachment are more cohesive, enjoy a higher quality of
life, and tend to identify more landscape values and special places near their
communities’ (Brown et al., 2002 cited in Brown and Raymond, 2007: 92).
The practical value of the concept of sense of place in terms of land management has
been questioned by some authors because:
 It is difficult to integrate it into land use decisions, in particular because of its complex
and generally site-specific nature.
 There is a lack of useful, meaningful guidance on how it can be incorporated into
decision-making processes or management decisions.
 It can be interpreted in a variety of ways and when various conceptions of sense of
place exist, and as a place will undoubtedly hold different meanings to different
stakeholders, satisfactory decisions which meet the needs of all may be impossible to
achieve (Farnum et al., 2005: 33-39).
However, there are some research examples exploring sense of place and place
attachment which do show potential, including within the field of forest planning. These
include mapping techniques to present meanings spatially (Brown 2005, cited in Brown
and Raymond, 2007: 90; Black and Liljeblad, 2006, cited in Brown and Raymond, 2007:
90-91) and photographic techniques (Jones et al., 2000 cited in Farnum et al., 2005: 48;
Ryan, 2005; Stewart et al. cited in Farnum et al., 2005: 48;).
Farnum et al. (2005: 39-41) discuss a useful classification of sense of place attributes,
as put forward by Williams and Patterson. This classification includes four main
categories of place attachment: scenic/aesthetic, activity/goal, cultural/symbolic, and
individual/expressive. These categories are fairly self-explanatory but Farnum et al.’s
(2005) report provides more detail if required. The proposition is that, if these categories
of place attachment are considered when making land management policy, planning and
implementation decisions they can help to:
gauge general perceptions and trends in surrounding communities and with other
users and stakeholders. Access to such information aids in forming a collaborative
alliance between communities and agencies, and may help avoid possible tension
between stakeholders. In addition, understanding the spectrum of place meanings
allows managers to work together with the community to identify and protect
unique place attachments…In this way, a common basis of interaction and
understanding can be achieved, and managers may experience an increased

sense of trust and acceptance from both local communities and larger social
organizations.’ (Farnam et al. 2005: 39-41)
Place identity and place dependence are two concepts which can be used to measure and
identify how attached people are to a place (Williams and Vaske 2003, cited in Brown
and Raymond, 2007: 90). Place identity is made up of the feelings held about a site and
how the site impacts upon identity, providing meaning and purpose to life, whereas
place dependence refers to the links based solely on activities that are undertaken in
that setting, and therefore highlights the importance of the site providing the correct
conditions for the activity to take place (Brown and Raymond, 2007: 90). It has been
argued that if both place identity and place dependence measures are applied, they may
be ‘suitable predictors of resource conflicts, such as attitudes towards fee programs and
overcrowding on public lands’ (Kyle et al. 2003, cited in Brown and Raymond, 2007: 90).
2.7.3 Place-making
Place-making is a term used much more frequently in practical implementation spheres.
As a concept, it tends to be used to refer to a specific approach to ‘revitalising, planning,
designing and managing public spaces’ (Greenspace Scotland, 2009). Place-making put
in simple terms is the process of place production, and can be further explained ‘as a
collective process of space arrangement with the aim to advance the usage and living
quality of a space and to appropriate the space in a socio-emotional way’ (Fürst et al.
2004 cited in Franz et al. 2008: 323). The Project for Public Spaces uses the term place-
making to describe their multi-faceted approach to the planning, design and
management of public spaces that help to build communities, which they have
developed over the last 30 years. Their approach:
is based on the premise that successful public spaces are lively, secure and
distinctive places that function for the people who use them. The Placemaking
process for creating public spaces involves systematic observations, interviews,
surveys, photography and place evaluation workshops with local communities to
develop a vision and action plan for community spaces (Greenspace Scotland,
2009)
They (Project for Public Spaces, 2000: 17) assert that there are four key qualities of
successful public spaces: accessibility, activities, comfort and sociability. Successful
public spaces are easy to access, visible, can be used for activities, are safe, clean, have
places to sit, and foster social activities and engagement (Project for Public Spaces,
2000: 18-19). Dines et al. (2006) looked at public space and place-making in a similar
way in Public spaces, social relations and well-being in East London. Here they recognise
that ‘the social value of public open spaces’ lies ‘in their contribution to people’s
attachment to their locality and opportunities for mixing with others, and in people’s

memories of places’ (Dines, 2006: ix). They identified a set of prerequisites for social
interaction in public open spaces which included:
 Proximity to residence
 Endurance of a space and its functions over time
 Familiarity of surroundings
 Freedom to linger
 Facilities and resources which give purpose to a space
 Supportive physical characteristics – i.e. the physical layout of a space and the
surrounding built environment as well as the siting of certain features (Dines et al.,
2006: p 18).
It is important for ‘place-makers’ to remember that various conceptions of place can and
will exist amongst different stakeholders and when used as part of participatory planning
processes these different interests need to be brought together in some way. In this
sense, place-making can also be viewed as a strategy to advance new forms of local
governance, integrating different interests and bringing together various parties
including the private and third sectors, and mobilising and engaging communities to
actively participate in developmental processes (Franz et al. 2008: 324). Indeed,
‘Placemaking can yield benefits far beyond making better spaces for people with bridge
building, youth engagement, economic and community development,
democracy/capacity building and the establishment of community identity’ (Greenspace
Scotland, 2009).
2.8 Place and Local Area

Taking the concept of place beyond public spaces, the concept has also been applied in
terms of thinking about places as neighbourhoods and local administrative areas and the
factors that make them somewhere people want to live. Place can even be applied to the
wider geographical areas that people regularly frequent and which affect their lives.
(CLG, 2009). While this approach to ‘place’ could merely constitute a focus on ‘space’ i.e.
the physical, biological, functional etc. demands people have on their local area and local
service providers, an alternative perspective, in line with the discussion above, would
look at place in a more holistic manner, taking into account the relationships people
have with an area and, for example, the opportunities for social integration and
interaction it affords them.
2.8.1 Place-shaping
Place-shaping is a concept which has been adopted most conspicuously not by
academics or practioners but by government. For example, in England, local authorities
have been termed ‘place-shapers’ (CLG, 2006). Place in the sense it is used here refers
to a whole local area or neighbourhood rather than a specific public space and the
shaping element is about the role that local authorities should play in leading co-

ordinated efforts to respond to local challenges and address residents needs. This has
links to the concept of community empowerment and the role that local government can
and should play in both ensuring people are able to engage with them and participate in
decisions which affect them and in supporting communities to do things for themselves.

3. Government Policy
While all concerned with strengthening communities and building their capacity, there
are variations in the ways in which the governments of England, Scotland and Wales use
and apply the terminology and concepts discussed above, as we will now discover. In the
following we discuss overall policy; forest policy is then discussed separately in the next
section.
3.1 England
In England, PSA [Public Service Agreement] 21: Build more cohesive, empowered and
active communities defines community empowerment thus: ‘In order to find common
solutions, local people and communities need to be empowered to lead change, and
given the confidence, skills, and power to influence what public bodies do for them’ (HM
Government, 2007: 3). In the CLG paper Communities in control: Real people, real
power (CLG, 2007a) it is stated that efforts towards community empowerment should
largely focus on democratic reform which involves the shifting of power to communities
and citizens, away from politicians and existing centres of power but which maintains
local government at the centre of representative, local democracy. A valuable role for
the third sector is envisaged and within this, active citizens, social entrepreneurs, social
enterprises, volunteers and activists. It is also recognised that ‘The people…have the
right to…take action themselves to improve their communities’ (CLG, 2007a: 12-13).
Furthermore, a whole chapter is devoted to community ownership and asset transfer
because ‘The Government wants to increase the number of people engaged in the
running and ownership of local services and assets’ (CLG, 2007a: 118).
The white paper, Strong and Prosperous Communities emphasizes the government’s
commitment to building community capacity, stating that they intend to support this
through ‘encouraging public bodies who fund capacity building and service providers to
work together to strengthen the ability of those least able to engage with public bodies
at present’ (CLG, 2006: 44). It also states that the government will assist the third
sector to enhance its own capabilities for building community capacity. Community
capacity, in the sense it is used here, is about improving the engagement of residents
with service providers. This document also briefly touches on the role of community
resilience ‘in preventing the problems of tomorrow’ (CLG, 2006: 158).
This white paper demonstrates the government’s commitment to community cohesion

and social capital with a stated aim ‘to create strong cohesive communities – thriving
places in which fear of difference is replaced by a shared set of values and a shared
sense of purpose and belonging’. It supports the community empowerment in terms of
locally, community-run services as a tool for the advancement of community cohesion:
‘We believe more community involvement in owning and running local facilities can be
good for community cohesion and for driving up service standards’ (CLG, 2006: 20). It is

suggested that involvement in cultural and sporting events and activities can enhance
social networks (and therefore social capital) and strengthen community cohesion (CLG,
2006: 87).
Community cohesion is also a key element of PSA 21: Build more cohesive, empowered
and active communities (HM Government, 2007).This agreement notes the significance
of social capital for realising and maintaining community cohesion: ‘The Commission on
Integration and Cohesion highlighted the importance of meaningful interaction, and this
is supported by analysis showing that bridging social capital supports cohesion, even
after other factors have been taken into account’ (HM Government, 2007: 5).
Community cohesion is also highlighted in Department Strategic Objective (DSO) Four
for CLG: To develop communities that are cohesive, active and resilient to extremism
(CLG, 2010a). Furthermore, Communities in control: Real people, real power (CLG,
2007a: 22) asserts that community empowerment can also help to create more cohesive
communities because it can bring individuals together to address shared concerns and
goals. Moreover, if people feel that their voice is being heard it can help to diffuse the
perceived need for extremism by some groups and individuals and remove perceptions
of injustice (CLG, 2007a: 22).
The government in England is concerned with ‘space’ and in particular the rejuvenation
of urban public spaces, but it’s agenda goes further to also consider ‘place’ in terms of
the role of spaces in fostering social interaction and inclusion. As Dines et al. (2006: 3)
noted, the government recognises ‘that public spaces play an important role in
encouraging health lifestyles and supporting communities by encouraging informal
contact’. This informal contact is part of what transforms a space into a place – its ability
to facilitate social relationships and foster social capital and community cohesion.
In fact, place receives a very strong focus from the government in England and is
becoming increasingly important. For example, it has been made central to what CLG
does. In the report Place Matters, the CLG (2007b) recognised that there is no single
definition of place, with approaches to place operating at various spatial levels. For
example:
 the physical neighbourhood surrounding the place where a person lives, and where
their local community live
 the administrative and governance arrangements; how decisions about local services
and development are made
 the wider area that influences economic prosperity; where people shop and work and
the area across which they travel to do so (CLG, 2007b: 1).
For CLG, having a focus on place means concentrating efforts on whole areas, as well as
individual aspects of them and particular services within them, and fostering more

joined-up working practices and effective relationships between spatial planners, service
delivery organisations, administrative bodies, and communities (CLG, 2007b: 1).
Steve Bundred of the Audit Commission (Foreword in Duffy and Lee Chan, 2009: 3)
observed that, ‘An increasing focus on ‘place’ lies at the heart of the modern vision of
local public services. This means creating safer, cleaner and greener places where people
want to live and work now and in the future, and requires a holistic view of the different
factors affecting the quality of life of individuals and communities’.
Within this conception of place, in England, local governments have been referred to as
‘place-shapers’. This is what Sir Michael Lyons termed them in a three-year independent
inquiry into their role, functioning and funding. By this he meant that they play a
strategic leadership role, bringing ‘together various local agencies and groups in order to
build a vision of how to respond to and address a locality’s problems and challenges in a
co-ordinated way’ (CLG, 2006: 94). For example, communities, and the organisations
that exist within them, need ‘to consider what should happen to ensure that their ‘place’
has a viable economic future; how to adapt to demographic shifts; to assess and
mitigate the impact of climate change on their locality; to help turn offenders away from
crime; and to build a cohesive community’ (CLG, 2006: 94). Local authorities have
always had to tackle such issues but now they are much more inclined to work in
partnership, rather than deliver services directly and solve ‘place-shaping’ issues alone.
This conception of place links strongly to community empowerment (CLG, 2006: 94).
In 2009, the government published World class places: The Government’s strategy for
improving quality of place which looks at the way places where people live and work are
planned, designed, developed and maintained (HM Government, 2009). It noted the
impact that the built environment can have on our lives and observed that:
bad planning and design and careless maintenance encourage crime, contribute to
poor health, undermine community cohesion, deter investment, spoil the
environment and, over the long term, incur significant costs…improving quality of
place…can play an important role in reducing poverty and social exclusion [and]…
is vital if the Government is to deliver on its commitments and make this country
a fairer, safer, healthier, more prosperous and sustainable place.
It is clear, therefore, that the government in England is strongly committed to ‘place’

and sees it as a core part of its strategy to improve people’s quality of life, though to
what extent this vision embraces the relationships people have with spaces is less clear.
However, the government in England does also recognise the role of culture and sport in
creating and improving quality of place. The Living Places programme is based on formal
agreement and partnership between the five cultural government agencies (Arts Council

England, English Heritage, the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council and Sport
England), their sponsor the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and CLG.
Inherent in the programme is a conviction that ‘Culture and sport are integral to the
success of communities’ and that they can be used as tools to create a sense of pride
and identity and galvanise community engagement (Living Places, 2008). The coming
years will see an extensive programme of house building and Living Places believe that
‘If new housing is supported by the right cultural infrastructure we can build
communities that are empowered, confident, cohesive and visionary’ (Living Places,
2008).
Finally, place-making is also referred to with respect to tourism. Partners for England is
made up of private and public sector stakeholders, including the DCMS, and they have
developed ‘Place Making – A Charter for destination management’. This charter focuses
on how organisations can work together to support the development of the visitor
economy in a specific area. It is essentially concerned with the physical elements that
make up a ‘place’ but it does recognise that creating a ‘thriving and sustainable visitor
economy has far reaching impacts on the economic and social wellbeing of local people
and their environment; it is integral to creating a sense of place’ (Partners for England,
2010).
3.2 Scotland
In Scotland, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) and the Scottish
Government have agreed a definition of community empowerment: ‘Community
empowerment is a process where people work together to make change happen in their
communities by having more power and influence over what matters to them’ (Scottish
Government, 2009a: 9). In the Scottish Government’s (2009a: 5-6) Scottish Community
Empowerment Action Plan, it is noted that community empowerment is not about giving
power to communities, it is about ‘the ability of people to do things for themselves’,
whereby it ‘stimulates and harnesses the energy of local people to come up with creative
and successful solutions to local challenges’. The Scottish Government (2009a: 6)
believe that the achievement of community empowerment is ‘a key element in helping to
achieve a more successful Scotland’ (Scottish Government, 2009a: 6). Therefore, the
emphasis within Scotland seems to be more on empowering citizens and communities to
tackle challenges and harness opportunities themselves, rather than on enhancing their
democratic powers of influence through enhanced consultation and participation.
It is acknowledged that community empowerment cannot be achieved simply or quickly

but is ‘a highly complex process’, necessitating ‘the active understanding and
commitment from a wide number of stakeholders’, and involving constant learning and
the continual building of a community’s capacity to do more – ‘there is no finite end
point in the process of community empowerment’ (Scottish Government, 2009a: 8). The
Scottish Government (2009a: 11) views their role as being to support community

capacity building, helping communities develop the skills, networks confidence, and
resources they need. This, they believe, will help build the foundations for community
empowerment.
Building community capacity is also a focus of the Scottish Government but, as in

England, the term is often used to refer to community empowerment techniques:
‘Community capacity building is focused on working directly with people in their
communities so that they can become more confident and effective in addressing
community issues and build on their strengths’; ‘building community capacity…can
contribute to community empowerment through people working together to achieve
lasting change in their communities, for example by further strengthening and improving
local public services’ (Scottish Community Development Centre for Learning
Connections, 2007: 2; Scottish Government and COSLA, 2008: i). However, the term is
used to go beyond this limited interpretation of the concept:
Many of our communities, particularly those facing high levels of disadvantage in

both urban and rural areas, will need support to help them build the skills,
confidence, networks and resources they require on the journey towards
becoming more empowered. We call this range of support community capacity
building’ (Scottish Government, 2009a: 11).
This definition is somewhat more encompassing than that proposed in England but
likewise, barely touches on community resilience, noting only that, ‘the confidence and
resilience that grows when people work together in their communities is never more
important than in challenging economic times and when facing major social problems’
(Scottish Government, 2009a: 5).
Community cohesion has benefited from more attention in England than in Scotland
although the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) has considered
community cohesion and a briefing paper was written for their Executive Group on this
topic (Green, 2007). In this paper it is acknowledged that Scotland has given community
cohesion relatively little consideration and that the main use of the term has been in
relation to the anti-social behaviour agenda and the promotion of social justice, as well
as with regards to race equality (Green, 2007: 2). Social capital too has not held a
particularly strong focus for Scotland, although the Scottish Government has funded a
research project to develop a tool to measure changes in social capital (Crowther et al.
2008).
The Scottish Community Development Centre (SCDC) was commissioned by the Minister
for Communities, through Communities Scotland to develop National Standards for
Community Engagement. These were published in May 2005, setting out good practice
principles for the way public sector bodies engage with communities. At the launch they

were endorsed by the Scottish Government, COSLA, NHS Scotland, the Association of
Chief Police Officers and many others and are now recommended by Audit Scotland as
good practice (SCDC, 2010; Scottish Government, 2010a).
Moving on to consider place, in 2001, the Scottish Government published Designing

places: a policy statement for Scotland (Scottish Executive, 2001). Here it is stated that
‘The physical form of a development can enhance or detract from the qualities of a
place, and support or undermine the intended uses’ (Scottish Executive, 2001: 14). This
document also notes that ‘successful places…tend to have certain qualities in
common…identity, safe and pleasant spaces, ease of movement, a sense of welcome,
adaptability and good use of resources’ and that beauty is also beneficial (Scottish
Executive, 2001: 9-10). In the sense that ‘place’ is used here, it is more akin to ‘space’
since it is primarily concerned with meeting biological needs and an area’s utilitarian
value. Similarly, one of the Scottish Government’s current National Outcomes (which
they aim to achieve in the next ten years) is that: ‘We live in well-designed, sustainable
places where we are able to access the amenities and services we need’.
However, in more recent times an increasing focus has been given to ‘place’ in a wider
sense, embracing the importance of a space’s relationship to people. The Scottish
Government’s (2009b) current architecture and place policies recognise that creating
high quality places isn’t just about the design of quality buildings and observes that
quality places and place-making can create a vital cultural context for communities,
giving them a sense of pride, identity and belonging, and can provide areas conducive to
socialising and conducting business.
The Scottish Government perceive good place-making to be fundamentally about

increasing sustainable economic growth and through this both utilitarian (space related)
needs and social/identity (place related) needs can be met because:
 Good place-making can influence the economy of an area by making it an appealing

place to live, to work, and to visit – and by providing an environment and
infrastructure which attracts business and in which business can flourish.
 Through good design, safe, welcoming places can be created to which people would
wish to return frequently, and which would have a greater chance of longevity;
 Good place-making can promote active, healthy, inclusive lifestyles by providing
attractive and accessible green spaces, and through layouts which discourage car
usage and which provide the right facilities within reasonable walking and cycling
distance;
 Good place-making can embed community facilities into our communities in ways
which are accessible and which provide a richness of opportunity for social interaction;
 Good place-making can have a profound effect on the sustainability of our lifestyles, in
respect of the impact that we have on the land and other scarce resources; how much

energy we use; and, again, through reductions in car usage (Scottish Government
2009b).
In early 2010, the Scottish Government published their first policy statement on street
design: Designing Streets (Scottish Government, 2010b). This policy statement positions
place and place-making at the fore-front of good street design and demonstrates the
increasing attention being given to these concepts within Scottish Government.
Designing Streets (Scottish Government, 2010b: 7) asserts that ‘Creating good streets is
not principally about creating successful traffic movement: it is about creating successful
places’ and as such they should help build a sense of place which:
can be considered as the character or atmosphere of a place and the connection

felt by people with that place. A positive sense of place is fundamental to a richer
and more fulfilling environment. It comes largely from creating a strong
relationship between the street and the buildings and spaces that frame it. A
positive sense of place encompasses a number of aspects, most notably the
street’s:
 local distinctiveness;
 visual quality; and
 potential to encourage social and economic activity (Scottish Government,
2010b: 7).
3.2 Wales
In 2007, the Welsh Assembly Government published Empowering active citizens to
contribute to Wales: A Strategic Action Plan for the Voluntary Sector Scheme. Although
it addresses similar issues to those addressed by England and Scotland under the rubric
of community empowerment, instead of the term ‘community empowerment’, the terms
‘civil empowerment’ and ‘empowering active citizens’ are used. This action plan (WAG,
2007) envisaged four complementary ways in which citizens would be empowered:
volunteering; building sustainable communities; helping citizens to be heard, and
delivering citizen-centred public services. In this view of empowerment it is
acknowledged that ‘to exert a real influence on decision making…means more than
occasional elections. It means greater participation by citizens in the way services are
designed and delivered’ (WAG, 2007: 30). There is also a strong role perceived for
volunteering and a recognition that ‘the third sector is in a particularly strong position to
provide front line services’ in certain instances (WAG, 2007: 31). Therefore, as in
England, both the idea of empowering communities to provide services for themselves,
by themselves, and the idea of increasing participation in public policy decisions are
evident.
This fits in with the ‘community development’ policy agenda in Wales. Community
development is defined as ‘a process through which local people engage and enact

change in local communities. It has a role in achieving equal opportunities, accessibility,

participation in democratic processes and sustainable economic, social and
environmental change’ (CDC, 2007: 4).
At the end of 2009, the Welsh Assembly Government published Getting on Together – a
Community Cohesion Strategy for Wales, underlining the importance given to this
concept or idea in Wales (WAG, 2009a). This strategy focuses on five service delivery
and policy areas: housing; learning; communication; promoting equality and social
inclusion; and preventing violent extremism and strengthening community cohesion. The
goal of the strategy is to assist service providers in developing their approaches to
community cohesion yet it is recognised that ‘cohesion is everyone’s responsibility’
(WAG, 2009a: 3). The strategy also takes on board Duncan and Thomas’s suggestion
that one characteristic of a successful neighbourhood is ‘a well developed social network,
with on-going investment in strengthening and widening social capital’ (cited in WAG,
2009a: 11). The strategy implies that this is also a characteristic of a cohesive
community and it briefly mentions community resilience in relation to violent extremism
(WAG, 2009a).
National government policy in Wales does not appear to have given as much emphasis
to the concept of ‘place’ as in Scotland or England. In 2005, the Welsh Development
Agency (WDA) published Creating Sustainable Places, setting out the sustainability and
design quality expectations for all development and regeneration projects supported by
the WDA. Here a sustainable place is defined as ‘one sustained through the activities of
its citizens, communities, businesses and other organisations interacting with each other
and their environment’ and it is recognised that sustainable places cannot be created
without the participation of local communities in the regeneration process from the
outset (WDA, 2005: 7-8).
The WAG (2010a) has also used the term ‘sense of place’, defining it as being made up
of:
a thousand and one things. It’s the sensation you get when visiting somewhere for
the first time – the first impression, the look, the feel, the atmosphere, the
people. Sense of Place embraces the distinctive sights, sounds and experiences
that are rooted in a country, those unique and memorable qualities that resonate
with local people and visitors alike.
The WAG (2010a) has developed a sense of place toolkit but this is not concerned with
communities, instead the focus is on tourism and how tourism businesses can develop a
stronger sense of place to enhance their businesses.

4. Forest Policies and Programmes

We have seen how the concepts discussed in this report are incorporated into
government policy in a broad sense, but how do they relate to forest policy, how are
they reflected in country forest policy documents in Great Britain and how have attempts
to achieve them been implemented on the ground?
4.1 England Forest Policy

In 2007, the Strategy for England’s Trees, Woods and Forests was published and in 2008
the Forestry Commission and Natural England published their Delivery Plan 2008-2012:
England’s Trees, Woods and Forests explaining how they intend to practically implement
the strategy (FCE and Natural England, 2008). The strategy has five key aims, of which
aim four: ‘Quality of Life’, which is concerned with ‘increasing the contribution that trees,
woods and forests make to the quality of life for those living in or visiting England’, is the
most relevant aim to this paper’s focus (FCE and Natural England, 2008: 5).
In relation to community empowerment, the context for the strategy is set within
national policy, stating that there is a ‘shift towards devolving more responsibility from
the centre to regional, sub-regional and local areas’ (FCE and Natural England, 2008:
27). It also states that within the Rural Development Programme for England the
objective focusing on rural quality of life and diversification of the rural economy (Axis 3)
and the Leader approach (Axis 4) to harness local knowledge and enable community led
approaches to delivery, ‘provide new opportunities to build the ability of local
communities to influence their own environments and develop social enterprises’ (FCE
and Natural England, 2008: 27). Stemming from this, the vision for 2020 is that ‘…new
and innovative social enterprises are contributing to the prosperity and cohesion of local
communities’ (FCE and Natural England, 2008: 29). Community capacity also receives
brief mention in terms of outcomes for 2020: there is an aspiration that in 2020
‘…community skills and capacity are being built’ (FCE and Natural England, 2008: 28).
Community cohesion is not addressed directly, other than in terms of the potential for
social enterprises to enhance this as stated above. However, it is noted that ‘There are
concerns over a diminished sense of community in some areas’ and ‘Society is becoming
more culturally and ethnically diverse’ (FCE and Natural England, 2008: 26).
Nonetheless, the focus here is not directly on community cohesion but rather on the
challenges this poses to forestry and how ‘This changing demographic brings with it a
broader range of cultural experiences and views of the natural environment’ (FCE and
Natural England, 2008: 26). The related vision for 2020 is that ‘There is increasingly
active community involvement with neighbourhood trees and woodlands, with a greater
range and diversity of people directly involved in their planning, care and enjoyment’
(FCE and Natural England, 2008: 29).

The resulting objective for 2008-2012 in terms of community empowerment, capacity

and cohesion is to ‘enable more people in more places to enjoy the personal and social
benefits of trees, woods and forests, contributing to more active, stronger and
sustainable communities’ (FCE and Natural England, 2008: 29).
Place and sense of place are also considered within the strategy. It notes that there are
growing concerns about ‘a reduced ‘sense of place’ compared to previous generations’
and that ‘communities are losing connection with the natural and cultural heritage of
their local area’ (FCE and Natural England, 2008: 26). The contribution of trees, woods
and forests to place-making is recognised but it is stated that at present they ‘are not
making their full contribution to creating quality places’ (FCE and Natural England, 2008:
28). The vision for 2020 is that ‘well-planned green spaces, street trees, community
woodlands and recreation routes are creating quality places that provide environmental
and social benefits to local people’ (FCE and Natural England, 2008: 29). The resulting
objective for 2008-2012 is to ‘create more attractive and inspiring places by enhancing
the contribution of Green Infrastructure to local environmental quality’ (FCE and Natural
England, 2008: 29)
4.2 England Forest Policy in Practice: a case study

There are many examples, at various scales, of how national forest policy relating to
place and community is being translated into practise in England. One key example is
that of the Newlands regeneration programme. Newlands is a £59 million scheme and
was launched in 2003 to reclaim derelict, underused or neglected (DUN) land in the
Northwest of England and transform these sites into thriving, durable, multifunctional
community woodlands (Newlands, 2009a; Forestry Commission, 2009). The programme
works through partnership, with a partnership between FCE and the Northwest
Development Agency at the crux of the initiative. Over time the focus of the programme
has expanded and adapted with projects now including planting trees in individual
streets and neighbourhoods, rather than a sole focus on sites for large-scale
regeneration (Newlands, 2009a). Newlands recognises the importance of sustainability
and longevity and is designed to ensure the benefits it creates are maintained. It
therefore provides 20 years of investment rather than short-term ‘development-only’
grants, and the Forestry Commission takes out 99 year leases on any land they develop
(Newlands, 2009a).
As a result of the scheme the Public Benefit Recording System (PBRS) has been
developed. This GIS-based tool is used to aid the selection of sites for regeneration that
will deliver the highest levels of benefits per pound spent, through identifying synergies
between social, environmental and economic opportunities, strategies and investments.
Alongside this, community consultation and engagement is viewed as fundamentally
important to ensure the projects meet local needs and are sustainable. This work is often

carried out through partner organisations with good existing local links such as
Groundwork and the Wildlife Trust (Newlands, 2009a).
No formal evaluation of the overall Newlands project is available as yet to allow for a
review of the community and place related benefits it has provided but an executive
briefing (Newlands, 2009a) reports that significant areas of un-used or under-used land
have been reclaimed for community-use; having such accessible good quality
environments nearby encourages people to ‘interact and build social relationships’ which
in turn is helping to ‘restore pride and encourage community cohesion’.
4.3 Scotland Forest Policy

The Scottish Forest Strategy is the governmental framework for the forestry sector in
Scotland (Scottish Executive, 2006). One of its seven key themes is ‘community
development’. The stated purpose of this theme has four strands:
1. Help improve the quality of life and well-being of people across Scotland.
2. Develop forestry’s role in education and lifelong learning.
3. Enhance forestry’s engagement with communities.
4. Support community ownership and management on the national forest estate, where
this will bring increased benefits (Scottish Executive, 2006: 35).
This focus on community development includes a desire to help empower communities

and enhance community capacity because ‘Woodlands and associated land can provide
opportunities and places for development of community and small business enterprises,
and can be a vehicle to develop employability, self-esteem and transferable skills
(Scottish Executive, 2006: 35). Building active citizenship and community cohesion are
also considered important elements of the strategy: ‘Woodlands and associated
environmental improvements can provide a focus for people to take part in the decisions
that shape their lives by providing an ‘entry point’ for building community cohesion and
by increasing the capacity of people to become ‘active citizens’ (Scottish Executive,
2006: 35).
Related objectives are therefore to:
 Increase recognition of the forestry sector’s potential to provide transferable skills

through forestry related vocational and non-vocational qualifications
 Explore forestry’s potential contribution to lifelong learning…
 Encourage forestry-based ‘return-to-work’ and volunteering projects.
 Mainstream community engagement good practice in forestry…
 Maintain constructive involvement with community organisations and those
representing small, forestry related businesses.

 Encourage entrepreneurial uses of timber, non-timber products and other woodland

outputs for local business and employment opportunities.
 Promote training and capacity building among volunteers in forestry skills and
organisational management.
 Increase opportunities for, and help support, community participation in forest
ownership and management through mechanisms such as the national forest Land
Scheme, Community Right to Buy and grant support.
 Seek legislative changes that would enable the lease of the national forest estate land
for woodland management’ (Scottish Executive, 2006: 36-37).
The quality of space is also discussed in the strategy, with an observation that ‘Well
designed, well managed woodlands can transform degraded surroundings and brownfield
sites into community assets by ‘greening and screening’ improving environmental
quality, increasing attractiveness to inward investment, and providing a landscape
framework for new development’(Scottish Executive, 2006: 35). This line of thought is
carried through to also consider place, with the strategy noting that: ‘Woodlands and
trees, and their local and historic associations, contribute to providing a strong sense of
place and cultural identity’ (Scottish Executive, 2006: 35). Related objective are to:
 Promote and support the use of new woodland as a cost-effective way of improving
derelict, underused and neglected land.
 Help communities develop their local identity through the cultural setting and historic
environment in woodlands and through living culture, including the Gaelic language
and the performing arts’ (Scottish Executive, 2006: 36).
4.4 Scotland Forest Policy in Practice: a case study

So how is this policy implemented in practice in Scotland? Amongst many other projects,
programmes and initiatives, one of the key instruments for implementing FCS’s social
policy priorities in practice is their Woodlands In and Around Towns (WIAT) Programme
which ‘provides the focus for Forestry Commission Scotland’s work on improving quality
of life in towns and cities’ (FCS, 2008: 3). The first phase of WIAT ran from April 2005 to
March 2008 with £30 million funding and five objectives:
1. Increase recognition of the benefits of urban woods and green networks.

2. Identify priority areas for targeting resources.
3. Improve the quality of existing urban woods for people and wildlife.
4. Increase the creation of woods around towns on derelict and under-utilised land and
on land associated with new development.
5. Demonstrate effectiveness and value for money (FCS, 2008: 12).

In this phase FCS worked with partners and through administering grants to: ‘improve
quality of place (building physical capital); and help community participation (building
social capital)’ (FCS, 2006: 3).
Phase II runs from April 2008 to March 2011 and is an £8 million programme of work
retaining a focus on bringing neglected woodland into active management, creating new
woodland, and working with people to help them use their local woodland (FCS, 2008:
3). However, it has a greater focus on outcomes and planning for evaluation has been
started at a much earlier stage (FCS, 2008: 12). Indeed there was little in the way of
structured monitoring and evaluation of Phase I of WIAT. However, a baseline survey for
evaluation was completed in 2007 (Ward Thompson et al. 2007) and Phase II will be
monitored ‘against target outputs, cost estimates and analysis of efficiency and
effectiveness’ utilising outcome indicators, with WIAT projects being fitted into the newly
developed Framework for Evaluation of Social Forestry Initiatives (FCS, 2008: 15). At
this stage there is no published evaluation of Phase II of the WIAT programme so it is
not yet possible to evaluate how successful it has been in achieving its objectives
although the indicators being used for its evaluation will be discussed in section five.
The policy document for Phase II of WIAT recognises that while a great deal of emphasis
is placed on the physical elements of woodland (its location, management and how it is
integrated into green networks), ‘reaching out to people should be part of every WIAT
project to help people use woodland…through community involvement, events; the arts;
and other services such as woodland-based learning, health walks and volunteering’
(FCS, 2008: 6). The programme includes monetary incentives to help achieve the
objectives through the Scotland Rural Development Programme. WIAT Phase II also
commits FCS to: provide spatial data to urban planning authorities on forest and
integrated habitat networks; partnering with others, in particular local authorities;
promoting the use of woodland for greening derelict or neglected land; encouraging
appropriate enterprises based on WIAT woodland; repositioning the national forest
estate so that it is closer to where people live; and using the national forest estate as a
model of good practice (FCS, 2008: 13-15).
4.5 Wales Forest Policy

Woodland for Wales: The Welsh Assembly Government’s Strategy for Woodlands and
Trees (WAG, 2009b) has four strategic themes, one of which is ‘Woodlands for People’.
Under this, four key outcomes are planned:
1. More communities benefit from woodlands and trees.

2. More people enjoy the life-long learning benefits of woodlands and their products.
3. More people live healthier lives as a result of their use and enjoyment of woodlands.
4. More people benefit from woodland related enterprises.

Under outcome 1 there is a focus on community empowerment through democratic

participation with the aim to get more communities ‘involved in the decision making and
management of woodlands so that woodlands deliver greater benefits at a community
level’ (WAG, 2009b: 30). Amongst other things, the Woodlands for Wales Action Plan,
which is the delivery plan for the Woodland for Wales policy, notes that delivery of this
outcome will include reviewing and revising (where appropriate) consultation processes
relevant to woodlands and exploring ‘the legal and operational issues associated with
transferring woodland management responsibilities to community groups and
enterprises’ (WAG 2009d: 17).
Community empowerment and community capacity building objectives are also evident
within outcome four, where the aim is that more people will ‘operate businesses, develop
skills and create jobs in enterprises associated with woodland timber’ thus there will be
the opportunity for local communities to take more local control and set-up their own
community woodland-enterprises (WAG, 2009b: 33). Outcome 2 also relates to the
concept of community capacity to some degree with a stated aim to ensure ‘More people
of all ages benefit from the use of woodland as a setting for learning and play, leading to
an improved understanding of woodlands and trees and the wider benefits which they
provide in terms of our economy, society, environment and employment opportunities’
(WAG, 2009b: 31).Under this outcome, the Action Plan (WAG, 2009d: 19) also states
that one action will be to ‘Publicise and extend the opportunities for woodland
volunteers’ and thus provide more opportunities for people to shape the places in which
they live and become active citizens.
There is only one reference to the concept of place under the ‘Environmental
Management’ theme, where it is suggested that ‘Veteran trees are a cultural resource
linking people to place, environment and culture (past and present)…’ (WAG, 2009b:
49).
In response to the WAG’s woodland strategy and action plan, Forestry Commission
Wales (FCW) produced their own corporate plan, detailing how they will work towards
the policy objectives outlined: Our purpose and direction 2009 to 2012 (FCW, 2009). In
terms of community empowerment and capacity, the FCW corporate plan (FCW, 2009:
19) recognises that:
For the Assembly Government woodland estate we need to be prepared to view

ourselves sometimes as custodians, but at other times our role will simply be to
facilitate actions by others that can add ‘public value’ to the woodland. Mostly this
will just mean extending our current positive response to woodland based events
and activities, but increasingly it will include the use of the woodland as an asset
to stimulate enterprise and community development. In these cases we shall have

to take more of a backseat in management and accept that other approaches (and
people!) can deliver greater public value than we can directly.
The corporate plan also notes the importance of woodlands as a setting for lifelong
learning. Lifelong learning could be viewed as a contributing factor to community
capacity but the importance of lifelong learning for FCW is largely related to its role in
emphasising ‘the relevance and importance of woodland’s to people’s daily lives’ and
encouraging them ‘to take an interest in the woodlands of Wales’ (FCW, 2009: 19).
The WAG is also drafting a policy position paper entitled Community Involvement with
Woodlands. The aims of this policy position are to achieve the Woodland for Wales
strategy’s ‘commitment to promote community involvement in the decision-making and
management of Welsh woodlands so that they deliver more benefit to local communities’
(WAG, 2009c: 3). Amongst many other issues this document discusses the importance
of the third sector, the contribution of volunteering to community development and
empowerment. It also states that the concepts of social capital and community capacity
refer to ‘the ability of individuals within communities to work together to address their
own common local needs’ through ‘networks and institutions and the experience and
skills developed by individuals to benefit the community’ (WAG, 2009c: 9). It
acknowledges that:
Strengthening community capacity can empower communities to help

themselves…[and although] community capacity is hard to measure…[i]t is
essential that all parties involved in Community Development recognise the
importance of continuity of support to community capacity building…This is
particularly important for woodland projects that may be time-bound and
contribute just one element to a much wider long-term community development
process (WAG, 2009c: 9-10)
4.6 Wales Forest Policy in Practice: a case study

As in England and Scotland, there are various initiatives and projects which demonstrate
how FCW has implemented its policies on the ground and translated them into practice.
Cydcoed is probably the most significant example in terms of funding, geographical
spread and outcomes. It was a £16 million programme developed through the 2001
Woodlands for Wales strategy and funded by the EU Objective 1 programme and the
WAG. Like WIAT, the programme had two phases with the second ending in 2008.
Although an FCW programme, it was initially delivered by Tir Coed, an alliance of
countryside organisations who joined together to promote the benefits of woods in
Wales. Subsequently, in 2002, delivery was subsumed under the FCW umbrella,
although the programme operated as a semi-autonomous body (Owen at el., 2008: 9).

Cydcoed was focused on, but not exclusive to, two different issues: communities with no
access to greenspace for exercise and relaxation, and communities classified as being
the most deprived within the Wales Index of Multiple Deprivation. The central objectives
were to:
 use community forestry to enhance social inclusion and create social capital;
 help create and maintain high capacity community groups able to influence decisions
about their locality;
 help create woods that provide long term social, economic and environmental benefits
and;
 help enable individuals to play a positive role in their communities (Owen et al., 2008:
8).
The Cydcoed programme supplied grants covering up to 100% of costs to 163

community groups within the Objective 1 region of Wales, which encompassed West
Wales and the Valleys. These grants were afforded to community groups to undertake
forestry initiatives to improve existing local woodland or to create new woodland nearby.
Activities carried out using these incentives included: the purchasing of land; tree
planting; woodland condition improvements; recreational facility improvements such as
new paths, seating areas and signage; artwork installation and the development of
facilities to enable educational activities and facilitate woodland-based enterprises. Most
of the projects were undertaken on Local Authority owned land, some were developed on
private or land owned by the community group and a small number were carried out on
the public forest estate. Alongside the grant funding, FCW provided support to the
community groups through the Cydcoed Project Officers who were on hand to assist with
community development, acting as facilitators and advisors.
In an evaluation of the programme at its close, it was found that these Project Officers
were a ‘key success factor of Cydcoed’ (Owen et al., 2008: 9). There was no ongoing
monitoring or baseline data for this evaluation study to utilise but the methodology
employed included desk-based research, qualitative case studies using surveys, semi-
structured interviews and discussion groups, alongside economic analysis of non-market
benefits. The relevant findings of this evaluation are now discussed.
In terms of active citizenship (an important element of community empowerment),

nearly half of those questioned reported that Cydcoed had afforded them the opportunity
to volunteer (Owen et al., 2008: 10). In relation to social capital and community
cohesion, the evaluation recognised that ‘Social capital takes time – often years to
accrue’ and as such ‘It would be beneficial to revisit Cydcoed project communities in the
future to examine the longer term effects of the intervention’ (Owen et al., 2008: 10).
Nonetheless, it concluded that while difficult to discover the depth of increased social
capital and community cohesion, ‘there is little doubt that projects have increased trust,

networks and relationships at the individual and community level’ (Owen et al., 2008:
11).
Trust is an important part of social capital and community cohesion and more than half
of those questioned, stated that their level of trust in the community had grown as a
result of participating in a Cydcoed project (Owen et al., 2008: 10). Around three
quarters of respondents reported that they knew more people as a result of Cydcoed and
79% felt that the projects had helped to develop stronger ties between people in their
community (Owen et al., 2008: 10). The research also found that over a third of
respondents believed that Cydcoed had helped reduce or stop anti-social behaviour in
and around their local woodlands (Owen et al., 2008: 10).

5. Evaluation measures and indicators

This section now turns to look at indicators which are currently in use for the concepts
discussed in this review and explores ways in which these concepts can be researched
on the ground for practical and policy purposes.
5.1 Community Empowerment

A summary table of all the indicators listed in this section for community empowerment
is available in Appendix 1 of this report.
5.1.1 England
The CLG completes a Citizenship Survey on an ongoing basis which is designed, among
other things, to provide evidence on community empowerment. The survey uses a
variety of measures for community empowerment and here empowerment is defined as
‘the process of enabling people to shape and choose the services they use on a personal
basis; so that they can influence the way those services are delivered’ (Agur et al.,
2009: 4). The 2007-08 Citizenship Survey: Empowered Communities Topic Report
attempted to measure empowerment and noted two broad forms of empowerment:
enhanced democratic participation and active citizenship, or subjective and objective
empowerment. Subjective empowerment relates to how much people feel that they are
able to influence decisions. Objective empowerment relates to the extent to which they
actually influence decisions and their level of civic engagement. Civic engagement could
include activities such as being a school governor, contacting a local councillor or taking
part in a consultation about local services (Agur et al., 2009: 4; 37). The following
headline indicators and measures were used:
Subjective empowerment:
 Whether people feel able to influence decisions affecting their local area and Great
Britain.
 How people could participate more in local decisions
 How much people trust institutions (police, local councils and parliament)
Objective empowerment:
 Whether people have carried out civic engagement activities.
 Whether people have participated in voluntary and community activities (Agur et al.,
2009).
Indeed, volunteering is a key focus for government in terms of encouraging active

citizenship (HM Government, 2007: 3; WAG, 2007). Volunteering can be defined as ‘any
activity which involves spending time, unpaid, doing something which aims to benefit

someone (individuals or groups) other than or in addition to close relatives, or benefit

the environment’ (Commission on the Future of Volunteering quoted in CLG, 2007a: 36).
At the end of 2009, CLG published An analytical framework for community

empowerment evaluations (Dickinson and Prabhakar, 2009). It aims ‘to provide
guidance [on assessing]…the success of empowerment interventions [and]…to promote
consistency and maximise comparability between evaluations of empowerment
interventions’ (Dickinson and Prabhakar, 2009: 4). However, it is not concerned with
establishing a fixed approach to evaluation and is designed to be used by those
commissioning evaluations to ‘help set out the research brief, providing some narrative
on what is known about the context, objectives, inputs, activities and processes,
outputs, outcomes and impacts’ (Dickinson and Prabhakar, 2009: 5). It can also be used
by those undertaking evaluations to help determine the research questions that are
relevant to their particular study.
In terms of the Forestry Commission, the Newlands project has developed a suite of
indicators to measure the social impact of the new community woodlands it is
developing. Those that could be used to measure empowerment include:
 People feel they can have a say in how the site develops
 There is an increase in volunteer and employment opportunities for local people
(Newlands, 2009b)
5.1.2 Scotland
Although the Scottish Government advises that community empowerment is not easy to
evaluate and must be done on a case-by-case basis, they also document that they are
attempting to measure it in various ways. For example, many local government Single
Outcome Agreements include measures and indicators associated with community
empowerment and engagement; the Scottish Households survey includes questions
which relate to people’s ability to influence decisions; and Audit Scotland is developing
their Best Value II audits which will include a focus on how local government and their
partners are engaging with communities (Scottish Government 2009a, 16). Furthermore,
the Scottish Government and COSLA intend to work with the third sector to produce a
piece of work that brings ‘coherence to this picture’ and helps ‘people to understand how
best to measure the impact of community empowerment’ (Scottish Government, 2009a:
16) but this has not yet been undertaken.
The Scottish Government recognises that very often community-led organisations play
an important role in the process of community empowerment and provide local
leadership. They are frequently characterised by being ‘multi-purpose’, operating ‘from a
physical hub, and will often own or manage other community assets’ (Scottish

Government, 2009a: 10). The Scottish Government (2009a: 10), therefore, believe that
one indicator of empowered community is:
 The existence of community organisations
The Forestry Commission in Scotland is also seeking to measure its success in engaging
with communities and building community empowerment. There is one indicator in The
Scottish Forestry Strategy under the theme of ‘Community development’ which could be
linked to community engagement:
 Percentage of adults who have heard or read about Scottish woodlands in the previous
12 months (Scottish Executive, 2006: 37).
The indicators which relate to empowerment are to do with local communities managing
their own affairs and taking control of local public assets:
 Number of community-group partnerships involved in owning or managing woodland.

 Number and area of land parcels sold or leased under the National Forest Land
Scheme.
 Independent satisfaction rating of community partnerships on the national forest
estate (Scottish Executive, 2006: 37).
However, under another theme: ‘Access and Health’ there is also an indicator on
volunteering:
 Number of formal ‘volunteer days’ associated with woodland activity (Scottish

Executive, 2006: 41).
5.1.3 Wales
The WAG (2007: 9) highlight the importance of third sector organisations for
empowerment, stating that they ‘are an expression of the motivation within society to
take action independent of the state and private enterprise to improve people’s quality of
life’. In other words, they are an expression of active citizenship.
The WAG is committed to identifying a range of ‘civil empowerment indicators’ which

they have stated may include:
 the annual amount of volunteering effort

 the quantity and quality of volunteering opportunities
 the growth in the number and size of third sector organisations
 the number/proportion of citizens getting involved in civil activities
 the numbers of people voting in elections (WAG, 2007: 31).

The Woodlands for Wales strategy (WAG, 2009b: 55) includes the following indicators
relating to engagement and empowerment under the ‘Woodlands for people’ strategic
theme:
 Numbers of people having some involvement in woodlands.

 Number of enterprises using woodlands.
The Forestry Commission’s own response to the Woodlands for Wales strategy was a
corporate plan (FCW, 2009), which included an appendix on performance measures and
the following relevant indicators were identified:
 Percentage of adults in Wales that have been consulted about plans for creating,
managing or using woodlands in their area.
 Percentage of adults in Wales that are a member of a community group that is
involved in the conservation and/or management of local woodlands.
 Area of woodland leased to or owned by community groups (FCW, 2009: 36)
The Woodland for Wales Indicators (WAG, 2010b) which were published in March 2010
built on these and also included:
 Percentage of adults involved in volunteering in woodlands.

 Number of enterprises in Wales using woodlands (including, amongst others,
community woodland group enterprises) who are generating income from their wood
5.2 Community Capacity and Resilience

Although their achievement is recognised within national policy as important, community
capacity and resilience remain largely unmeasured concepts or entities by government in
Great Britain. As previously noted, this must in part be due to their multidimensional
nature which makes them very difficult to evaluate. There are indicators that are used
by the Forestry Commission (and other government bodies) in all three countries which
could be seen to be associated with community capacity and resilience such as those
relating to education and learning activities, number of woodland enterprises,
community groups, and those relating to the physical woodland resource. However, only
in a report commissioned by Forestry Commission Scotland and Corporate and Forestry
Support of the Forestry Commission, A valuation of the economic and social contribution
of forestry for people in Scotland (Edwards et al., 2009: 100-105) are indicators
identified to specifically measure community capacity. These are as follows:
 Number of community woodland groups, number of members and levels of

involvement
 Hectares of woodland managed by community woodland groups
 Income of community woodland groups

 Number of people involved in, or consulted about, forestry plans

 Public perceptions of the community capacity benefits of forests.
Beyond these, the broader literature suggests some areas from which indicators could be
drawn. Nadeau et al. (1999: 750-1) looked at previous studies undertaken to assess
community capacity and concluded that community capacity has four components:
1. Physical and financial capital: physical attributes and resources in a community (e.g.,
housing, open space, businesses, schools, etc.) along with financial capital
2. Human capital: skills, education, experience etc.
3. Social capital (or civic responsiveness): the ability and willingness of residents to
work together for community goals.
4. Environmental capital: the quality (and quantity) of air, water, soils, minerals,
scenery, and general biodiversity in the area.
Donoghue and Sturtevant (2007: 907-9) categorise assets for community capacity and
resilience in a similar but way but group them in to two distinct sets: foundational assets
and mobilizing assets. Foundational assets include physical and financial capital as well
as environmental capital, all of which are assets which are present in a community,
whereas mobilizing assets include human, social and political capital; the social
interactions and processes that comprise collective action. They argue that in order to
measure the complex nature of community capacity and resilience, measures are needed
which reflect the numerous foundational and mobilizing assets.
Mobilising assets are thus called because they mobilize foundational assets for use by a
community in achieving particular outcomes, although it should be noted that mobilizing
assets remain foundational assets if they are not utilised to address a specific problem.
Once assets are brought into play, or mobilized, they can create additional foundational
assets. Figure 1 below illustrates this dynamic.
Nadeau et al. (1999: 751) point out that there are complex relationships between types
of capital or assets and a change in one can affect the others and thus overall
community capacity. Likewise, Donoghue and Sturtevant (2007: 909) observe that
community assets are always in a dynamic state of flux as they adapt to change. This
temporal factor presents a challenge in terms of measurement which has not yet been
addressed: ‘If policy and program development are potential outcomes related to
community assessments, then it would be useful to understand not only the level of a
particular asset in a community, such as leadership, but also its course and magnitude
relative to other communities’ (Donoghue and Sturtevant, 2007: 909).

Figure 1: Deconstructing community capacity and resiliency

(Donoghue and Sturtevant, 2007: 908)
ASSETS ACTIONS AND OUTCOMES
FOUNDATIONAL MOBILIZING  Meet community needs

 Respond to external and
Physical capital Social capital internal threats
 Create opportunities
Financial capital Human capital  Take advantage of
Natural capital Political capital opportunities
Social capital  Produce desired outcomes
Human capital
Political capital
In terms, of community resilience, one study undertaken by the social science team of
the Interior and Upper Columbia Basins Ecosystem Management Project looked at 198
geographically-based communities through self-assessment and developed a resilience
index through combining measures of community members’ perceptions of community
features and conditions:
 aesthetic attractiveness;
 proximity of outdoor amenities;
 level of civic involvement;
 effectiveness of community leaders;
 economic diversity;
 social cohesion among residents (Harris et al. 1998. cited in Nadeau et at., 1999:
752).
Since this study was concerned with resilience they also assessed residents’ perceptions
of their future and how they were preparing for it. They found that ‘the most resilient
communities are those whose residents have a clear vision of desired future conditions
and have taken into account biophysical, social, and economic changes’ (Harris et al.
1998 cited in Nadeau et al., 1999: 752).
5.3 Community Cohesion and Social Capital

A summary table of all the indicators discussed in relation to community cohesion and
social capital is available in Appendix 2 of this report.

5.3.1 UK
The Public Policy Research Institute (PRI) in Canada has undertaken significant research
on social capital and its measurement and identified three different approaches to, or
methodological choices about measuring social capital: ‘The micro-approach emphasizes
the nature and forms of co-operative behaviour; the macro-approach focuses on the
conditions (favourable or unfavourable) for co-operation; and the meso-approach
highlights structures that enable co-operation to take place’ (Franke, 2005: 1). Further
details of these approaches can be found in Franke (2005: 1-2)
While these approaches all recognise the contribution of social ties and networks to
socio-economic and health benefits, each approach tackles the issue of co-operation
from a different, yet complementary angle, ‘collective action, participation, or social
networks’ (Franke, 2005: 2). The first two approaches (micro and macro) have
dominated the work done by most government organizations where social capital is seen
as an end result or ‘as a dependent variable, that is, a phenomenon requiring
explanation’ (Franke 2005: i). However, the PRI argue that a meso-approach, where
social capital is explored as an independent variable that can be used to explain other
phenomena, is more suitable if one wants to look at the impact of government
interventions or seeks to show how social capital influences the connected benefits such
as health.
In the UK, the Office of National Statistics (ONS) has taken a macro-approach to social
capital where it has been viewed as being a collective asset arising through individuals’
social interactions and activities (Franke, 2005: 4). The ONS has developed a framework
for the measurement and analysis of social capital in the UK incorporating five
dimensions and a number of indicators, which is summarised below: These five
dimensions and sub-themes appear in the document Measuring Social Capital in the
United Kingdom (Harper and Kelly, 2003: 7) and are as follows:
Social participation
 Number of cultural, leisure, social groups belonged to and frequency and intensity of
involvement
 Volunteering, frequency and intensity of involvement
 Religious activity
Civic participation
 Perceptions of ability to influence events
 How well informed about local/national affairs
 Contact with public officials or political representatives
 Involvement with local action groups
 Propensity to vote

Social networks and social support

 Frequency of seeing/speaking to relatives/friends/neighbours
 Extent of virtual networks and frequency of contact
 Number of close friends/relatives who live nearby
 Exchange of help
 Perceived control and satisfaction with life
Reciprocity and trust

 Trust in other people who are like you
 Trust in other people who are not like you
 Confidence in institutions at different levels
 Doing favours and vice versa
 Perception of shared values
Views of the local area

 Views on physical environment
 Facilities in the area
 Enjoyment of living in the area
 Fear of crime
While views about the area are not strictly a measure of social capital they feature in the
framework because they are required for the analysis and interpretation of the other
measures (Harper and Kelly, 2003: 8)). The ONS utilises harmonised questions in
different national surveys to gather data on these aspects or dimensions of social capital
(Brook, 2005: 116; Harper and Kelly. 2003: 1).
1. Participation, social engagement, commitment

 Participation in or involvement in local groups
 Perceived barriers to involvement in local groups
 Level/intensity of involvement in local groups
 Participation in voluntary schemes connected with work
 Political activity or voting
 Membership of clubs/groups e.g. RSPCA, WWF.
 Taking positive action about a local issue
 Participation in religious activity
 Completed or received a practical favour
 Provide regular service, help or care for others
 Familiarity with neighbourhood
2. Control, self-efficacy
 Perceived control over community affairs
 Perceived control over own health

 Satisfaction with amount of control over life

 Perceived rights and responsibilities of citizens
 Perceived influence over political decisions
 Perceived satisfaction with life
 Measures of psychological control or empowerment
3. Perception of community level structures or characteristics

 Satisfaction/enjoyment of living in local area
 Degree to which societal-level variables are seen as relevant to health
 Rating of local noise problems
 Rating of cleanliness, graffiti, vandalism
 Rating of area resources and services (leisure activities, rubbish collection)
 Rating of health services
 Rating of socio-economic inequality
 Rating of education services
 Perceptions of crime, safety, victimisation
 Availability of good local transport
 Feeling of safety in the neighbourhood
 Rating of facilities for children
4. Social interaction, social networks, social support

 Proximity of friends/relatives
 Contact with friends/family/neighbours: quality or frequency
 Perceived barriers to contact with friends/relatives
 Has someone to rely upon outside of household
 Received practical help/advice for bringing up children
 Depth of socialisation networks
 Depth of socialisation networks, specifically leisure
 Perceived norms of social support
 Social relations at work
5. Trust, reciprocity, social cohesion

 Satisfaction with level of information about local area issues
 Length of residence in area/neighbourhood
 Confidence in institutions and public services
 Trust in other people
 Perceived fairness of life, including discrimination
 Confidence in political structures
 Social trust
 Perception of shared values, reliability
6. Social networks and social support

 Frequency of seeing/speaking to relatives/friends/neighbours

 Extent of virtual networks and frequency of contact
 Number of close friends/relatives who live nearby
 Exchange of help
 Perceived control and satisfaction with life
7. Reciprocity and trust

 Trust in other people who are like you
 Trust in other people who are not like you
 Confidence in institutions at different levels
 Doing favours and vice versa
 Perception of shared values (Ruston and Akinrodoye, 2002: 7-8).
The ONS utilises harmonised questions in different surveys to gather data on these
aspects or dimensions of social capital (Brook, 2005: 116; Harper and Kelly. 2003: 1).
5.3.2 England
As we heard previously, CLG’s Citizenship Survey examines community empowerment.
However, it is also concerned with community cohesion and is used to facilitate
measurement of Public Service Agreement 21 and DSO4. In terms of community
cohesion, the survey addresses three main elements: ‘perceptions of community
cohesion, the extent to which people have meaningful interactions with people from
different backgrounds and perceptions of belonging to the neighbourhood’ (Lloyd and
NatCen, 2008: 9). The indicators of primary interest used in the 2007-2008 survey for
community cohesion were:
 The extent to which people agreed or disagreed that their local area (defined as 15-20
minutes walking distance) is a place where people from different backgrounds get on
well together.
 Proportion of people who feel they belong strongly to their neighbourhood.
 Proportion of people who enjoy living in their neighbourhood.
 Proportion of people who feel that people would pull together to improve the
neighbourhood.
 Proportion of people who think that people in their neighbourhood can be trusted.
 Proportion of people who think their neighbours share the same values.
 Proportion of people who feel they belong strongly to their local area.
 Proportion of people who think their local area is a place where people respect ethnic
differences.
 Proportion of people who feel proud of their local area.
 Proportion of people who think the local area has got better in the last two years.
 Proportion of people worried about becoming a victim of crime
 Whether people feel safe walking alone after dark in the neighbourhood

 Proportion of people who perceive a high level of anti-social behaviour in their local
area
 Proportion of people who have mixed with people from different ethnic or religious
backgrounds in the last month.
 Proportion of people who have friends who have a similar income to themselves.
 Proportion of people with friends from different ethnic groups to themselves.
The forestry strategy for England does not include any indicators of relevance to
community cohesion and social capital. However, the Newlands project social impact
indicators (Newlands, 2009b) for their newly created community woodlands do include
some relevant measures, such as:
 The site is seen as an asset to the area that increases people’s sense of pride in the
area
 There is no rise, or there is a decrease in antisocial behaviour on the site
 Community activities and celebrations take place on the site
5.3.3 Scotland
Although in Scotland the government does not appear to have any indicators which are
currently being used to measure social capital, researchers for the Scottish Government
(Crowther et al. 2008) have developed an instrument to measure changes in social
capital taking into account four major aspects of the concept:
a) developing social contacts through growing friendships and associations; taking action
to solve problems; attachments to a range of social networks, developing trusting
relationships:
b) civic participation through involvement in community/pressure/political groups;
membership of networks; voting:
c) relationships with those with power through the ability to respond to authorities;
changes in terms of influencing authorities; expressing opinions and broadening
expectations; and
d) bridging social capital through social interactions with people from different
backgrounds; sharing information and skills; and changes in beliefs about one’s own
life and that of others (Crowther et al. 2008: 1).
For full details of the social capital measurement tool developed in this project see
Crowther et al. (2008).
The only indicators of relevance used for the forest strategy in Scotland have already
been covered in the section above on community engagement.

5.3.4 Wales
Likewise, the same is true of the forestry indicators in Wales – there are no indicators
specific to social capital and community cohesion beyond those mentioned in the
community empowerment section.
Over and above the physical output requirements of the external funding body, the FCW
Cydcoed Programme in Wales did not develop indicators for success. The output
requirements of the external funding body included hectares of woodland brought into
sustainable management and hectares of woodland benefiting from community
participation (Owen et al., 2008: 23). However, a suite of indicators to measure the
benefits of involvement was developed as part of the evaluation study at the
programmes close (Owen et al., 2008: 23). Under the theme of social capital and human
capital the indicators used were:
 Public involvement in woodland decision making

 Public involvement in woodland events and other community activities
 Changes in community trust and well-being (Owen et al., 2008: 24)
The first two indicators developed are very similar to indicators used elsewhere within
the Forestry Commission at a national and GB level but their measurement has been
developed to be appropriate at a local project-level. However, the novel element is the
third indicator which focused on community well-being and trust.
5.4 Place-making and Shaping

A summary table of all the indicators discussed in relation to place-making and place-
shaping is available in Appendix 3 of this report.
5.4.1 England
The government in England initiated a Place Survey in 2008 which moved focus away
from a service-delivery perspective, towards a ‘shaping places’ perspective ‘and will be
used to assess the impact of shared attempts to meet the needs of local areas, rather
than the impact of local authorities in isolation’ (Duffy and Lee Chan, 2009: 11). This
document investigates ‘place’ in a broad sense in terms of the factors that make
somewhere a good place to live. It concentrates on people’s perceptions of the local
services they receive and their local area (defined as the area within 15-20 minutes
walking distance from home) and is used to collect data for 18 national indicators for
local government, many of which are linked to other concepts discussed previously in
this report:
 Percentage of people who believe people from different backgrounds get on well
together in their local area (National Indicator (NI) 1)

 Percentage of people who feel that they belong to their neighbourhood (NI 2)
 Civic participation in the local area (NI 3)
 Percentage of people who feel they can influence decisions in their locality (NI 4)
 Overall/general satisfaction with local area (NI 5)
 Participation in regular volunteering (NI 6)
 Perceptions of anti-social behaviour (NI 17)
 Dealing with local concerns about anti-social behaviour and crime issues by police and
other local services (NI 21)
 Perceptions of parents taking responsibility for the behaviour of their children in the
area (NI 22)
 Perceptions that people in the area treat one another with respect and consideration
(NI 23)
 Understanding of local concerns about anti-social behaviour and crime issues (NI 27)
 Awareness of civil protection arrangements in the local area (NI 37)
 Perceptions of drunk or rowdy behaviour as a problem (NI 41)
 Perceptions of drug use or drug dealing as a problem (NI 42)
 Self-reported measures of people’s overall health and well-being (NI 119)
 Satisfaction of people over 65 with both home and neighbourhood (NI 138)
 The extent to which older people receive the support they need to live independently
at home (NI 139)
 Fair treatment by local services (NI 140) (CLG, 2009: 16-17)
Ipsos MORI (Duffy and Lee Chan, 2009) have also undertaken further analysis of the
Place Survey results in their publication: People, Perceptions and Place, which aims to
analyse the drivers of public perceptions of place.
The Forestry Commission in England are also concerned with measuring quality of place.
Under Aim Four: Quality of Life, in the Strategy for England’s Trees, Woods and Forests,
target 1 refers to quality of place and how trees, woods and forests can enhance this.
The aim is to create ‘more attractive and inspiring places by enhancing the contribution
of Green Infrastructure to local environmental quality’ (FCE and Natural England, 2008:
29). The indicator for the quality of place dimension of Aim Four is:
 Percentage of population with access to woodlands according to access standard.
The access standard referred to is that no person should live more than 500m from an
area of accessible woodland of at least 2ha in size, or 4km from an area of accessible
woodland at least 20ha in size. Additional indicators are currently being developed for
the quality of life component of Aim Four. These will cover:
 Engagement
 Quality of experience

 Personal benefits
 Social benefits
Some of the indicators mentioned previously in relation to community empowerment and

Cohesion, which are used within the Newlands project could also be applicable to place-
making and shaping.
5.4.2 Scotland
There do not appear to be any national government indicators relating to place within
Scotland. In line with the conception of place used in the Place Survey in England, there
are indicators discussed previously in relation to community empowerment which could
be used to contribute to a measure of place. In terms of a more limited conception of
place as physical area, as used by FCE, Forestry Commission Scotland has indicators
within its forest strategy which measure access, although they do not refer to these
specifically as measures of quality of place:
 Proportion of the population with accessible woodland greater than 2 ha within 500m
of their home
 Proportion of the population with accessible woodland greater than 20 ha within 4 km
of their home (Scottish Executive, 2006: 41)
However, the indicators for Phase II of the WIAT programme in Scotland do relate these
same access indicators (albeit combined into one indicator) in relation to place:
 Proportion of people meeting the Space for People standard: living within 500m of an
accessible woodland of at least 2ha and living within 4km of accessible woodland of at
least 20ha (FCS, 2008: 11).
This indicator is used to for the WIAT outcome, ‘More equitable distribution of high
quality green infrastructure’ and this outcome is listed as contributing to the Scottish
Government’s National outcome ‘We live in well designed sustainable places where we
are able to access the amenities and services we need’ (FCS, 2008: 11).
Two other indicators also relate to place and these are the indicators for the WIAT
outcome ‘More people living in towns and cities feeling an increased level of satisfaction
with the quality of their local environment’:
 Opinion of standard of local woodland management

 Percentage of people who agree that their local greenspace is attractive (FCS, 2008:
11).

5.4.3 Wales
There are no national government indicators in Wales that are described as measuring
place. In terms of the broad conception of place used in England’s Place Survey, FCW
does have some relevant indicators which were mentioned in relation to community
empowerment. As in England and Scotland, Forestry Commission Wales has indicators
relating to access to woodlands, although these are not referred to as measures of
quality of place by FCW but rather measures of the level of public involvement with
woodland:
 Percentage of adults in Wales that have a forest or woodland they can get to easily
without a car or other transport
 Percentage of population that live within 500m of accessible woodland of 2ha or more
 Percentage of people who live within 4km of accessible woodland of 20ha or more
(FCW, 2009: 36).
However, in addition, the Woodlands for Wales Indicators (WAG, 2001b: 17-18) include
an indicator that could be used in relation to ‘place’ which focuses on the local benefits of
woodlands, using data from the Public Opinion of Forestry Survey. It includes the
following measures:
 Changes in the perception in UK of reasons to support forestry with public money

 Changes in the perception of benefits to local communities
 The perception of the disbenefits that woodlands bring to local communities
5.4.4 Other indicators for measuring place-making in public-spaces

The Project for Public Spaces define five characteristics of a successful place which could
be used as indicators:
 High proportion of people in groups: The presence of people in groups can be an index
of selectivity…often when people go to a plaza in twos or threes, or always when they
rendezvous there, it is because they have decided to do so in advance.
 Higher than average proportion of women: Women tend to be more discriminating
about the spaces that they use. Reasons for this range from women’s choosiness
when it comes to the types of seating available in a place, to their perceptions about
whether a place is safe.
 Different ages: The presence of different ages usually means a place has different
constituencies who use it at different times of day. For example, pre-school age
children and their guardians can use a neighbourhood park when others are working,
as can seniors and retirees.
 Varied activities: Popular places generally have more things to do than less successful
spaces. And activities don’t necessarily require special equipment or facilities.

 Affection: There is generally more smiling, kissing, embracing, holding and shaking of
hands, and so forth in good public places than in those that are problematic (Project
for Public Spaces, 2000: 80-3).
They also consider in detail principles for successful public-spaces creation and the
different questions and techniques that can be used in order to evaluate the success of a
current public space and develop improvements (Project for Public Spaces (2000).

6. Discussion
In this section, we relate the findings of this review back to the original objective stated
in the introduction, namely for the FC to gain a more thorough understanding of the
various concepts discussed, in particular: looking at how they are being used by different
governmental organisations and integrated into their policies, how the FC is using and
operationalising them across the three countries and how their achievement can be
measured. The two key findings of this review are that:
1. While most of the concepts discussed have been adopted by the three national
governments in Great Britain in various policy areas (including forestry) the
prominence given to them differs and they are not always used to mean the same
thing, especially with regards to the concept of ‘place’.
2. There are clear gaps in terms of indicators and measurement frameworks for the
concepts discussed, although the level of this problem varies between the concepts,
between the three countries, and between forestry and other policy areas.
These two issues are discussed in greater depth below.
6.1 Differences and Similarities

In this section we explore the similarities and differences in the use of the various
concepts both across the three countries and between different policy areas (i.e. forestry
versus other national policy areas).
Community empowerment is evident in the policy agendas of all three countries,

although with varying focuses on enhanced influence over decision-making processes,
devolved power and local control, active citizenship, and participation as a means and as
an end in itself. This is reflected in forest policy in all three countries, which all include
aspirations and objectives relating to community empowerment. Community capacity is
also invariably tied into the concept of empowerment in national government policies
and in some cases its close linkages with social capital have been acknowledged, such as
in Welsh forestry policy.
Community cohesion and social capital have received little attention in government
policy in Scotland although their value for communities and the value of woods in
creating cohesion are recognised. England and Wales have both placed a greater
emphasis on the importance of community cohesion and social capital in central
government policies than Scotland, noting the role that cultural and sporting activities
can play in their achievement. However, there is very little focus within forestry policies
in the two countries on addressing community cohesion and social capital specifically.
Nonetheless, the FCW’s Cydcoed programme is an excellent example of how woodland
interventions can be used to enhance community cohesion and build social capital.

Particularly interesting is the concept of place within central and forestry policies and its
interpretation by different organisations. In section 2 we discussed the academic and
policy definitions associated with place. The concept of place has been used in
government policy in England, to refer to whole areas, in particular at the neighbourhood
and local administrative areas levels and focusing on enhancing joined-up working to
address the range of factors which affect individuals and communities quality of life, with
local authorities labelled ‘place-shapers’.
From a different perspective, within academic debate a key observation is the difference
between space and place. In this conception, space focuses on the biological needs of
people whereas place is a broader concept which includes the relationships people have
with spaces and the regulation of identity through self reflection and social integration.
These ideas have a strong resonance in terms of the management of specific public
spaces but they not been fully integrated into governmental (including forestry) policy
across the board.
In Wales, the concept of place has received relatively little consideration other than the
observation that sustainable places can only exist on the basis of the interactions and
activities of local individuals, communities, organisations, and businesses and that their
design must be participatory. Similarly, in Welsh forestry policy, quality of place is not
really considered in any substantive way in forestry policy or strategy documents,
beyond noting the cultural value of veteran trees and including a Woodlands for Wales
Indicator on the local benefits of woodlands.
In England, there is some recognition of the role of public spaces as areas which foster
informal contact and help to build community norms and values and create pride,
identity and enhance community engagement. However, forestry policy in England
largely seems to view quality of place through the limited perspective of space,
concentrating purely on physical elements with the indicator for quality of place being
the percentage of population with access to woodlands according to the access standard.
This does not capture the linkages between place and quality of life and the relationships
between spaces and people.
The Scottish Government has in the past, mainly conceived of place in terms of its
functional value and its ability to meet physical or biological needs, what this review
would term ‘space’. However, there is some indication of an adoption of the concept of
place within Scotland in the 2010 Designing Streets policy, which highlights the fact that
place is about the connections between people and space and that place can create a
cultural context for communities, and help create pride, identity and belonging. In
Scotland, place receives little attention in forestry policy, although the country’s forest
strategy does note that woodlands and their local and historical associations can

contribute to sense of place and cultural identity. In WIAT Phase I, improving quality of
place was a goal of the initiative but, as in England, it was seen in only physical terms.
However, this objective was complemented by the aim to build social capital and aid
community participation. In WIAT Phase II, as in Phase I and in England, place is again
considered in purely physical and spatial terms with the indicators used being based on
people’s access and proximity to woodland, their opinions on the standard of local
woodland management and the percentage of people who believe their local greenspace
is attractive.
However, in terms of forestry, while the terminology of place may be being used to refer
to ‘space’ with a focus on the improvement of its quality and ability to provide functional
services and meet biological needs, it does not necessarily follow that the value of
forests as places for encouraging social integration and building community pride and
identity is not being promoted. Indeed, all three countries acknowledge and promote the
role of forests for these purposes. Perhaps the most pertinent issue is that policies and
practice relating to creating quality spaces do not always consider access, functional
value and biological needs alongside self-regulation and the connections and
relationships between people and spaces in a joined-up cohesive manner.
6.2 Gaps in Indicators

One of the main findings of this review is that there are clear gaps in terms of indicators
and frameworks for the measurement of the concepts discussed, albeit with the level of
the problem varying between the concepts, between the three countries, and between
forestry and other policy areas. It is also not clear which indicators, used elsewhere by
government agencies in the UK, are most appropriate or applicable in a forestry context.
Indictors used at the national level to measure progress towards national government
objectives show that measures for community empowerment can include: whether
people feel they can participate in decisions; whether they are involved in volunteering
or other active citizenship roles; and the existence of community and third sector
organisations.
Although the FC in all countries has embraced community empowerment as an objective

for the organisation there are some gaps in terms of indicators used to measure its
achievement on the ground. FCE do not have any indicators specifically related to
community empowerment. In Scotland, while there are a number of indicators which
cover similar territory to those used in broader government policy, there is no measure
of how much people feel they are able to influence decision-making within forestry or
measures of levels of community-based enterprises using woodland. Similarly, in Wales
a suite of indicators is available to measure community empowerment, but again these
do not include reference to how much people feel they are able to influence decision-
making processes although number of enterprises using woodland is included.

There are also gaps in terms of indicators for measuring community capacity and
resilience and this is the case right across government, not just for the FC. It is likely
that efforts to measure community capacity building are few because of the complex and
multi-faceted nature of the concept. Nevertheless, even if not directed specifically at
measuring community capacity as a whole, certain elements which contribute to
community capacity are being measured within the forestry sphere and elsewhere by
government such as levels of enterprise, job creation, education and learning and social
capital.
Is the story any better for community cohesion and social capital? In England the CLG
uses a raft of 16 indicators to look at community cohesion, including ones related to
perceptions of: the local area, how well people get along in the neighbourhood, how well
they belong, how much they can trust others, whether the community has shared
values, pride in the neighbourhood, fears around crime, and whether people mix with
people from different backgrounds. The governments of Scotland and Wales do not seem
to have any indicators specifically used to measure community cohesion.
In terms of social capital, the only governmental body attempting to measure this at a
national level appears to be the Office of National Statistics. They use data from different
surveys to look at social capital, focusing on indicators which fall into the following
categories: civic participation (involvement in voting or decision-making processes),
social networks and support (contact with friends and family), social participation
(involvement in groups and voluntary activities), reciprocity and trust (giving and
receiving favours and trust in others and in institutions). They also use indicators on
perceptions of local areas to help analyse and interpret the results.
FCE has no indicators to measure community cohesion or social capital and FCS and FCW
have no additional indicators which could be used over and above the ones previously
mentioned in relation to community empowerment. These do not cover a range of
important issues such as pride, trust, shared values, perceptions of the local area and
whether people are mixing with individuals who have different backgrounds to
themselves. However, while the relevance of such indicators in the forestry context at a
specific intervention level is clear, their applicability at a national level is less well
established and it is uncertain how they could be usefully measured in relation to trees,
woods and forests at this level.
In terms of measuring progress towards creating good quality places we can look at
place on two levels, on the one hand from a community or neighbourhood basis and on
the other hand on a specific site basis.

In terms of measuring progress towards creating good quality places at the

neighbourhood level, the government in England until recently used the Place Survey
which looks not just at physical or spatial aspects but also includes many indicators
which relate to the other concepts discussed in this review such as community
empowerment, cohesion and social capital because of their contribution to quality of life
which, in this view, is inherently linked to place. There do not appear to be any national
government indicators relating to place in this sense within Scotland or Wales.
The FC in all three countries has indicators relating to access and levels of accessible
woodland, with FCE specifically stating that theirs is an indicator for quality of place. FCS
also use indicators within their WIAT programme which look at people’s views on the
standard of management of their local woodland and the number of people who agree
that their local greenspace is attractive. On a broader scale, one Woodlands for Wales
indicator focuses on perceptions of the local benefits of woodlands. There are also the
forestry indicators previously mentioned relating to community empowerment, some or
all of which could be applied to place in its broad definition, which includes the
connections people have with a place and its ability to help build individual and
community identity and pride. However, those forestry indicators are probably not
extensive enough, as previously mentioned, and could be enhanced by the inclusion of
indicators relating to perceptions of the local area and the impact local woodland has on
this, for example.
In terms of the measurement of place-making in public spaces on a site basis, the

Project for Public Spaces have suggested five characteristics of a successful place which
could be used as indicators: the proportion of people in groups, a higher than average
proportion of female users, a range of people of different ages using a space, displays of
affection within a space and varied activities which take place in a space. Much could be
learnt from the Project for Public Spaces approach to public space design, planning and
management within forestry and there is much in their methodology which could be
adopted and applied to forestry sites since their aims align with many of the FC’s
objectives.
It is worth noting that across all three countries, within forestry the indicators which do
exist to measure the achievement of all of the above concepts are not generally
documented as being specifically used for this purpose. However, while they may not be
explicitly linked to the measurement of these concepts per say, they exist because of a
commitment to the fundamental ideas behind these concepts.

7. Conclusion
This review began by outlining definitions of concepts and terms related to place-making
and communities, with an emphasis on their potential implications and actual application
within UK governmental policy, before examining in greater depth how these terms are
used in UK governmental policies, how they are interpreted within public forestry and
how progress towards their achievement can be measured. In this final concluding
section, the implications of this review are discussed in terms of: the key points it has
revealed which are of relevance to forestry; providing recommendations for future
research and, finally; the governmental context in which this report has been produced
and areas which will need to be considered going forward.
7.1 Key Points Relevant to Forestry.

While the FC has adopted many of the concepts discussed here, with regards to certain
concepts, while they may appear in other central government policies, their uptake and
understanding within forestry has not been so prolific. In particular, a full understanding
and integration of the concept of place and the associated concepts of place-making and
shaping has not occurred and while the concepts of community cohesion and social
capital have received some attention in forestry policy, this has been limited. Moreover,
where they have been evident in forestry policy, indicators for their measurement have
been partial at a national level, although the Cydcoed evaluation did demonstrate that
attempts to measure these concepts at a programme level have been somewhat more
substantial.
The use of narrow, restricted, or no indicators is not just a concern with relation to
community cohesion and social capital, as we have heard. Indicators for community
capacity, and to some degree community empowerment and place, have also proved
somewhat lacking, although more work is needed to assess the applicability of a range
of indicators in the forestry context. In the case of community capacity this is a common
problem across government and in terms of community empowerment, while on the
whole this is a well measured concept within forestry, some gaps still remain.
In terms of place, while forestry indicators for the physical and spatial elements of place
exist and these can be supplemented by other indicators used for measuring community
empowerment, there is a lack of focus on measuring people’s perceptions of the places
they live in and how this is enhanced or not by local woodlands and their relationships
with woodland. After all, achieving quality of place can be considered to involve more
than improving access to good quality, well-managed woodland. As has been shown,
quality of place relies on more than just physical or spatial aspects: a fundamental
aspect of place is the relationships and interactions between people and the spaces they
inhabit and use. Only once a connection has been established does a space become a
place.

In fairness however, it may be that national level indicators relating to people’s

relationships with woodlands, beyond specific questions about engagement with
woodlands or positive/negative perceptions about them and/or their management, are
unfeasible because of the complex and qualitative nature of these relationships.
Nevertheless, the Project for Public Spaces has demonstrated that such relationships can
perhaps be better accounted for at a site-based level and their methodology could be
relevant to forestry, especially in terms of planning processes.
Finally, this review revealed that for those forestry programmes with a community
and/or place-making agenda, the monitoring and evaluation has thus far been very poor,
with a lack of baseline date being collected and a lack of robust monitoring and
evaluation frameworks being developed and implemented. Better monitoring and
evaluation would aid the measurement of implementation progress, build a stronger
evidence base which could be used to help secure funds for future projects and
programmes, and establish lessons learned to help ensure the success of future efforts.
On a positive note, examples like WIAT Phase II suggest that the value of monitoring
and evaluation has been realised, at least within some circles, and is beginning to be
seen as a core part of developing such programmes.
7.2 Future Research Requirements

This review has revealed or hinted upon a variety of areas which are ripe for further and
investigation, including the following:
 We have briefly discussed some examples of how policies and programmes aimed at
enhancing community empowerment, capacity, social capital, community cohesion
and place have been operationalised within forestry. However, it would be beneficial
for the FC to know much more about what these concepts look like in practice
and how they can be operationalised and what are the most appropriate
forms of woodland-based intervention to achieve this. Therefore a study which
included in-depth case studies, lessons learned, success factors and barriers to
achievement would be useful.
 The concept of place has been adopted to some degree within forest policy but often
in largely spatial and physical terms and sometimes divorced from quality of life and
the relationships people have with spaces. This review revealed that place-making
methodologies at a site-level basis may be appropriate within forestry to help enhance
the benefits of public forest land. A place-making approach to land-management could
help deliver not only biological and functional benefits but also help people engage
and use these spaces and form connections with both the space and other users,
which in turn would help strengthen individual and community well-being. Therefore,
further research into how place and place-making methodologies and place

attachment, dependence and identity measures can be integrated into forest

management policy, planning and implementation could prove fruitful.
 Finally, and possibly most conspicuously, is the matter of indicators. This review has
revealed numerous gaps related to indicators, not just with reference to forestry but
in some cases across government as a whole and not just with reference to
insufficient usage but also in relation to the fact that in certain areas there seems to
be a lack of indicators available to use, in particular with relation to community
capacity and resilience. Therefore, further research into appropriate indicators for
use within government and in particular within forestry for all the concepts
discussed would be pertinent. One approach that may assist with this effort would
be a more extensive review of the wider international literature on the concepts,
discussed in this report (rather than a focus on current UK policy as this report has
done) since this may shed further light on potential indicators which could be adopted.
7.3 Changing Governmental Context

As noted in the introduction to this study, the majority of the research for this report
was undertaken between September 2009 and March 2010 while the Labour party was
in power. In May 2010 the coalition government, between the Conservative party and
the Liberal Democrat party, was formed, which has dramatically changed the political
landscape within the UK. Therefore, the governmental definitions and policy analysis
reported here may be subject to some change within England.
For example, the Government has committed to radically reform the planning system ‘to
give neighbourhoods far more ability to determine the shape of the places in which their
inhabitants live’ which could impact on how ‘place’ related policy is delivered (HM
Government, 2010: 11). They have also committed to abolishing the Comprehensive
Area Assessment or CAA and work on these has already ceased (HM Government, 2010:
12). The CAA brought together the work of a range of separate watchdogs (such as the
Audit Commission, Her Majesty’s Inspectorates of Constabulary, Prisons and Probation,
and Ofsted) to offer one joint assessment of local services in a given local authority area.
Included in the CAA was an annual performance assessment of local authorities against
the National Indicator Set (NIS).
The indicators measured within the Place Survey on citizens’ views and perspectives
were part of the NIS and on August 10th, 2010, it was announced that, like the CAA, the
Place Survey has been terminated by the coalition government. However, this does not
indicate that place and the indicators that the Place Survey measured are not important
to the new government or to local authorities but rather signals a change in governance
structures; the move to abandon the survey is part of a concerted effort to make
‘councils more accountable to residents rather than ministers in Whitehall’ and prevent

resources from being diverted away from public services (the Place Survey costs an
estimated £5 million to run) (CLG, 2010c). Grant Shapps, Local Government Minister,
‘believes that the Place Survey was an example of wasteful municipal spending - which
required council officials to ask residents a range of intrusive personal questions’ (CLG,
2010c). He is reported as saying that, ‘These surveys are a cosmetic exercise which
never change anything. Let's give real power back to the people - such as letting
taxpayers veto high council tax rises’ (CLG, 2010c). Thus, while there will no longer be
such a survey at a national level, it may be that local authorities will choose individually
to continue to try and measure at least some of the topics covered in the survey in some
way, although this is likely to be more sporadic and comparisons between local authority
areas is unlikely to be possible.
However, it would not appear that the values and thinking which are encapsulated in the
concepts of community empowerment, capacity, cohesion and social capital will be in
abatement, even if the terminology changes. In fact, there is a good chance that focus
on these concepts will only grow. For example, community empowerment is high on the
new government agenda, which is evidenced in The Coalition: our programme for
government (Cameron and Clegg in HM Government, 2010: 7) foreword, by David
Cameron and Nick Clegg, where it states that:
We believe that the time has come to disperse power more widely in Britain
today; to recognise that we will only make progress if we help people to come
together to make life better…We have a shared ambition to clean up Westminster
and a determination to oversee a radical redistribution of power away from
Westminster and Whitehall to councils, communities and homes across the nation.
Indeed, this statement sums up two of the collation government’s most prominent policy
agendas, those of ‘Big Society’ as opposed to ‘Big Government’, ‘where family and social
responsibility plus civil liberties create a stronger society’, and ‘localism’, which involves
‘Real change driven by local people working together in their communities’ (CLG, 2010b:
2).
Clegg and Cameron (in HM Government 2010: 8) state that these ideals offer ‘the
potential to completely recast the relationship between people and the state: citizens
empowered; individual opportunity extended; communities coming together to make
lives better’. As part of this agenda the government has pledged to support the creation
and expansion of co-operatives, mutuals, charities and social enterprises and give them
greater opportunities to run public services (HM Government, 2010: 29). It will also
‘take action to support and encourage social responsibility, volunteering and
philanthropy’ and ‘will train a new generation of community organisers and support the
creation of neighbourhood groups across the UK, especially in the most deprived areas’
(HM Government, 2010: 29).

A commitment to community cohesion is also evident in the programme for government

(HM Government, 2010: 18) where it states that: ‘We will promote improved community
relations and opportunities for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) communities’.
The other major area of change that could impact on the findings of this study relates to
Wales and the potential for further devolution. The programme for government (HM
Government, 2010: 28) makes a commitment to hold a referendum on further Welsh
Devolution and this looks likely to take place before the end of March 2011 (Devolution
Matters, 2010). If further devolution were to occur then there is the potential for this to
impact upon place and community-related policies within Wales.

References
Agur, M., Low, N. and NatCen. 2009. 2007-08 Citizenship Survey: Empowered
Communities Topic Report. Department for Communities and Local Government, London
Audit Commission. 2010. Place Survey. http://www.audit-

commission.gov.uk/localgov/audit/nis/pages/placesurvey.aspx accessed 04/08/2010
Babb, P. 2005. Measurement of social capital in the UK. Office for National Statistics,
London.
Be Birmingham. 2009. Working together for a better Birmingham: Building Social Capital
and Enterprise.
http://www.bebirmingham.org.uk/uploads/Social%20Capital%20Interactive.pdf
accessed 01/10/09
Brook, K. 2005. Labour market participation: the influence of social capital. Labour
Market Trends, March 2005: 113-123
Brown, G. and Raymond, C. 2007. The relationship between place attachment and
landscape values: Toward mapping place attachment. Applied Geography 27 (2002): 89-
111
Buchy, M. & Hovernman, S. 2000. Understanding public participation in forest planning:

a review. Forest Policy and Economics 1 (2000): 15-25
CDC [Community Development Cymru] 2007. The National Framework for Community
Development. http://www.cdcymru.org/uploads/cdcreportenglish.pdf accessed 23/02/10
Cameron, D. and Clegg, N. 2010. Foreword in The Coalition: our programme for
government. http://programmeforgovernment.hmg.gov.uk/ accessed 04/08/2010
Crowther, J., Tett, L. and Edwards, V. 2008. Building Connections, Getting Involved:
Measuring Social Capital Outcomes of Community Learning and Development – Full
Report. Scottish Government, Edinburgh
CLG [Department for Communities and Local Government]. 2010a. Departmental

Strategic Objectives.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/corporate/about/howwework/publicserviceagreements/
departmentalstrategicobjectives/ accessed 22/01/10

CLG [Department for Communities and Local Government]. 2010b. Department for
Communities and Local Government Draft Structural Reform Plan.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/corporate/pdf/16359212.pdf accessed
04/08/2010
CLG [Department for Communities and Local Government]. 2010c. Grant Shapps calls
time on the Town Hall pollsters.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/corporate/1682971 accessed 11/08/10
CLG [Department for Communities and Local Government] 2009. Place Survey: England
– Headline Results 2008 (Revised).
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/pdf/1326142.pdf accessed
29/01/10
CLG [Department for Communities and Local Government]. 2007a. Communities in

control: Real people, real power. The Stationary Office, Norwich
CLG [Department for Communities and Local Government] 2007b. Place Matters.
Department for Communities and Local Government, Wetherby, West Yorkshire
CLG [Department for Communities and Local Government]. 2006. Strong and
prosperous communities: The Local Government White Paper. The Stationary Office,
Norwich
Devolution Matters. 2010. Welsh referendum date announced, more or less.

http://devolutionmatters.wordpress.com/2010/06/16/welsh-referendum-date-
announced-more-or-less/ accessed 04/08/2010
Dickinson, S. and Prabhakar, M. 2009. An analytical framework for community

empowerment evaluations. Department for Communities and Local Government, London
Dines, N. and Cattell, V. with Gesler, W. and Curtis, S. 2006. Public space, social
relations and well-being in East London. The Policy Press for the Joseph Rowntree
Foundation, Bristol.
Donoghue, E. M. and Sturtevant, V. E. 2007. Social Science Constructs in Ecosystem

Assessments: Revisiting Community Capacity and Community Resilience. Society &
Natural Resources 20 (10): 899-912
Duffy, B. and Lee Chan, D. 2009. People, Perceptions and Place. Ipsos MORI, London

Edwards, D., Elliot, A. Hislop, M., Martin, S., Morris, J., O’Brien, L., Peace, A., Sarajevs,
V., Serrand, M. and Valatin, G. 2009. A valuation of the economic and social contribution
of forestry for people in Scotland. Forestry Commission Scotland, Edinburgh.
Farnum, J. Hall, T. and Kruger, L. E. 2005. Sense of Place In Natural Resource

Recreation and Tourism: An Evaluation and Assessment of Research Findings. General
Technical Report PNW-GTR-660. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR
FCE [Forestry Commission England] and Natural England, 2008. Delivery Plan 2008-
2012: England’s Trees, Woods and Forests. http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/eng-etwf-
delivery-plan.pdf/$FILE/eng-etwf-delivery-plan.pdf accessed 23/02/10
FCS [Forestry Commission Scotland] 2008. WIAT – Woods In and Around Towns: Phase
II. http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/fcfc120.pdf/$FILE/fcfc120.pdf accessed 08/03/10
FCS [Forestry Commission Scotland] 2006. WIAT – Woods In and Around Towns –
progress report http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/WIATsummer06update-
fcfc110.pdf/$FILE/WIATsummer06update-fcfc110.pdf accessed 08/03/10
FCW [Forestry Commission Wales] 2009. Our purpose and direction 2009 to 2012.
Forestry Commission Wales, Aberystwyth.
Forestry Commission. 2009. Newlands. http://www.forestry.gov.uk/newlands accessed

09/03/10
Franke, S. 2005. Measurement of Social Capital: Reference Document for Public Policy
Research, Development , and Evaluation. Policy Research Initiative, Canada.
Franz, M., Güles, O. and Prey, G. 2008. Place-making and ‘Green’ Reuses of Brownfields
in the Ruhr. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 99 (3): 316-328.
Green, M. 2007. Community Cohesion: COSLA Agenda Item No. 8.

http://www.cosla.gov.uk/attachments/execgroups/cw/cw070912item08.doc accessed
23/02/10
Greenspace Scotland. 2009. About Placemaking.

http://www.greenspacescotland.org.uk/default.asp?page=286 accessed 30/06/09
Hanna, K., Dale, A. and Ling, C. 2009. Social capital and quality of place: reflections on
growth and change in a small town. Local Environment 14 (1): 31-44

Harper, R. and Kelly, M. 2003. Measuring Social Capital in the United Kingdom. Office for
National Statistics, London.
Haynes, P. 2009. Before Going Any Further With Social Capital: Eight Key Criticisms to
Address. INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series. Working Paper No2009/02.
http://digital.csic.es/.../Before_Going_Any_Further_With_Social_Capital__Eight_Key_Cri
ticisms_to_Address%5B1%5D.pdf accessed 19/10/10
HM Government. 2010. The Coalition: our programme for government.

http://programmeforgovernment.hmg.gov.uk/ accessed 04/08/2010
HM Government. 2009. World class places: The Government’s strategy for improving
quality of place.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1229344.pdf
accessed 25/02/10
HM Government. 2007. PSA Delivery Agreement 21: Build more cohesive, empowered
and active communities. The Stationary Office, Norwich
Hunziker, M., Buchecker, M. and Hartig, T. 2007. Space and Place – Two Aspects of the
Human-landscape Relationship, in F. Kienast, O. Wildi and S. Gosh O. Wildi (Eds) A
Changing World – Challenges for Landscape Research. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht.
p.47-62
Knox, P. L. 2005. Creating Ordinary Places: Slow Cities in a Fast World. Journal of Urban
Design 10 (1): 1-11
Konijnendijk, C. 2008. The Forest and the City: The cultural landscape of urban
woodland. Springer-Verlag
Living Places. 2008. The living places programme. http://www.living-

places.org.uk/about-living-places/the-living-places-programme.html accessed 25/02/10
Lloyd, C. and NatCen. 2008. 2007-08 Citizenship Survey: Community Cohesion Topic
Report. Department for Communities and Local Government, London.
Nadeau, S., Shindler, B. and Kakoyannis, C. 1999. Forest Communities: New

frameworks for assessing sustainability. The Forestry Chronicle 75 (5): 747-754
Newlands. 2009a. Newlands Executive Briefing.

http://www.creativeconcern.com/newlands/a/Newlands%20Executive%20Briefing.pdf
accessed 09/03/10

Newlands. 2009b. Measuring the social impact of Belfield – a new community wood.
http://www.newlandsproject.co.uk/a/Social%20Indicators%20Report%20-
%20Belfield.pdf accessed 05/08/10
Office for National Statistics. 2010. Social Capital: Measuring networks and shared
values. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=314 accessed 18/01/10
Owen, R., Powell, J., Read, M., Kambites, C. and Lewis, N. 2008. An evaluation of
Cydcoed: the social and economic benefits of using trees and woodlands for community
development in Wales.
http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/pdf/Cydcoed_final_report_Jan09.pdf/ accessed
09/03/10
Partners for England, Place Making Charter.

http://www.enjoyengland.com/Images/MB12432_A5%20Place%20Makingv9_tcm21-
122345.pdf accessed 01/06/10
Pretty, J. 2003. Social Capital and the Collective Management of Resources. Science
302: 1912-1914
Project for Public Spaces (2000) How to Turn a Place Around: a Handbook for Creating
Successful Public Spaces. New York, Project for Public Spaces
Ruston, D. and Akinrodoye, L. 2002. Social Capital Question Bank – June 2002:
Questions from Social Capital surveys included in the Social Capital Survey Matrix.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/about-statistics/user-guidance/sc-guide/the-question-
bank/social-capital-question-bank--pdf-document.pdf accessed 23/06/10
Ryan, R. L. 2005. Exploring the Effects of Environmental Experience on Attachment to

Urban Natural Areas. Environment and Behaviour 37 (1): 3-42
Rydin, Y. and Pennigton, M. 2000. Public Participation and Local Environmental Planning:
the collective action problem and the potential of social capital. Local Environment 5 (2):
153-169
SCDC [Scottish Community Development Centre]. 2010. National Standards for

Community Engagement. http://www.scdc.org.uk/national-standards-community-
engagement/ accessed 26/02/10
Schuller, T., Baron, S. and Field, J. 2000. Social Capital: A review and critique in S.
Baron, J. Field and T. Schuller eds. Social Capital: Critical perspectives. OUP, Oxford.

Scottish Community Development Centre for Learning Connections. 2007. Building

Community Capacity: Resources for Community Learning & Development Practice.
Scottish Government, Edinburgh.
Scottish Executive. 2006. The Scottish Forest Strategy. Forestry Commission Scotland,
Edinburgh.
Scottish Executive. 2001. Designing places: A policy statement for Scotland.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library3/planning/dpps1.pdf accessed 25/02/10
Scottish Government. 2010a National Standards for Community Engagement.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built-Environment/regeneration/engage/standards
accessed 26/02/10
Scottish Government. 2010b. Designing streets: A policy statement for Scotland.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/304072/0095411.pdf accessed 08/03/10
Scottish Government. 2009a. Scottish Community Empowerment Action Plan –

Celebrating Success: Inspiring Change. Scottish Government, Edinburgh.
Scottish Government. 2009b. Architecture and Place Policy Context.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built-Environment/AandP/AandParch accessed
25/02/10
Scottish Government. 2008. Building Connections, Getting Involved: Measuring Social

Capital Outcomes of Community Learning and Development.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/06/20121049/0 accessed 18/01/10
Scottish Government and COSLA. 2008. Joint Statement on CLD 2008.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/1046/0069751.pdf accessed 22/01/10
Stokowski, P. A. 2002. Languages of Place and Discourses of Power: Constructing New

Senses of Place. Journal of Leisure Research 34 (4): 368-382
WAG [Welsh Assembly Government]. 2010a. Sense of place.

http://wales.gov.uk/topics/tourism/toolkits/senseofplace/?lang=en accessed 25/02/10
WAG [Welsh Assembly Government]. 2010b. Woodlands for Wales Indicators – March
2010.
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/WfWIndicators(E).pdf/$FILE/WfWIndicators(E).pdf
accessed 03/08/10

WAG [Welsh Assembly Government]. 2009a. Getting On Together – a Community

Cohesion Strategy for Wales.
http://wales.gov.uk/docs/dsjlg/publications/commsafety/091130ccstraten.pdf accessed
21/01/10
WAG [Welsh Assembly Government] 2009b. Woodlands for Wales: The Welsh Assembly
Government’s Strategy for Woodlands and Trees. Forestry Commission Wales,
Aberystwyth.
WAG [Welsh Assembly Government] 2009c. Draft – Community Involvement with

Woodlands: Policy Position in support of Woodlands for Wales, the Welsh Assembly
Government’s strategy for Woodlands and Trees.
WAG [Welsh Assembly Government] 2009d. Woodlands for Wales Action Plan.
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/WoodlandsforWalesActionPlan2.pdf/ accessed 03/08/10
WAG [Welsh Assembly Government]. 2007. Empowering active citizens to contribute to

Wales: A Strategic Action Plan for the Voluntary Sector Scheme.
http://www.wcva.org.uk/images_client/policy_consultant/English%20SAP%20Consultati
on% accessed 23/02/10
Ward Thomson, C., Roe, J. and Alves, S. 2007. Woods in and Around Towns (WIAT)
Evaluation: Baseline Survey.
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/WIATBaselineSurveyFinal300307.pdf/ accessed
09/03/10
WDA [Welsh Development Agency]. 2005. Creating Sustainable Places.

http://wales.gov.uk/desh/publications/sustain/creatingsusplaces/doce.pdf;jsessionid=hL
mFLGBdkdsSp7QGymPRlp4JdGwZhVKtjrQCVrlMvnkZlT17JFH5!2138048893?lang=en
accessed 25/02/10

Appendix 1
Indicators (proposed and in use) for community empowerment
Organisation Source Indicator

Department for Citizenship Survey Whether people feel able to influence decisions
Communities and (Agur et al., 2009) affecting their local area and Great Britain.
Local Government
How people could participate more in local decisions
How much people trust institutions (police, local

councils and parliament)
Whether people have carried out civic engagement

activities
Whether people have participated in voluntary and

community activities
Newlands Measuring the social People feel they can have a say in how the site
impact of Belfield – a develops *
new community
woodland There is an increase in volunteer and employment
(Newlands, 2009b) opportunities for local people *
Scottish Scottish Community The existence of community organisations

Government Empowerment
Action Plan (Scottish
Government, 2009a)
Scottish Executive The Scottish Forest Percentage of adults who have heard or read about
(now known as the Strategy (Scottish Scottish woodlands in the previous 12 months*
Scottish Executive, 2006)
Government) Number of community-group partnerships involved
in owning or managing woodland *
Number and area of land parcels sold or leased

under the National Forest Land Scheme *


Scottish Executive The Scottish Forest Independent satisfaction rating of community
(now known as the Strategy (Scottish partnerships on the national forest estate *
Government)
Number of formal ‘volunteer days’ associated with
woodland activity *
Welsh Assembly Empowering active The annual amount of volunteering effort

Government citizens to contribute
to Wales: A Strategic The quantity and quality of volunteering
Action Plan for the opportunities
Voluntary Sector
Scheme (WAG, The growth in the number and size of third sector
2007) organisations
The number/proportion of citizens getting involved in

civil activities
The numbers of people voting in elections
Welsh Assembly Woodlands for Wales Numbers of people having some involvement in
Government (WAG, 2009b) woodlands *
Number of enterprises using woodlands *
Forestry Corporate Plan – Our Percentage of adults in Wales that have been
Commission Wales purpose and consulted about plans for creating, managing or
direction 2009 to using woodlands in their area *
2012 (FCW, 2009)
Percentage of adults in Wales that are a member of a
community group that is involved in the conservation
and/or management of local woodlands *
Area of woodland leased to or owned by community

groups *


Welsh Assembly Woodlands for Wales Percentage of adults in Wales that have been
Government Indicators – March consulted about plans for creating, managing or
2010 (WAG, 2010b) using woodlands in their area *


groups *
Percentage of adults involved in volunteering in

woodlands. *
Number of enterprises in Wales using woodlands

including both VAT-registered and non-VAT
registered businesses and including harvesting,
forestry services, primary and secondary processing,
tourism/woodland recreation, woodland owners and
community woodland groups who are generating
income from their woods.
* These indicators are not documented as being related to community empowerment but
they are applicable to this concept.

Appendix 2
Indicators (proposed and in use) for social capital and community
cohesion

Office of National Measuring Social Number of cultural, leisure, social groups belonged to
Statistics Capital in the United and frequency and intensity of involvement
Kingdom (Harper
and Kelly, 2003) Volunteering, frequency and intensity of involvement
Religious activity
Perceptions of ability to influence events
How well informed about local/national affairs
Contact with public officials or political

representatives
Involvement with local action groups
Propensity to vote
Frequency of seeing/speaking to
relatives/friends/neighbours
Extent of virtual networks and frequency of contact
Number of close friends/relatives who live nearby
Exchange of help
Perceived control and satisfaction with life
Trust in other people who are like you
Trust in other people who are not like you


Office of National Measuring Social Confidence in institutions at different levels
Statistics Capital in the United
Kingdom (Harper Doing favours and vice versa
and Kelly, 2003)
Perception of shared values
Views about the area (views on physical

environment, facilities in the area, enjoyment of
living in the area and fear of crime) used to analyse
and interpret the measures listed above only – not
used to measure social capital
Department for Citizenship Survey The extent to which people agreed or disagreed that
Communities and (Lloyd and NatCen, their local area (defined as 15-20 minutes walking
Local Government 2008). distance) is a place where people from different
backgrounds get on well together
Proportion of people who feel they belong strongly to

their neighbourhood
Proportion of people who enjoy living in their

neighbourhood
Proportion of people who feel that people would pull

together to improve the neighbourhood
Proportion of people who think that people in their

neighbourhood can be trusted
Proportion of people who think their neighbours

share the same values
Proportion of people who feel they belong strongly to

their local area
Proportion of people who think their local area is a

place where people respect ethnic differences


Department for Citizenship Survey Proportion of people who feel proud of their local
Communities and (Lloyd and NatCen, area
Local Government 2008).
Proportion of people who think the local area has got
better in the last two years
Proportion of people worried about becoming a

victim of crime
Whether people feel safe walking alone after dark in

the neighbourhood
Proportion of people who perceive a high level of

anti-social behaviour in their local area
Proportion of people who have mixed with people

from different ethnic or religious backgrounds in the
last month
Proportion of people who have friends who have a

similar income to themselves
Proportion of people with friends from different

ethnic groups to themselves.
Newlands Measuring the social The site is seen as an asset to the area that
impact of Belfield – a increases people’s sense of pride in the area *
new community
woodland There is no rise, or there is a decrease in antisocial
(Newlands, 2009b) behaviour on the site *
Community activities and celebrations take place on

the site *


Scottish Executive The Scottish Forest Number of community-group partnerships involved
(now known as the Strategy (Scottish in owning or managing woodland *
Government) Number of formal ‘volunteer days’ associated with
woodland activity *
Forest Research An evaluation of Public involvement in woodland decision making

(for Forestry Cydcoed: the social
Commission and economic Public involvement in woodland events and other
Wales) benefits of using community activities
trees and woodlands
for community Changes in community trust and well-being
development in
Wales (Owen et al.,
2008)
Forestry Corporate Plan – Our Percentage of adults in Wales that have been
Commission Wales purpose and consulted about plans for creating, managing or
direction 2009 to using woodlands in their area *
2012 (FCW, 2009)
Welsh Assembly Empowering active The annual amount of volunteering effort *

Government citizens to contribute
to Wales: A Strategic The quantity and quality of volunteering
Action Plan for the opportunities *
Voluntary Sector
Scheme (WAG, The growth in the number and size of third sector
2007) organisations
The number/proportion of citizens getting involved in

civil activities *
The numbers of people voting in elections *


Welsh Assembly Woodlands for Wales Numbers of people having some involvement in
Government (WAG, 2009b) woodlands *
Number of enterprises using woodlands *

groups *
Welsh Assembly Woodlands for Wales Percentage of adults in Wales that have been
Government Indicators – March consulted about plans for creating, managing or
2010 (WAG, 2010b) using woodlands in their area *


groups *
Percentage of adults involved in volunteering in

woodlands. *
Number of enterprises in Wales using woodlands

including both VAT-registered and non-VAT
registered businesses and including harvesting,
forestry services, primary and secondary processing,
tourism/woodland recreation, woodland owners and
community woodland groups who are generating
income from their woods.
* These indicators are not documented as being related to social capital and community
cohesion but they are applicable to this concept.

Appendix 3
Indicators (proposed and in use) for place-making and place-shaping

Project for Public (Project for Public High proportion of people in groups: The presence of
Spaces Spaces, 2000) people in groups can be an index of selectivity…often
when people go to a plaza in twos or threes, or
always when they rendezvous there, it is because
they have decided to do so in advance
Higher than average proportion of women: Women

tend to be more discriminating about the spaces that
they use. Reasons for this range from women’s
choosiness when it comes to the types of seating
available in a place, to their perceptions about
whether a place is safe
Different ages: The presence of different ages

usually means a place has different constituencies
who use it at different times of day. For example,
pre-school age children and their guardians can use
a neighbourhood park when others are working, as
can seniors and retirees
Varied activities: Popular places generally have more

things to do than less successful spaces. And
activities don’t necessarily require special equipment
or facilities
Affection: There is generally more smiling, kissing,

embracing, holding and shaking of hands, and so
forth in good public places than in those that are
problematic
Department for Place Survey (CLG, Percentage of people who believe people from
Communities and 2009) different backgrounds get on well together in their
Local Government local area


Department for Place Survey (CLG, Percentage of people who feel that they belong to
Communities and 2009) their neighbourhood
Local Government
Civic participation in the local area
Percentage of people who feel they can influence

decisions in their locality
Overall/general satisfaction with local area
Participation in regular volunteering
Perceptions of anti-social behaviour
Dealing with local concerns about anti-social

behaviour and crime issues by police and other local
services
Perceptions of parents taking responsibility for the

behaviour of their children in the area
Perceptions that people in the area treat one another

with respect and consideration
Understanding of local concerns about anti-social

behaviour and crime issues
Awareness of civil protection arrangements in the

local area
Perceptions of drunk or rowdy behaviour as a

problem
Perceptions of drug use or drug dealing as a problem
Self-reported measures of people’s overall health

and well-being


Department for Place Survey (CLG, Satisfaction of people over 65 with both home and
Communities and 2009) neighbourhood
Local Government
The extent to which older people receive the support
they need to live independently at home
Fair treatment by local services
Forestry Strategy for Percentage of population with access to woodlands

Commission England’s Trees, according to access standard
England and Woods and Forests
Natural England (FCE and Natural
England, 2008)
Newlands Measuring the social People feel they can have a say in how the site
impact of Belfield – a develops *
new community
woodland The site is seen as an asset to the area that
(Newlands, 2009b) increases people’s sense of pride in the area *
There is no rise, or there is a decrease in antisocial

behaviour on the site *
Community activities and celebrations take place on

the site *
Scottish Executive The Scottish Forestry Proportion of the population with accessible
Strategy (Scottish woodland greater than 2 ha within 500m of their
Executive, 2006) home *
Proportion of the population with accessible

woodland greater than 20 ha within 4 km of their
home *
Forestry WIAT – Woods In Proportion of people meeting the Space for People
Commission and Around Towns: standard: living within 500m of an accessible
Scotland Phase II (FCS, 2008) woodland of at least 2ha and living within 4km of
accessible woodland of at least 20ha


Forestry WIAT – Woods In Opinion of standard of local woodland management
Commission and Around Towns:
Scotland Phase II (FCS, 2008)
Percentage of people who agree that their local
greenspace is attractive
Forestry Corporate Plan - Our Percentage of adults in Wales that have a forest or
Commission Wales purpose and woodland they can get to easily without a car or
direction 2009 to other transport *
2012 (FCW, 2009)
Percentage of population that live within 500m of
accessible woodland of 2ha or more *
Percentage of people who live within 4km of

accessible woodland of 20ha or more *
Welsh Assembly Woodlands for Wales Percentage of adults who say they have easy access
Government Indicators – March to woodland without a car *
2010 (WAG, 2010b)
Percentage of population who have access to 2ha+
wood within 500m2 *
Percentage population who have access to 20ha+

wood within 4km2 *
Changes in the perception in UK of reasons to

support forestry with public money *
Changes in the perception of benefits to local

communities *
The perception of the disbenefits that woodlands

bring to local communities *
* These indicators are not documented as being related to place-making and place-
shaping but they are applicable to this concept.

Place and Communities Review Report Oct2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Place and Communities Review Report Oct2010

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Place and Communities Review Report Oct2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Place-making and

1.1 Background ................................................................................................8

1.2 Methods and Sources ...................................................................................9

2.1 Active Citizenship....................................................................................... 11

2.2 Community Empowerment .......................................................................... 11

2.3 Community Capacity .................................................................................. 12

2.4 Community Resilience ................................................................................ 13

2.5 Community Cohesion ................................................................................. 13

2.6 Social Capital ............................................................................................ 14

2.7 Place and Public Land Management .............................................................. 16

2.7.1 Space and place ................................................................................... 16

2.7.2 Sense of place and place-attachment ...................................................... 17

2.7.3 Place-making ....................................................................................... 19

2.8 Place and Local Area .................................................................................. 20

2.8.1 Place-shaping ...................................................................................... 20

3. Government Policy ...................................................................................... 22

3.2 Scotland ................................................................................................... 25

4. Forest Policies and Programmes.................................................................. 30

4.1 England Forest Policy ................................................................................. 30

4.2 England Forest Policy in Practice: a case study ............................................... 31

4.3 Scotland Forest Policy................................................................................. 32

4.4 Scotland Forest Policy in Practice: a case study .............................................. 33

4.5 Wales Forest Policy .................................................................................... 34

2 | Place-making and Communities | Amy Stewart | 05/11/2010

4.6 Wales Forest Policy in Practice: a case study.................................................. 36

5. Evaluation measures and indicators ............................................................ 39

5.1 Community Empowerment .......................................................................... 39

5.1.1 England .............................................................................................. 39

5.1.2 Scotland ............................................................................................. 40

5.1.3 Wales ................................................................................................. 41

5.2 Community Capacity and Resilience.............................................................. 42

Figure 1: Deconstructing community capacity and resiliency (Donoghue and

5.3 Community Cohesion and Social Capital ........................................................ 44

5.3.2 England .............................................................................................. 48

5.3.3 Scotland ............................................................................................. 49

5.3.4 Wales ................................................................................................. 50

5.4 Place-making and Shaping .......................................................................... 50

5.4.1 England .............................................................................................. 50

5.4.2 Scotland ............................................................................................. 52

5.4.3 Wales ................................................................................................. 53

5.4.4 Other indicators for measuring place-making in public-spaces..................... 53

6.1 Differences and Similarities ......................................................................... 55

6.2 Gaps in Indicators...................................................................................... 57

7.1 Key Points Relevant to Forestry. .................................................................. 60

7.2 Future Research Requirements .................................................................... 61

7.3 Changing Governmental Context .................................................................. 62

3 | Place-making and Communities | Amy Stewart | 05/11/2010

Indicators (proposed and in use) for community empowerment........................... 72

Indicators (proposed and in use) for place-making and place-shaping .................. 80

Thanks to Bianca Ambrose-Oji, Barbara Anglezarke, Bob Frost, Anna Lawrence,

4 | Place-making and Communities | Amy Stewart | 05/11/2010

Community empowerment usually refers to giving communities more opportunities to

Community capacity usually refers to the ability of a community to face change,

5 | Place-making and Communities | Amy Stewart | 05/11/2010

Place-making is a term used most frequently in practical implementation spheres. As a

Two key findings:

Four key points relevant to forestry:

6 | Place-making and Communities | Amy Stewart | 05/11/2010