Supply Chain Dynamics of Moving from Peat-Based to Peat-Free Horticulture

Abstract

Healthy peatlands provide valuable ecosystem services. Peat extraction damages peatlands, leading to carbon emissions. One of the main reasons for peat extraction is for use in horticulture. Replacing peat with recycled organic materials in horticulture is critical to preserve the valuable ecosystems provided by peatlands and to establish more circular supply chains that are reliant on recycling rather than extraction. Despite the strong policy commitment and budget allocation to restore peatlands, the demand for peat-based growing media remains high and drives most of the peat demand. In our research, we mapped the growing media supply chain, held semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders representing different interests, and surveyed amateur gardeners in the UK to understand the bottlenecks experienced by each profile in ending peat use and how to overcome them. We employed semi-structured key expert surveys to understand the supply chain dynamics and consumer demand, informed by these early interviews and the previous literature, we prepared and distributed an online consumer survey and interviewed supply-side stakeholders to understand their perspectives. The findings indicate that the barriers of availability, cost, and performance are shared between the supply-and-demand-side stakeholders. A portfolio of financial, educational and logistic interventions is required to simultaneously support the supply side to accelerate the transformation of production and supply patterns and to aid the demand side to adapt to growing with compost of recycled organic materials. The policies promoting recycled organic material use in horticulture must be coordinated within the UK and with other parts of Europe focusing on the elimination of the peat content in products rather than peat extraction to avoid extraction and the associated destruction of peat stocks elsewhere.

1. Introduction

Healthy peatlands provide valuable ecosystem services such as improved biodiversity, decreased fire risk, reduced soil degradation, better drainage, and the maintenance of the groundwater table [1]. Moreover, they store significant amounts of carbon, which is released when peatlands are damaged by practices such as peat extraction. Peatlands are estimated to cover 3–4% of the world’s surface across a variety of climatic and geographical regions such as Northern Europe, Northern America, and Northern Russia, as well as parts of Southeast Asia, South America, and Africa [2]. Peatlands worldwide are under threat from various activities such as drainage for agriculture and timber production as well as oil and gas and mining operations [2].

The UN estimates that 10,030 km² of peat is currently being used for peat extraction globally [3]. Europe, after Southeast Asia, is the second largest greenhouse gas emitter from drained peatland in the world [4,5,6] and almost 40% the peat extraction in mainland Europe is for horticulture [7]. Peat is often used as the main component in growing media mixes used by amateur and professional horticulturalists, despite efforts from governments and environmental groups to reduce horticultural peat use since the late 1980s [8,9]. The demand for peat-based growing media is a strong driver for peat extraction, with an estimated 44 million m³ extracted annually across Europe [3]. In the UK, the horticulture industry remains the biggest volumetric user of peat, with around one million cubic metres of peat used annually as input for growing media [10]. The replacement of peat in growing media mixtures with recycled material alternatives therefore has the potential to reduce peat degradation globally, with beneficial impacts for climate change, biodiversity, and ecosystems.

The horticulture growing media market has two distinct segments: the professionals, i.e., landscape gardeners and commercial growers, and amateur gardeners, i.e., hobby horticulturalists. While the professional horticulture segment is characterised by its sensitivity to prices [11] and has well-studied preferences [12,13,14], amateur gardeners have varied priorities and preferences in growing media, which are not yet well-understood.

There has been progress made in reducing peat use in amateur horticulture but not at a sufficient scale to eradicate its use. In the UK, a voluntary target to phase out peat use in amateur horticulture by 2020 was set [15], but this was later postponed in 2022 [16] and was unsuccessful in ending peat use. Similarly unsuccessful voluntary bans were also in place in Germany [17]. At the EU level, there is growing support for protecting peatlands, including inclusion in the EU Habitats Directive [18] and the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 [19], and from 2026, peat extraction will be counted within Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry (LULUCF) mitigation targets.

The trend in the European Union, like in the UK, is to reduce and to finally eliminate the commercial extraction and the horticultural use of peat to reduce the reliance on peat and the resulting national GHG emissions, starting from the hobby horticulture sector (Gruda et al., 2024). In line with this, multiple countries introduced mandatory plans to end the peat use in hobby horticulture in the next five years [17]. The similarities in direction can particularly be seen between some high-volume peat user countries such as Ireland [20,21], Germany [22,23], and the UK in the policy ambition direction on banning peat extraction. However, the priorities regarding peatlands’ use, i.e., as a carbon store vs. as an extractive source, may not be the same across all the European countries with rich peat resources because in some of them, for instance, in the Baltics [7,24,25], horticultural peat is also a significant export.

1.1. Peat Alternatives for Horticultural Sector Use

There are several alternatives to replace peat in growing media such as coir, wood bark, wood fibre, grass fibres, rock wool, and composted organic waste [26,27]. Recycled materials provide multiple benefits such as reducing disposal costs and creating additional sources of income for those producing them and establishing local supply chains. Using recycled materials in the horticulture sector can also reduce the volume of waste materials from other industries, and it is a priority for circular economy policy objectives [28].

Forestry industry by-products such as woodchips and bark are widely available with a lower environmental impact than peat. However, mainstreaming their use in an affordable, sufficient, and constant supply for the growing media industry is a challenge. These materials are already in high demand, subsidised for the use of the biomass industry and traded at a higher price than most peat alternatives [29]. Their overall share has grown rapidly in recent years, and in 2022, it was 45.7% in the total volume of growing media sold to amateur gardeners used in the UK [10].

Organic compost and anaerobic digestate (AD) are also a locally available, and low-cost recycled material alternative to replace peat in the horticulture sector. However, substituting peat with these materials in growing media mixes poses challenges in terms of bulkiness of bag content, nutrient instability and contamination [30,31]. Publicly Available Specifications, PAS100 and PAS110, set the standards for the land application of organic compost [32] and AD [33], respectively. However, from the perspective of the producers, the PAS certification criteria might not be sufficient, especially for plastic contamination [34].

The reuse of peat has also received some attention, including for use in growing ornamental plants [35]. The reuse of peat requires extensive cleaning to remove potential phytosanitary risk, and the careful management of fertiliser due to generally higher nutrient levels, but it has been found to be comparable to the first use of peat in growing trails [27,35]. However, the reuse of peat is not a sustainable solution, and peat is unlikely to be able to be reused indefinitely.

Non-recycled materials are also often used in peat replacement. Coir, or coconut husks, is one of the preferred peat replacements due to its having similar properties to peat [36]. However, interviewees noted that this is not always an acceptable replacement from an environmental standpoint. Coir has to be aged and washed several times in fresh water and treated with calcium nitrate to avoid the release of phytotoxic levels of sodium and potassium during use [13,37]. The water intensity in its processing, the need for chemical treatment, and the transport of the final product from tropical locations adds to its environmental footprint and the economic cost [34], with some studies finding coir to have a larger environmental impact and more emissions than peat [26]. The length and unreliability of its supply chain is also another barrier to coir use [29,38].

1.2. Case Study

Peat extracted in Scotland equates to approximately 60% of the total amount of peat extracted in the UK [17,39]. An annual emission of 5.7 MtCO₂e was estimated to be released from degraded peatlands, corresponding to about 14% of the total Scottish greenhouse gas emissions [40]. Carbon emission savings from replacing all peat extracted from Scotland with compost-based growing media are projected to reduce carbon emissions by 40 kt CO₂e per year. This amount corresponds to 40% of the emissions in the UK that are linked with growing media [11].

In the programme for Scotland 2019–2020, the Scottish Government pledged to phase out the use of peat in horticulture by increasing the demand for alternative growing media mixes. Since 2012, Scotland has also been investing considerable funds through the Peatland Action initiative and has restored 25,000 ha of degraded peatland across Scotland [41]. The Scottish Government dedicated an increased amount of GBP 20 million to peat restoration in their 2020/21 budget and committed in 2020 to invest GBP 250 million into the restoration of 250,000 hectares of degraded peatland by 2030 [42].

In this study, we engage with different supply chain stakeholders. Our research objective in these engagements is to understand the demand for, and the awareness of, peat use in amateur horticulture and barriers and opportunities for reducing peat use from the perspective of different stakeholders in the growing media supply chain. We focus on the so far less-studied amateur gardeners, their growing media use, and institutions that cater to or govern the peat-based and peat-free growing media supply chains that supply this segment of the horticultural market.

2. Materials and Methods

We used a combined methodology of supply chain mapping, two sets of interviews, and an online survey to address the following objectives:

• Identify peat-free and peat-based amateur horticulture supply chains and identify overlaps between them.
• Identify barriers to the use of peat-free growing media in amateur horticulture.
• Understand sources of growing media for amateur gardeners.
• Recognise needs and motivations for removing peat from the growing media supply chain.

2.1. Supply Chain Mapping

We reviewed the literature on peat-based and peat-free growing media to map supply chains. The literature was searched in a snowballing method, beginning with key known papers and following citing and cited papers. The supply chain map was considered complete when papers were not adding additional suppliers or connections. We used this map to identify key stakeholders for interviews, and further refinement of the supply chain map was carried out in interviews.

2.2. Interviews

In total we carried out 15 online interviews in two phases. Six key stakeholder interviews were held, lasting 30 min to one hour, and we took a semi-structured approach with one national, three local Scottish horticultural organisations, and two UK-based growing media sellers before carrying out the consumer survey targeting amateur horticulturalists. We first targeted key high-level stakeholders with an overview of the growing media systems, as identified in the supply chain map. The interviews aimed to obtain an overview of the supply chain from the demand, policy, and supply side. The template semi-structured script for key high-level stakeholder interviews is provided in Appendix B.

In the next phase of the project after the completion of the survey (interview script in Appendix C), we conducted a second round of semi-structured interviews with nine additional stakeholders, focusing on supply-side stakeholders. We investigated the needs and the motivations for removing peat from the growing media supply chain. We conducted interviews with at least one organisation from each specific stakeholder group identified in the stakeholder map. We used a snowballing approach to identify interviewees, beginning with interviews with an intermediary organisation with extensive industry links.

Both stages of interviews targeted the inclusion and representation of all relevant stakeholders mapped in the supply chain and on the policy side. While a larger number of interviewees would provide more robust results, we do not expect a change in our findings with a larger sample because the sample is representative of the overall stakeholder composition.

The stakeholders interviewed were based in the UK, though they may also have foreign partners or overseas subsidiaries and operations, predominantly in Northern Europe and/or Ireland. We also interviewed one representative of an international non-profit foundation which also acts as a certification body that certifies peat extraction sites in the UK and globally.

2.3. Survey

To understand the demand side, we carried out an online survey of amateur gardeners within the UK. The survey included ranking and multiple-choice questions to confirm and prioritise the barriers identified in the initial interviews, including the order of importance among from the consumers’ perspectives, and the main outlets of supply for the amateur horticulturalists. The survey also collected data on where plants were grown, the types of plants grown, the length of time gardening, involvement in gardening clubs or groups, and information sources for gardening advice. Survey links were distributed via email lists of local gardening associations, societies, and social media groups for amateur horticulturalists. The survey script is included in Appendix D.

3. Results

3.1. Overview Survey and Interviews

In the first round, we interviewed six high-level stakeholders, including one national and three local Scottish horticultural organisations, and two UK-based growing media sellers. The second round of interviews included nine interviews in total from supply-side stakeholders, including policy makers involved in waste reduction and an NGO for the responsible extraction of peat, a national-level horticultural organisation, a peat extraction company that also produces various lines of growing media products, a local council and two certified recycling and organic waste processing companies (one producing biogas via anaerobic digestion, the other producing compost), a growing media producer, and a UK-wide retailer of garden and DIY products.

In total we received 234 valid responses from the demand-side survey, of which 185 were from the UK, and were therefore included in the final analysis. Our survey sample was biassed towards more committed and experienced gardeners, with most respondents having grown plants for over 10 years, and nearly half were members of national or local horticultural groups. Our sample included a good coverage of the range of types of plants grown, and places that gardening was being carried out (

Table 1. Survey respondent characteristics.

How Long Have You Been Growing Plants?		Are You a Member of a National Horticultural Group?		Are You a Member of a Local Horticultural Group?
<2 years	6%	Yes	46%	Yes	47%
2 to 4 years	3%	No	54%	No	53%
5 to 10 years	13%
Over 10 years	77%
Where do you grow plants?		What kind of plants do you grow?
Garden	96%	Flowers		95%
Balcony	41%	Vegetables		79%
Window box	44%	Fruit trees		59%
Allotment	50%	Bushes or trees without fruit		76%
Community garden	43%	Fruit bushes		65%
Greenhouse	71%
Inside	76%

).

Overall, 43% of respondents used only peat-free growing media, 6% used only peat-based, and 51% used both peat-free and peat-based growing media. Peat-based growing media was used more often than expected by those over the age of 65 (Chi² = 15.97, df = 3, p < 0.01) and by men (Chi² = 7.65, df = 1, p < 0.01).

3.2. Supply Chain Mapping

We identified nine key players within the growing media supply chain, grouped into six main types (peat extractors, waste collectors, growing media producers, retailers, and consumers; see Figure 1). The supply chain mapping highlighted that stakeholders often simultaneously operate in multiple locations in both peat-based and peat-free growing media supply chains. For example, some councils not only collect organic waste but also manage their composting and few are also certified compost producers (e.g., Discovery compost) [32,43]. Similarly, growing media producers tend to produce a variety of products with peat-based, reduced peat, or peat-free content for different retail outlets and some growing media producers also operate as peat extractors. Certified waste recycling companies tend to sell their outputs both as a finished product online and at their site without intermediators as well as selling compost as an input to growing media manufacturers. Some retailers have their own growing media product lines and also sell other producers’ products.

3.3. Barriers and Opportunities

The bottlenecks experienced by the specific stakeholder group that limits phasing out peat can be grouped under main themes that cluster around three challenges observed across different stakeholder profiles: availability, affordability, and consistency (performance and effectiveness). The themes are closely linked with each other and especially with cost. While the magnitude of these barriers may change over time through changes in legislation, experience, and norms, these represent the broad areas that are considered in the selection of growing media by amateur gardeners. To support specific changes, work with the particular users of the growing media should be carried out.

3.3.1. Availability

According to the consumer survey, the availability of growing media materials in the retail outlets is the highest ranked determinant of the type of growing media that the respondents buy, and was significantly more likely to be relevant to peat users than non-peat users (Chi² = 45.67, df = 1, p < 0.01). Most respondents of the survey (57%) source their gardening needs through local garden centres. This is in agreement with interview responses, where a preference to support local and independent stores was also noted. In one of the supply-side interviews, it was mentioned that the local independent outlets have a lower stocking capacity and less negotiating power with their suppliers, usually having to choose contracts based on the pay-back timeline rather than bag contents. The representative of the gardening association who was initially interviewed also stated that the retail customers’ access to peat-free media is limited by what is stocked. This is particularly the case for remote gardening organisations, or individuals without personal transport. Similarly, compost produced by councils was only available in central locations, limiting availability in rural locations.

The availability factor is also felt strongly at the production part of the supply chain, with barriers identified in sourcing peat alternatives. Based on interviews with growing media producers and the literature, finding chemical equivalents to peat (i.e., those that are inert, uncontaminated with plastics, glass, and heavy metals and have a low nutrient content) in recycled materials in sufficient quantities is a major challenge for growing media supply. This challenge is linked to the competition in the market for local alternatives such as forestry by-products. Interviews with representatives from the horticulture sector organisation and growing media producers indicate that they perceive the availability of suitable alternative materials in sufficient volumes as a significant logistical barrier to the production of peat-free media, over and above the barrier of cost.

Looking to the future however, the global push to increase peat protection and restoration is expected to have positive impacts on the availability of alternatives as demand increases. Both the trade organisation and the growing media producers identified that the ceasing of peat extraction in Ireland by Bord na Mona will gradually have a favourable effect for achieving a more peat-free supply chain not only in Ireland but also in the UK. It was estimated that peat previously extracted by Bord na Mona might still be in circulation; however, the stockpiles harvested are depleting [21]. Additionally, new planning licences for opening new peat extraction sites in Scotland are unlikely [44,45]. Reductions in the availability of peat across the board are expected to force changes in supply chains and increase the availability of recycled alternatives.

3.3.2. Affordability

The retail price of peat-free products was among the most important reasons, according to 48% of the consumer survey respondents, for continuing to use peat, and was significantly more relevant for peat users than non-peat users (Chi² = 8.54, df = 1. p < 0.01). The local gardening group representative observed a preference among fellow amateur gardeners to prioritise the affordability of the products over the environmental sustainability of the bag’s content. This is in line with the literature which states that the average consumers have a neutral reaction to the presence of peat in potting soil, are not concerned with the source of growing media [46,47], and do not particularly prefer peat-free options [48].

Sectorial association representatives mentioned that their market survey has found that there is much less variety of product choices at supermarkets than those made in specialised gardening and DIY stores and the average value of garden product purchases made in supermarkets is also lower. This indicates that the competitiveness of prices may mandate the choice of what to stock in the case of supermarkets in order to ensure that products remain affordable. Indeed, initially only a few UK supermarkets had voluntarily committed to selling only peat-free growing media products [49,50] and few others have followed in recent years [51], due to the concerns for their greenhouse gas emissions and sustainability [52,53] rather than consumer demand.

One of the growing media producers stated the influence of garden and DIY centres in promoting growing media in terms of the ability to control prices and their improving availability, and launching educational and informational campaigns is critical for transition. In line with this, the retailer interviewed mentioned the various actions they have taken in their stores and reported that they had to accept lower margins for peat-free products so that they can stock them at competitive prices.

A recent survey of compost facilities in Scotland [54] and the interviews with the recyclers and policy makers indicate a disagreement with the stated unavailability of the alternative materials highlighted by the producers as a barrier. Recyclers and policy makers suggest that the high costs of achieving the quality requirements for recycled organic waste inputs and the transport of bulky recycled materials can be the main barriers for the industry, rather than true unavailability.

Costs of input provision for growing media are linked to various factors such as transport, processing, market demand, and quality requirements for land application. For example, coir has almost perfect qualities to substitute for peat; however, it has a higher total cost of provision as it has to be exported from tropical locations, where coconuts are harvested. Additionally, long international supply chains have been proven to be more unreliable than local ones [38] as highlighted by one of the growing media producers interviewed.

The UK market prices for peat used in the horticulture industry are not available to make a comparison with those of recycled alternatives. However, a 2025 study looking into cost differential between the average market price of peat and alternative recycled materials used in Germany [22] estimated that the wood fibres, wood bark, coir, and organic compost cubic metre cost, respectively, 7%, more, 12% more, 83% more, and 48% less than peat in growing media constituents in the hobby gardening supply chain. However, this study did not separately consider different qualities of organic compost in its estimations.

Evidence from the literature [34] and the interviews with the council and composters show that the growing media industry needs high-quality local inputs such as green compost and anaerobic digestate, with no contamination, which comes with significant affordability considerations. The council representative commented that over time, SEPA has revised their regulations for the plastic limit in the green compost reduced plastic limits from 0.08% to 0.06% (66% to 50% of current PAS100 limits). The reduction in allowed contamination limits means that waste processors must invest in machinery to achieve the output within the limits in order to supply their products to the growing media industry and the required investments create additional costs. For instance, the compost has to be screened finely and the smaller the screening size becomes, the higher value the compost will be. A 6 mm green compost blended with a seaweed blend is a premium product sold around GBP 30/tonne, compared to a 20 mm screen size sold at GBP 3.50/tonne. However, this is something not all recycling companies can afford. For the green compost to be finely screened (i.e., 6 mm) it has to be dry, and to assure this all year around, the compost has to be stored indoors in a storage shed. The need for additional infrastructure immediately increases the cost of operations for the composting companies.

Across compost samples submitted for routine verification testing in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland between 1 January 2022 to 31 July 2023, the failure rate for plastic contamination against the current PAS 100 plastic limit was 1.7%, i.e., 11 of 130 samples. If the same samples were assessed against SEPA equivalent limits the 6.0%, 27 of the 130 samples would have failed [55]. Across anaerobic digestate-based biofertilizer samples submitted for routine verification testing, the failure rate for PAS 110 was 1.3%, and the projected failure rate would have been 14.5% if the same samples were tested against the SEPA equivalent limits [55].

In the case of AD, the interviewee from the biogas company producing AD commented that growing media producers tend to pay less than the other sectors, e.g., agriculture, land restoration, and landscaping. For horticulture, the materials require further processing before use [14] and this additional cost adds to the final product prices, which highly influences the growing media choices of the mainstream retail customers. Due to lower profit margins, the growing media industry is still not a big customer of the waste recyclers despite being a target customer [56,57]. The share of the bagged product sector only receives 3% of the compost annually produced in Scotland despite offering the highest average price by tonne (mean of GBP 16.88/tonne, generating GBP 129,149) [54]. It is understandable that the growing media industry is not willing to pay more for alternative inputs.

Another aspect of input cost provision is transport. Locally available recycled growing media input alternatives to peat such as AD, compost, and wood by-products are bulkier than peat. This results in the transport costs of compost and wood by-products being estimated to be 90 percent and 45 percent higher than those of peat [58]. This limits the distances between the recycling and growing media production sites at which the transport costs remain feasible. The weight of the materials is also a concern for bulking up the bag content. The producers and the peat extractors stated that stopping extractions will increase the need for overseas peat import and the associated transport costs with peat provision and will make peat alternatives more cost competitive. This will incentivise growing media producers to focus more seriously on locally available peat alternatives and on developing better supply chains for alternative materials in the near future.

3.3.3. Performance Consistency and Effectiveness

The concept of performance can be defined under two subcategories for growing media: the consistency of the input materials and the effectiveness in providing good results in plant growth [59]. Performance-related elements were significantly more likely to be mentioned by peat-based growing media users (Chi² = 33.77, df = 1, p < 0.01).

Consistent input materials are important for consistent growing results, as well as for fostering trust in users. In Northern Europe, growing media production has been mechanised and optimised according to peat. Switching to an alternative material with different properties, e.g., particle size, capillarity, distribution, etc., to peat is costly and complicated, while an alternative material may damage equipment or may not be processable properly in a system designed for peat [14]. In interviews with the growing media producers, it was stated that to design an industrial process or to retrofit an existing one, the chemical and physical characteristics of the input materials must be clearly defined, and a consistent and continuous flow of input materials of a sufficient volume must be ensured in advance to justify the capital investment. However, this is not easy with the current recycled and by-product material flows, which are not guaranteed to have the required consistency.

Contamination was also identified in interviews as another major problem for the consistency of recycled materials in replacing peat and it is found in previous studies to be the main reason for compost sites to refuse the loads their customers deliver [54]. Both producers and retailers have a responsibility to assure the appropriateness of the bag content for use by the retail users. The online user survey confirmed anecdotes related to twigs, plastic residues, or shreds of glass found in the peat-free or peat-reduced mixes even in previous decades to be still wide-spread among the amateur gardeners. The health and safety as well as reputational concerns make the production side of the supply chain more aversive of the contamination risk in the recycled materials. PAS100, the standard that guarantees the safety of the recycled organics for use in horticulture, requires that these materials be separated from other types of waste at the source [58]. As of 2017, a total of 21 out of 27 compost processors in Scotland were PAS100 certified and the certified facilities process 87% of input waste material and produce 83% of the overall compost in Scotland [54]. The screening size also matters in terms of removing contamination; however, this also comes at a higher cost, as further explained in Section 3.3.2.

In regard to the consistency of the material over time after production, the storage of compost can also cause problems. The nutrient profile of composts changes over time, particularly resulting in losses of nitrogen, due to its unstable state in comparison to peat. Although methods are being developed to reduce nitrogen loss, this can still have an impact on growing media quality [31].

In terms of effectiveness, the growing media should provide amateur gardeners with satisfactory results and ease of use. Indeed, knowledge and experience were more likely to be identified as important for peat users (Chi² = 11.11, df = 1, p = 0.01). Thus, once they begin using peat-free products, they will continue. The surveys identified consistency and effectiveness (performance) as major reasons for continuing to use peat-based growing media with respondents also commenting that peat-free media were not suitable for all plant types, in particular ericaceous plants. Many gardeners, especially those of older generations that started gardening using peat, trust peat as a growing medium and that is hard to change [60].

On the other hand, good personal experiences and results of other local gardening group members growing with peat has been mentioned in the responses to encourage others to move to peat-free horticulture. However, achieving good results with peat-free growing media comes after a certain learning curve and flexibility for trial and error before finding a suitable combination and doses for the exact gardening needs and soil type. The time and practice required for permanently adapting to new plant management techniques and achieving the desired gardening outcomes without peat should not be underestimated. This was identified by interviewees from the horticulture trade organisation, growing media producers, and amateur survey respondents alike as a reason to continue using peat-based products. In the interviews carried out with local gardening groups, the practicalities of teaching such skills were also highlighted. Many groups use community halls or churches to meet so practical skills cannot often be shared. When meeting outside during summer months, they prefer to focus on topics related to growing plants rather than composting their green waste and growing in compost.

4. Conclusions

There is a global push to protect and restore peatlands, with corresponding policy changes related to reducing the peat extraction being introduced across Europe [3,17]. The Scottish Government is committed to protecting and restoring Scottish peatlands to meet the target of net zero carbon by 2045. Ending peat use in horticulture and the resulting end of peat extraction presents significant potential for abating carbon emissions [45].

Our research engaged with amateur horticultural supply chain stakeholders with the objective of understanding their demand for, and their awareness of, peat use and the barriers and opportunities different stakeholders identify for achieving the transition targeted in the UK and Scottish policies toward a peat-free horticulture starting from the amateur segment of the supply chain. Our findings show, despite certain barriers, a willingness to change in the industry and among hobby gardeners, especially among the younger generation. The rate of on-going transition in the industry and among the consumers can be substantially accelerated with the allocation of resources to help remove the barriers of the lack of availability and the high costs experienced throughout the supply chain.

Government policies must consider peat use, peat imports, peat extraction, and peatland restoration more holistically and include the full cost of carbon emissions in the price of all peat-containing products to make peat-free products more cost competitive, thereby providing a fair playing field for all stakeholders in the growing media sector. Our scientific aim in this regard is to collect and synthesise the perspectives of the stakeholders to come up with relevant policy suggestions. While similar stakeholder studies have been conducted before in Germany focusing on particular stages of the horticulture supply chain, such as consumers [46,48] or growing media producers [23], this is the first academic study considering the transition from the perspectives of all the involved stakeholders in or relevant to the amateur horticulture supply chain in the UK.

The industry, especially the larger companies, also has a responsibility to coordinate efforts in addressing industry-level obstacles. Collaboration with local councils and waste processors will improve the local provision of AD and compost inputs of a suitable quality within an economically feasible transport distance from the growing media manufacturing facilities. Establishing future growing media production facilities closer to densely populated areas with large organic waste streams such as the Central Belt in Scotland will also reduce the cost of transport. The periodical surveys of the composting and biogas sectors like those previously conducted by [54,61] in 2019 can monitor the changes in recycling sector outputs and inform the investments in the provision of sufficient and high-quality recycled organic materials. New local material streams such as AD, sheep wool, etc., can be developed [34] for manufacturers based in more rural and dispersedly populated areas. Fiscal measures such as tax relief and incentives like public–private partnerships and co-investment in research can support the development and production of new alternative materials to peat while subsidies can improve the affordability of using existing ones such as woodchips. Policy interventions in the form of bans or taxes must focus on the content of peat both in growing media mixes and in imported potted plants from European producers for more effective and fair regulation.

To increase the amateur horticulturalists’ uptake of peat-free products using recycled inputs, the local availability of cost-competitive peat-free options and the consumer confidence with using these will have to improve. The observed indifference of consumers to bag content makes the choice of a cross-industry agreement in retail [62] possible for influencing mainstream growing media consumption without having to achieve behavioural change at the population level. While major retailers already promote peat-free products, helping independent retailers, e.g., local garden centres and DIY stores, to continuously stock peat-free varieties at competitive costs is also critical. Garden clubs and garden centres can play an active role, offering demonstrations and trainings related to composting and growing with peat-free products.

Further research can focus on aspects that would address the knowledge gaps around economic and technical aspects to better understand the large-scale viability of alternatives materials to replace peat in different regions of the UK within the targeted policy timeline. These include investigating the cost differentials for different qualities of compost and other recycled materials compared to peat, analysing the cost–benefit of additional infrastructure needs (e.g., indoor compost storage) and required investment levels, and performing a spatially sensitive analysis of the substitution potentials of different recycled materials.