Methodology
How we identify, track, and assess policy commitments
UK Land Tracker aims to provide authoritative, citable data on UK land use and food policy commitments. This document explains our methodology for identifying commitments, gathering evidence, assessing status, and maintaining data quality.
Our approach prioritizes transparency, traceability, and neutrality. Every commitment links to its source. Every status assessment includes a rationale. We track what was promised and what happened — not what should have been promised.
Our Process
1. Document Ingestion
We identify and ingest primary policy documents from official government sources, including strategies, frameworks, consultation responses, and ministerial statements.
2. Commitment Extraction
Using AI-assisted analysis followed by human review, we extract specific, trackable commitments — promises, targets, and stated intentions that can be monitored over time.
3. Evidence Collection
We continuously gather evidence of implementation: policy announcements, funding allocations, scheme data, planning decisions, and FOI responses.
4. Status Assessment
Based on evidence, we assess each commitment's status. Every assessment includes a rationale explaining the judgment and linking to supporting evidence.
Commitment Identification
What Counts as a Commitment?
We extract statements that meet the following criteria:
- Specificity — The statement makes a concrete promise or sets a specific target, not just a general aspiration
- Trackability — It's possible to determine whether the commitment has been fulfilled
- Attribution — The commitment comes from an official government source
Measurability Classification
Each commitment is classified by how measurable it is:
- Quantified — Has specific numbers (e.g., "plant 30,000 hectares by 2025")
- Directional — Indicates direction without specific targets (e.g., "increase tree cover")
- Binary — Will or won't do something (e.g., "we will publish a framework")
- Vague — Too ambiguous to clearly assess (e.g., "work towards sustainability")
Source Documents
We currently track commitments from:
- Land Use Framework (when published)
- Food Strategy: "Towards a Good Food Cycle" (July 2025)
- Environmental Land Management scheme announcements
- Related ministerial statements and parliamentary answers
Status Assessment
Awaiting Evidence
No evidence has been found to confirm action toward this commitment. This does not mean no action has been taken - only that we have not yet identified verifiable evidence of progress.
In Progress
Evidence of action toward the commitment exists. For quantified commitments, partial progress has been made. For binary commitments, work is underway but not complete.
Achieved
The commitment has been fulfilled. For quantified commitments, the target has been met. For binary commitments, the promised action has been completed.
Partially Achieved
Significant progress made but the full commitment was not met. Used for quantified commitments where a substantial portion (but not all) of the target was achieved.
Failed
The target date has passed and the commitment was not met, or evidence shows the commitment will not be fulfilled.
Abandoned
The government has explicitly withdrawn or reversed the commitment.
Unclear
Insufficient evidence to make a determination, or the commitment is too vague to assess meaningfully.
Evidence Standards
Types of Evidence
- Policy Announcement — Official government announcements, press releases, ministerial statements
- Funding Allocation — Budget announcements, spending reviews, grant allocations
- Legislation — Acts of Parliament, statutory instruments, regulations
- Scheme Data — Published data on scheme uptake, payments, outcomes
- Planning Decision — Individual planning decisions affecting land use
- Land Use Data — Official statistics on land cover, agricultural use, development
- FOI Response — Information obtained through Freedom of Information requests
- Third Party Report — Analysis from credible research institutions, NGOs, or auditors
Evidence Alignment
Each piece of evidence is assessed for how it relates to linked commitments:
- Supports — Evidence indicates progress toward or achievement of the commitment
- Contradicts — Evidence indicates the commitment is not being met or has been reversed
- Neutral — Evidence is relevant context but doesn't clearly support or contradict
- Unclear — Relationship to the commitment is ambiguous
Source Priority
We prioritize evidence sources in the following order:
- Official government data and statistics
- Government announcements and publications
- Parliamentary records (Hansard, committee reports)
- FOI responses
- Reports from official bodies (NAO, EFRA Committee)
- Peer-reviewed research
- Reports from established think tanks and NGOs
Planning Decision Tracking
We track planning decisions that affect land use relevant to policy commitments, including:
- Solar installations on agricultural land
- Housing development on greenfield sites
- Changes of use affecting farmland
- Infrastructure projects on rural land
Framework Alignment Assessment
Where relevant, we assess whether planning decisions align with stated policy goals. This assessment considers:
- Agricultural land classification (Grades 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 4, 5)
- Stated policy on protecting best and most versatile land
- Local plan designations and policies
- Decision reasoning as stated in officer reports
Stakeholder Position Tracking
We track public positions from key stakeholders to provide context on policy debates and consultation responses.
Stakeholder Categories
- Government departments and agencies
- Farmer and landowner organizations
- Environmental NGOs
- Food system organizations
- Research institutions and think tanks
- Industry bodies
Sentiment Classification
- Supportive — Generally supportive of the policy or commitment
- Critical — Opposes or criticizes the policy or commitment
- Mixed — Contains both supportive and critical elements
- Neutral — Factual or analytical without clear position
Data Quality & Limitations
We strive for accuracy but acknowledge limitations:
- Lag — There may be a delay between events and their reflection in our data
- Interpretation — Some commitments are ambiguous; our extraction involves judgment
- Completeness — We may not capture all relevant evidence, especially unpublished information
- AI Assistance — We use AI to assist with document processing, which can introduce errors despite human review
All data includes source links for verification. We welcome corrections — please contact us if you identify errors.
Verification Process
Commitments and evidence go through the following verification process:
- Initial extraction — AI-assisted identification of potential commitments
- Human review — Manual verification of extraction accuracy and relevance
- Source confirmation — Verification that source links are correct and accessible
- Status assessment — Evidence-based determination of commitment status
- Ongoing monitoring — Regular review for new evidence and status changes
Items marked as "verified" in the database have completed human review. Unverified items should be treated as provisional.
Methodology Updates
This methodology document was last updated in February 2026. We will update this document as our methods evolve.