SEFARI Fellowship to understand changes in demand for largescale community land acquisitions and identify barriers and solutions to new acquisitions

3. Methods

To answer these, we adopted a mixed-methods research design, utilising qualitative interviews and a survey to interpret and explicate secondary data. Ethical approval for this research was given by the Research Ethics Committee at the University of the Highlands and Islands in January 2026 (ETH 2526-0613).

3.1 Secondary data

We sourced secondary data on largescale community land acquisitions to date, as well as instances where communities had attempted to take ownership, but ultimately did not proceed to acquisition. Secondary data on largescale community landownership was compiled following input from: Highlands and Islands Enterprise, The National Lottery Community Fund, Community Land Scotland, Community Woodlands Association, Development Trusts Association Scotland and relevant academic literature. The list was checked and verified by the project Steering Group and others working in the field. We extracted data on the organisation name, asset name, year of acquisition, size of asset, local authority and type of land cover. We then sought to understand instances of ‘unmet demand’, whereby groups had expressed an interest in a largescale land asset but ultimately did not proceed to acquisition. The main sources of data for this approach were Scottish Land Fund records, jointly held by Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the National Lottery Community Fund, of groups in the following categories:

• Referrals or enquiries which did not result in an SLF Stage 1 application;
• Groups that received SLF Stage 1 funding, but did not apply for SLF Stage 2 funding;
• Groups that applied for SLF Stage 2 funding, but were unsuccessful.

The SLF only initiated the two-stage funding model at the start of SLF 3 in 2016 (See Table 1), at which point these records began. Prior to that, data was harder to source and accurately consider, with only a few records existing of groups that had unsuccessfully applied for capital funding for a largescale community land acquisition. In addition, we considered the Records of Community Interest in Land (RCIL) and instances of Community Asset Transfer requests for largescale community land asset.

While this represented a significant search with multiple avenues investigated, we are unsure of the completeness and robustness of our dataset of ‘unsuccessful’ groups. Further, a range of reasons underpinned why interest did not result in an acquisition, which is important context for understanding demand and barriers. In this report, all these instances are combined under the heading of ‘intent’, but it is important to consider the limitations of this data when drawing conclusions from this work.

3.2 Interviews

We sought to gather the views of both those working within the community landownership sector and those who have an interest in, or experience of, largescale acquisition from the perspective of either the ‘buyer’, i.e. the community organisation or the seller. Across these groups, we tried to ensure a range of experiences and perspectives would be reflected. This included people who could speak to long-term trends having worked in the sector for several decades, those supporting communities through the process currently, community organisations that have either successfully acquired a largescale asset or expressed an interest in doing so but did not see this materialise, and those in geographical ‘cold spots’ to identify reasons for this. 

We conducted 13 interviews (Feb - Mar 2026) with six professionals from the community land sector and seven representatives from specific communities with experience of, or interest in, largescale acquisition.

Respondents were recruited through direct contact from the research team, with a small number identified through ‘snowball sampling’. Interviewees were asked about their perception of changes in demand for largescale acquisitions over the last 25 years, current community appetite for largescale buy outs, the barriers communities face, and solutions to overcoming these. All interviews were conducted online, transcribed and thematically analysed using inductive coding.

3.3 Survey

To gather the views of a wider cross-section of community organisations, we designed and circulated a survey to groups which either own or are actively seeking to own a largescale land asset. The survey was split into two sections: the first sought information on their own journey towards ownership (whether or not that had been achieved), specifically considering barriers and facilitators along the way; the second asked about the more general picture across Scotland in terms of the demand for largescale community landownership and what changes could be observed over time and geography. Questions were qualitative in nature, with open text boxes for responses. 

The survey was designed using JISC Online Surveys software and was live from February-March 2026. The survey was circulated by the three main representative organisations for asset-owning community groups – Community Land Scotland, Community Woodlands Association and Development Trusts Association Scotland – directly to their membership. In addition, all organisations that currently own largescale assets were contacted directly with details of the survey. 

Nine responses to the survey were received. One response was from an organisation which did not either own or seek to own a largescale asset so was removed from the analysis, leaving eight remaining. Data was thematically analysed alongside interview data.

3.4 Sense-checking workshop

Finally, we presented our provisional findings to a meeting of the Community Land Leadership Group in March 2026. The purpose of this workshop was to seek feedback and assess the relevance of these findings to a range of different stakeholders in policy and practice around community land. This session was not a data gathering exercise, but a useful sounding-board for the provisional findings with suggestions made for presentational considerations and wider discussions about largescale community landownership.

3.5 Declaration of interest

One of the researchers, BM, was a member of the Scottish Land Fund Committee from May 2021 to March 2026, including during the period of this research. Many of the topics discussed were therefore familiar to him and related to the work of the Committee. 

In order to mitigate the potential for this to unduly influence the results of this study (or a perception that it could), a number of precautionary steps were taken: 

• Prior to the research commencing, permission was granted from the three main entities responsible for the work of the SLF for BM to undertake it: The Chair and remainder of the Committee of the Scottish Land Fund; SLF Fund Manager, The National Lottery Community Fund; Head of Community Assets, Highlands and Islands Enterprise.
• BM had attended his final SLF Committee meeting prior to the commencement of this research, thereby negating any possibility that the process or findings could influence SLF decision-making.
• BM played no part in the collection or analysis of qualitative interview data during this study. This was entirely conducted by CM and ADC with written findings subsequently synthesised with secondary data.
• While BM’s knowledge of the processes of the SLF supported the collection, analysis and presentation of secondary data, it did not influence the conclusions or recommendations emerging from this research.