Public Attitudes and Preferences for Upland Landscapes - Defra

Public Attitudes and Preferences for Upland
Landscapes
A summary of existing evidence on how the broader public perceive
and value the English Upland Landscape
March 2011
Short evidence review prepared for Defra’s Agricultural Change and Environment
Observatory. Research report no. 24.
Principal contact: Caryl Williams (caryl.williams@defra.gsi.gov.uk)
Summary
Hill farming shapes the management of the uplands and has considerable wider cultural and
ecosystem impacts. Recognising the value of these impacts for different groups – upland
communities, visitors and the wider public - is a key consideration in the context of defining future
policies for uplands land management.
This short paper draws on a range of existing studies to explore public attitudes to different
features of upland landscapes, the public’s preferences for the future of the uplands and how the
public value typical upland landscapes.
Key conclusions:
- The uplands deliver a range of cultural services for different individuals and
understanding individual preferences is complex.
- Upland landscapes provide recreational benefits as well as a sense of heritage (e.g.
through historic man-made features) and contribute to a sense of local identity.
- Broadleaved woodland and heather moor are valued by the public as features of the
upland landscape. However, a significant proportion of respondents across studies favour
the maintenance of a landscape that is similar to today’s landscape.
- Individual relationships with and preferences for upland landscapes are likely to be
influenced by occupational class, education, ethnicity, age and other factors.
- Respondents were willing to pay in principle to protect upland National Parks but the
percentage of individuals willing to pay varied between samples (from 46% to 82%). This
is likely, in part to reflect the different methodologies employed.
- The public’s willingness to pay (WtP) for single national parks/upland areas varied
considerably within and between studies. Between studies this is likely to reflect
differences in methodology. However inter-regional variation identified within one study
suggested that both demographic factors and the existing composition of upland areas
(e.g. the relative abundance of different features) can influence respondents’ WtP.
Depth of evidence and implications for future work:
- Methodological approaches adopted by the studies vary extensively and, as a
consequence, studies were not always readily comparable or transferable to represent
conclusive public views on upland landscapes and preferences.
- Within the work reviewed, considerably less attention is given to the preferences of the
‘general public’ (indirect beneficiaries who also contribute to agricultural support in the
uplands) than is given to the views of upland residents and visitors.
- The use of in-depth approaches to consider in more detail how the public perceive the
interaction between the different services delivered by the uplands would allow a more indepth
exploration of respondents’ preferences and would also shed light on other factors
influencing the public’s WtP – including proposed payment vehicle.
1

Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 3
1.1.Background.............................................................................................................. 3
1.2.Objectives ................................................................................................................ 5
1.3.Methodology ............................................................................................................ 5
2. Studies Reviewed ....................................................................................................... 6
2.1. Sampling and representation .................................................................................. 6
2.2. Limitations of available evidence ............................................................................ 6
3. Factors influencing the public’s interaction with upland landscapes ................... 7
4. The public’s experience of individual upland landscape features ......................... 9
5. Public understanding of the relationship between agriculture and upland
landscape features ....................................................................................................... 10
6. Preferences for upland landscapes (and services) ............................................... 11
6.1. Overview of preferences from studies reviewed ................................................... 11
6.2. Impact of sampling and responded characteristics on preferences ...................... 16
6.3.Role of preference strength ................................................................................... 17
7. Valuation of upland landscapes .............................................................................. 18
7.1. Overview of Willingness to Pay (WtP) values from reviewed studies ................... 18
7.2. Limitations of Contingent Valuation studies .......................................................... 24
8. Conclusions and further research ........................................................................... 24
9. Overview of referenced studies ............................................................................... 26
2

1. Introduction
1.1. Background
There is no statutory definition of the English uplands but a regularly adopted definition is that
of land categorised as “Less Favoured Areas (LFA)”, the EU classification for socially and
economically disadvantaged agricultural areas. The 9 upland regions on which Defra have based
this categorization are described (from an agricultural perspective) and mapped geographically in
Defra’s statistical notice on the uplands and other LFAs 1 . Research 2,3 indicates that upland
farming is facing real pressures and a reduction or significant change to the nature of upland
agriculture could therefore have a major impact on what upland landscapes look like in the future,
as well as on the other benefits delivered. The visual quality of the landscape requires
sustainable land management but this is dependent on an informed understanding of what the
public value.
The special status of upland regions - most have separate local governance
arrangements (National Parks), landscape protection status (e.g. Areas of Outstanding Natural
Beauty), special conservation designation (e.g. Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - means that
they are a resource of national significance. Although there is distinct variation between different
upland regions, farming is a key feature associated with the uplands and has considerable
cultural and environmental significance. This is because of the interdependence between farming
and food production, wider management of land and ecosystems, recreation and tourism 4 . Some
upland regions also feature unique tenure and land-management systems (e.g. commons and
grouse moor management) which have an impact on the landscape and add to the complexity of
upland farming systems. The non-production goods which upland farming provides (e.g. the
maintenance of the landscape for recreational use etc.) are often cited as justification for the
continued financial support of upland farmers (see discussion in Hodge, 2000). However, as
Harvey (2003) proposes, in order to ensure that agricultural activities provide the optimal level of
public goods, it is not only necessary to separate financial support for broader public goods from
payments for agricultural production but it is also important to identify the attributes of public
goods and to determine their value to members of the public that benefit from them. Importantly,
Harvey emphasises the need to recognise different public preferences in the design of rural
policy land-use.
The Ecosystems Approach is an increasingly common approach to valuing all of the
services delivered in any given area. Ecosystem services can be categorised into 4 overarching
groups 5 :
• Regulating services: the benefits derived from the way ecosystem processes are
regulated such as water purification, air quality maintenance and climate regulation.
• Provisioning services: the products obtained from ecosystems such as food, fibre
and medicines.
1 http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/foodfarm/enviro/farmpractice/documents/FPS2009uplands.pdf
2 http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/foodfarm/enviro/observatory/research/documents/uplands-indepth.pdf
3 http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/foodfarm/enviro/observatory/research/documents/UplandsFPS_report09.p
df
4 http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/foodfarm/enviro/observatory/research/documents/uplands2010.pdf
5 http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/policy/natural-environ/documents/eco-actionplan.pdf
3

• Cultural services: services providing non-material benefits from ecosystems such as
spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation and aesthetic
experiences.
• Supporting services: many ecosystem services are necessary for the production of
all other ecosystem services from which society benefits, such as soil formation and
nutrient cycling.
Figure 1 (below) from the Defra report “Provision of Ecosystem Services through
Environmental Stewardship” (2009) illustrates how prescribed changes in hill farming
management (under Environment Stewardship) can affect the provision of ecosystem services;
for example reducing agricultural intensity can lead to less food (shown as orange) but more
regulating (e.g. water quality), cultural (e.g. heritage) and biodiversity services (shown as
green/dark green). Promoting some of the cultural services delivered by the uplands (e.g.
through an environmental stewardship scheme) will also impact on other services; for example a
positive impact on biodiversity. Defra’s forthcoming publication - National Ecosystem Assessment
Scenarios more explicitly illustrates the impacts of trade-offs resulting from social and political
priorities on a range of ecosystems (Defra – forthcoming a). Although the public do not take into
account all of the services provided by the uplands when they visit or value them, there are
various opportunities to involve the public in how we can better understand and capture the value
of the goods delivered by the uplands, and particularly by hill farming.
Figure 1: Potential net service delivery (marginal change) in the uplands under Environmental
Stewardship (positive and negative)*
Source: Provision of Ecosystem Services Through Environmental Stewardship, Defra 2009
*The colours indicating impact follow the principle of a Red, Amber, Green (RAG) rating with dark green indicating
considerable positive impacts, light green indicating some positive impacts, amber indicating no-change and red
indicating negative impacts.
The comprehensive report commissioned by Natural England “Economic valuation of
upland ecosystem services” (Economics for the Environment 2009) directly seeks to value three
cultural services delivered in a number of upland case studies (many of the UK stated
preferences studies used to inform the case studies are included separately in this review). The
three cultural services identified are: the use and enjoyment of uplands for outdoor recreation;
the use and enjoyment of uplands for field sports; and the non-use values of historic and cultural
landscapes. In reality however, it is very difficult to effectively capture data on the non-use value
of ecosystems (or to disaggregate this from use values) and this is reflected in the greater focus
given to recreational use values in the studies reviewed here. A further difficulty is that of
disaggregating the cultural services provided by the landscape (as defined in the Ecosystems
Approach) from other services delivered by the uplands (e.g. biodiversity) and this is considered
further in Section 6, below.
4

Although care must be taken not to double count the value of individual services delivered
by the uplands (by considering both their known market value and the public’s stated
preferences), there is also some value in engaging the public in considering the non-cultural
services delivered by the uplands (e.g. landscape preservation Vs carbon regulation). Making
respondents more aware of all of the services delivered by the uplands and the trade-offs
between them will allow respondents to express more informed choices about the future of the
uplands, putting their own cultural preferences for landscape in the wider ecosystem context.
Based on the ecosystems approach there are a growing number of innovative payments for
ecosystem services (PES) schemes, many of which are relevant to farming in the upland context.
The principle is one where payments to land managers (including from private sector) can be
made to undertake actions that increase the quality and quantity of desired ecosystem services
e.g. reducing diffuse pollution to improve water quality. SCaMP (Sustainable Catchment
Management Programme) is an example of an on-going PES scheme delivering multiple
ecosystem benefits; improving biodiversity, stabilising water quality, supporting rural
communities, enhancing landscape, reducing peat carbon emissions, protecting carbon stores
and aiding fragile habitats to withstand future climate change.
1.2. Objectives
It is advocated that different groups of stakeholders with various degrees and types of interest
are involved in decisions on ecosystem services (Defra – forthcoming b). This can range from
active stakeholders who often have an invested interest in one or more ecosystem service (for
example, farmers and water companies, see Doungall et al 2006) to members of the general
public but given the need to limit the scope of this paper, it is the perspective of the public in
general which is of primary concern here. In a minority of the studies considered here, some
attention is given to the potential trade-offs between different kinds of services (e.g. provisioning
services and cultural services) but a lack of consideration of the broader services delivered by
the uplands is identified as an evidence gap.
This paper will:
- Discuss some key methodological issues and consider the different benefits derived from
the uplands by different groups of people;
- Explore in detail the aesthetic, recreational and other experiential benefits which
individuals derive from the uplands and how this is reflected in public preferences;
- Consider the potential cultural and recreational value of the uplands for different
individuals.
1.3. Methodology
This paper predominantly discusses primary research studies which consider the public’s
attitude toward and/or valuation of upland landscapes. Although the review takes into account
some key studies that do not specifically focus on the uplands (largely carried out on behalf of
Defra), these are drawn upon to contextualise the uplands focused studies, especially in terms of
public attitude toward environmental change and toward agriculture more generally. However, all
of the studies summarised in sections 6 and 7 of this review are specifically focused on the
uplands. Studies specifically on public attitudes toward the uplands were identified through nonsystematic
searches using an internet search engine and relevant references from reviewed
studies were identified and in turn reviewed. Although studies from outside of Great Britain are
excluded, studies from Scotland and Wales are included. The studies reviewed date from 1993 to
present (with the vast majority published after 2000) and so some caution should be exercised
when comparing studies, where differences may reflect broader social shifts over time. Given the
approach adopted, this review does not provide systematic coverage of all relevant studies but
highlights key themes emerging from the literature and areas where a systematic evidence
assessment or further primary research could add value.
5

2. Studies reviewed
The table in section 9 lists all of the studies considered in this review. For the studies
involving valuation based on the public’s stated preferences there is a predominance of studies
focused on landscapes within National Parks. Although this may raise concerns as to whether
attitudes to upland National Parks are representative of the public’s attitude to upland areas more
broadly 6 , the review does also take into account one large study focused on Severely
Disadvantaged Areas (SDAs) more generally. A variety of research approaches have been used
in the studies reviewed here including:
• qualitative discussion groups exploring the qualities of different landscape features
and broadening our understanding of the different benefits that landscapes may
contribute to the public (e.g. Research box et. al. 2009);
• interviews or postal surveys to ascertain the general public’s preferences for the
uplands (Scottish Agricultural College 2005.), and
• interviews and surveys to determine an approximate monetary value for features
of a given landscape or a landscape as a whole (Willis and Garrod 1993).
2.1. Sampling and representation
Despite the breadth of approaches adopted, the dominance of respondents who were
local residents or visitors to upland areas (compared to members of the wider public) is a
weakness of the current evidence base and reflects a greater focus on the recreational use value
of the uplands over non-use cultural services Even within some of studies which have
intentionally sought to include the views of the wider public, it is likely that the use of postal
questionnaires has led to a degree of responder bias (as individuals that have an active interest
in the environment or upland areas are more likely to respond). As the majority of people making
use of rural spaces are middle class and white (see literature review in Suckhall et al. 2009) the
exclusion of non-direct users of the uplands is likely to lead to the underrepresentation of the
views of individuals from lower socio-economic groups and Black and Minority Ethnic groups
(BME). In reality, individuals who do not actively engage with the upland environment may value
the non-use cultural services delivered by the uplands and will benefit from some of the other
services delivered by the uplands (e.g. water, food, the capacity of the uplands to absorb
carbon), and so their views should also be taken into account.
2.2. Limitations of available evidence
In their comprehensive evidence review on public attitude to environmental change,
Upham et al. (2009) suggest that significant evidence already exists about why people value
landscapes and how to measure these values and perceptions. However, the review also notes
that the number of studies on attitudes to ecosystem and landscape change (focused on the
future) which take into account the reasons behind people’s preferences and go beyond
immediate responses is low: “The potential for further research is substantial, but the scope or
terms of this will need careful definition if the intention is to inform policy. Most notably... it is
important not to simply ask the public abstract / in principle questions: context, contingencies,
trade-offs and choices are all key but are rarely explored”. This assertion is supported by the
findings from this review.
As noted, most of the studies reviewed here asked respondents about the landscape as
opposed to specific ecosystem services and as a result, few of the studies reviewed here have
engaged the public in considering how services which may not be as strongly associated with the
6 Across England, National Parks account for around 40% of the LFA as a whole. However 97% of the North York
Moors, 72% of the South West Moors and 68% of the Lake District are designated National Parks.
6

landscape (e.g. food and production and GHG absorption) relate to the recreational and cultural
services primarily associated with the upland landscape. In focus groups intended to inform a
survey on Environmental Stewardship (ES) it was noted that respondents did not recognise the
impact that environmental management (and landscape change) may have on atmospheric
greenhouse gases (FERA 2010); this highlights the need to provide respondents with more
information in order to gain an informed response about their overall preferences for ecosystems.
The more detailed discussion of findings below does demonstrate that some respondents are
already likely to also consider the role of biodiversity in the context of discussions of landscape
(see Black, 2009 below), however, the broader factors which respondents are likely to consider in
the absence of additional information will reflect their own level of existing knowledge and
familiarity with upland areas.
Further to this, none of the studies reviewed explicitly distinguish between the recreational
use services of the landscape and the cultural non-use services (as proposed by the EFTEC
report for Natural England 2009). The qualitative evidence considered here and the fact that
some of the studies reviewed found that some members of the public were willing to pay to
maintain the uplands despite never having visited them, clearly demonstrate that the uplands do
provide non-use cultural services. However, in the majority of instances, it was impossible to
distinguish as to whether respondents were valuing the use or non-use cultural services
delivered by the uplands.
The use of deliberative approaches, which inform respondents sufficiently to allow them
to consider trade-offs between the different services delivered by the uplands could help to
address both of these limitations. Such approaches are becoming increasingly relevant with
increased use of ecosystem services approaches. In addition, deliberative approaches could be
particularly useful for considering public views on potential trade-offs between expenditure on
ecosystem services (e.g. through agricultural subsidies). The use of approaches which include
the views of stakeholders, including members of the public, and take into account their own
values and insight, can also have the benefit of leading to more desirable and sustained policy
outcomes (Defra – forthcoming b).
3. Factors influencing public interaction with upland landscapes
Drawing on a review of existing evidence on how the public value agricultural landscapes,
Swannick et al. (2007) conclude that individuals’ perceptions of landscape and the value they
attach to it are likely to be influenced by:
− age and socioeconomic status;
− gender, although this has been relatively little explored;
− cultural background and ethnic origin;
− relationship with the landscape in terms of status as residents/visitors or
insiders/outsiders or urban/rural dwellers, with familiarity an important related factor;
− use of the landscape, for example differences between farmers, tourists and landscape
managers;
− levels of educational attainment;
− environmental value orientations which may or may not be correlated with another
influential factor, membership of environmental organisations
7

Age and socio-economic status are factors influencing the level of access to certain
landscapes. For example, individuals from lower occupational classes are less likely to make
direct use of rural landscapes and green spaces than individuals from occupational classes A-C. 7
Suckall et al. (2009) also found that children from a ‘middle class’ school in Sheffield reacted
more favourably to the Peak District National Park than a similar group of children from a school
in a more working class region of the same city. Individuals from BME groups were also unlikely
to favour the uplands over other places (for example an urban shopping mall) - although no
attempt was made to determine how ethnicity relates to preferences independent of social class.
However individuals who had been part of an environmental outreach scheme to increase the
participation of individuals from BME groups in the countryside had more positive perceptions of
the Peak District than a control group. This suggests that forms of intervention which increase
members of the public’s awareness and direct experiences of natural landscapes may also
influence preferences. A forthcoming customer segmentation study commissioned by Defra
which grouped individuals by lifestyle, attitudes and values (as opposed to socio-demographic
factors only) also found that upland landscapes were seen as challenging and unappealing by
those in the segments ‘Good for the kids and me’ (young mothers), ‘Locally limited’ (lower
income groups aged between 16-34) and ‘Reluctant and uninspired’ (aged between 34 and 54
struggling with work, money and families) (Defra forthcoming c).
SAC (2006) employed focus groups to explore public opinion on some of the more visible
services delivered by the uplands. Although these focus groups included both urban and rural
participants, all participants had a reasonably high level of engagement with the uplands – i.e.
the urban participants, from Sheffield, regularly visited the uplands for recreational purposes.
Despite this, there were still some obvious differences in the way in which the rural and urban
groups related to the upland landscape – for example the urban group were more likely to
describe the landscape using words such as ‘photogenic’ and ‘tranquil’ while those residing in
upland areas suggested more personal and arguably emotional adjectives such as ‘inspiring’,
‘vulnerable’, and ‘grandeur’. Likewise, Research Box et al. (2009) found that, although
respondents did not always find moorland landscapes important (with some noting that they felt
too exposed within such landscapes), moorland was particularly important for those living in
proximity to it. For example, for respondents in Exmoor, moorland was considered to contribute
greatly to local identity.
Moving beyond socio-demographic variables, Research box et al. note in their study that
there are four categories of factors that can influence the way that people experience the
landscape: demographic factors (such as the above), situational factors (e.g. whether one
interacts with the landscape alone or in a group), awareness factors (e.g. degree of familiarity
with the landscape etc.) and preference factors (2009). Some of the studies reviewed here record
the range of reasons why individuals engage with the Uplands 8 . As the discussion on
preferences and valuation (below) will show, the nature of respondents’ engagement with the
uplands impacts on both their preferences and willingness to pay for upland landscapes.
In a comprehensive review of evidence on attitudes to environmental change, Upham et
al. (2009) look specifically at 3 broad types of environmental change - climate change, changes
in ecosystems and landscapes and energy technologies and transfer. The report considers a
wider cross-section of the public than many of the studies focused specifically on the uplands
and focuses on both broader environmental change and changes in landscape. The report
highlights some key general considerations about public attitudes which provide important
7 Findings from Natural England’s Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment 2009 –2010 survey
http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com/NaturalEnglandShop/NECR049. Social-grade as used here is derived from the
National Readership Study. Definitions from the grades are as follows: A =High managerial, administrative or
professional; B = Intermediate managerial, administrative or professional; C1= Supervisory, clerical and junior
managerial administrative or professional, C2 = Skilled manual workers, D = Semi and unskilled manual workers, E =
State pensioners, casual or lowest grade workers, unemployed with state benefits only.
8 As part of the study carried out by the Scottish Agricultural College on behalf of the Centre for Uplands, respondents
were asked about the activities they participate in when visiting the Uplands. The three most common activities were
walking, scenic driving and bird/wildlife watching respectively.
8

context for how we interpret the public’s preferences (for example when the public express
unqualified preferences as part of survey based studies). For example, it is likely that the public
are less likely to be concerned about issues which they don’t anticipate will have a direct or
immediate impact on them; respondents often rate climate change to be less of a concern than
other factors (e.g. intensive agriculture) because the impacts of climate change are considered to
be “further away” (p7). The fact that respondents may generally be positive about some forms of
change (e.g. wind energy) but opposed to their development in a place to which they are
attached, is also highlighted.
Summary section 3
- Individuals’ attitudes and preferences for landscape will depend on socio-demographic
factors, the context in which they interact with the landscape and also the nature of the
research approach – e.g. whether questions are specifically related to landscape or cover
broader issues such as biodiversity preservation.
- Focus groups demonstrate that proximity of residence to upland areas, socio-economic
factors and ethnicity are all likely to impact on individuals’ relationships with uplands
landscapes and their preferences. Engagement strategies and the provision of additional
information may influence individual preferences.
- People are more likely to be concerned about changes that will have an immediate or
direct impact on them.
4. The public’s experience of individual upland landscape features
The Research Box report - “Experiencing Landscapes - capturing the cultural services
and experiential qualities of landscape” comprised a literature review and primary research using
focus groups to explore the complex cultural and experiential services of various landscapes
(2009). As well as considering respondent’s attitudes to different landscape types, the paper also
considers how local residents relate specifically to their local Natural Character Area (NCA) 9 .
Eight NCAs were selected including Exmoor (which was the only upland NCA). This research is
valuable in the context of this review as it provides some insight into the ways in which different
members of the public relate to different landscapes but also specifically explores some of the
cultural and experiential benefits provided by key features associated with the uplands (and
Exmoor particularly). However the authors acknowledge that the engagement of just local
respondents in the research is a limitation and they imply that there is scope for further research
involving those who are not direct users of services (but indirect beneficiaries).
Hills were associated with recreation and generally found to be highly valued as
landscapes. Hills and mountains are strongly associated with escape, spiritual experiences and
inspiration (as are moors). Some of the other key features of upland landscapes explored
included height, fields, walls and hedges, bogs and moorland.
- Height was considered integral to many landscape experiences both for the exhilaration
provided and the sense of putting things ‘in perspective’.
- The contribution of field systems towards the look of the land was considered worthy of
protection. Fields were considered to deliver a sense of calm and tranquillity, as well as a
sense of history and escapism. In general, fields were more important as part of “the
whole view” than as something to interact with (due to lack of access) and respondents
preferred irregular-shaped and small fields (as opposed to large fields with no
boundaries).
- The overall appeal of walls and hedges seems to derive from their association (along
with farmland and field-shapes) with a ‘quintessential’ English view. In this respect, walls
9 England has been divided into 159 NCAs each based on physiogeographic, land use, historical and cultural
attributes. See http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/landscape/englands/character/areas/default.aspx
9

were considered to contribute to a ‘pastoral’ scene. Specific hedges or walls were of
interest in terms of nesting birds or lichen on the stonework, but also (especially with
stone walls) of a sense that people had created them.
- Bogs and marshes were considered to be important for birdwatchers and as a place to
trap water and prevent flooding. A few people valued peat bogs for wider environmental
reasons (e.g. as carbon sinks) but the mainstream generally felt that they did not deliver
many cultural services on a widespread basis.
- Moorland was valued for its wildness and “bleakness” but moorland areas were not
always thought to be beautiful places by the majority of respondents. Generally, the
sense of openness was considered to be the most important aspect of such landscapes
but heather, deer and rocky outcrops were features that contributed to the quality of the
experience. Moorland was perceived to deliver quite an intense experience, and could be
seen as “inspiring” or “spiritual”, but was less likely to be “calming” or “historical”.
Moorlands were considered to be special landscapes that were perceived to be truly wild
with little perceived management.
Although not a physical feature of the upland landscape, the sense of community and
the continuity of interaction between people and the environment over time was recorded as a
highly valued feature of the uplands for a small sample of local residents from three North
Pennines villages (Land Use Consultants and University of Sheffield (1998), referenced in
Swannick et al. (2007). This contributed to a strong sense of identity and of links with the past.
This finding supports the suggestion made by Swannick et al. (2007) that, landscape is an area
of land consisting of the physical, natural, social and cultural dimensions of the environment and
the interactions between them.
Summary section 4
- The public value features such as historical man-made features, dry stone walls and
irregularly shaped fields because they give a sense of people’s continued interaction with
the landscape and give the landscape a ‘pastoral’ feel.
- Moorland is particularly important for those living in it and contributes a sense of local
identity. It is also considered to have intense experiential qualities being described as
inspiring and spiritual.
5. Public understanding of the relationship between agriculture and upland landscape
features
Only one of the studies reviewed (SAC 2006) explicitly asked members of the public to
consider the role of hill farming in delivering non-landscape services. This research looked at the
public’s appreciation of existing upland features and their understanding of the relationship
between agriculture and the landscape. In general, respondents understood that a decrease in
grazing would lead to an increase in scrub land and other vegetation and these changes were
not always viewed negatively. A survey designed to inform the focus groups in this study asked
respondents to indicate their level of agreement with a number of statements about agriculture.
The intention was to focus respondents’ attention on the role of agriculture and the potential
policy trade-offs that could be made in managing the uplands. Overall, respondents agreed that a
reduction in agriculture would mean that the landscape would become less attractive and that
rural communities and rural economies would suffer. However, just under half of respondents
agreed that the quality of lakes and rivers would improve or that conditions would become more
favourable for wildlife and there seemed to be considerably more uncertainty over these two
statements. The Research Box study found that in Exmoor, both positive and negative effects
were expressed in relation to agriculture’s influence on the landscape. Several older participants
noted that farmers were responsible for creating the landscape of Exmoor but there was wide
agreement that some new agricultural enterprises brought changes, especially “elephant grass”
10

(for biomass energy) and extensive plastic sheeting, which were thought to be alien features in
the Exmoor landscape (2006).
Summary section 5
- Members of the public had some degree of understanding of the relationship between
agriculture and the landscape but there was some uncertainty in the interactions between
agriculture and the wider environment.
6. Preferences for upland landscapes and services
6.1. Overview of preferences from studies reviewed
A number of the studies reviewed here specifically asked members of the public about
their preferences in terms of upland landscape features and the results are summarised in Table
1, below. It is difficult to compare results as different studies asked respondents to consider
different attributes of the uplands – with some considering landscape only and others including
biodiversity, socio-cultural factors and land management. The variability is also likely to reflect
sampling and the nature of the information given to respondents during the interview/
questionnaire process. Both broadleaved woodland and moorland were generally valued by
members of the public; grassland is likely to be less favoured than woodland and moorland and,
in studies considering whole landscape change, respondents favoured situations where
grassland was marginally reduced or stayed the same (as opposed to situations where the
proportion of grassland increased). Despite this, within one study considering the public’s
preferences in the context of whole landscape change, nearly 50% of respondents favoured the
existing landscape over other types of landscape.
11

Table 1 Studies reviewed – summary of public preferences towards landscapes
Study Preferences Comments
White P. C. L.
and J. C. Lovett
(Interview)
(1999)
White P. C. L.
and J. C. Lovett
(Questionnaire)
(1999)
Willis K.G and
G.D.Garrod
(1991)
Heather moorland
Broadleaved woodland
Traditional grazing pasture
Broadleaved woodland
Heather moorland
Traditional grazing pasture
Today’s landscape:
‘Conserved’ landscape:
Wild landscape:
‘Planned’ landscape:
Sporting:
Abandoned landscape:
Semi-intensive:
Intensive:
70%
25%
5%
70%
33%
7%
Residents
50.2 %
29.5%
6.8%
6.8%
2.7%
3.1%
0.3%
_
Visitors
47.2 %
28.7%
12.5%
7.3%
1%
2.6%
0.3%
_
Sample primarily based on visitors to the
North York Moors approached in car parks
where they were likely to stop to admire the
view.
Sample based on people residing near the
North York Moors National Park and who had
visited the park in the past. 66% of the
sample visited the National Park for bird
watching. Note published figures exceed
100%.
Respondents were asked for their
preferences for management of a National
Park and shown images which reflected the
various management approaches. The
‘conserved’ landscape was an enhanced
version of today’s landscape with features
such as broadleaved forest and dry stone
walls accentuated.
12

Black (2009) Rank† Landscape Biodiversity Combined Respondents were asked separately for
1
An increase in An increase in An increase preferences as to landscape and biodiversity.
Woodland
Blanket Bog in Blanket Once respondents were told how landscape
Bog
changes would impact on biodiversity they
2
An increase in Status Quo
were asked to rank their most favoured
Blanket Bog
Status Quo option based on both landscape and
biodiversity combined.
3
Status Quo An increase in
Grassland An increase
in Woodland
Hanley et al
(1998)
4
5
Rank†
1
2
3
4
5
An increase in
Heather Moor
An increase in
Grassland
Woods
Heather Moors
Grassland
Dry Stone Walls
Archaeology
An increase in
Woodland
An increase in
Heather Moor
An increase
in Grassland
An increase
in Heather
Moor
Sample based on visitors to a specific
Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) in
Scotland. (WtP figured are given in Table 4)
13

Hanley et al
(2007)
The same study
is also included in
EFTEC (2006)
“Economic
Valuation of
Environmental
Impacts in the
Severely
Disadvantaged
Areas” 10 .
SAC for Centre
for Uplands
(2005)
Rank †
1
2
3
Rank†
1
2
Environmental landscape: (heather moorland and bog
+5%, rough grassland -3%, mixed and broadleaved
woodland +6%, field boundaries +10%, cultural
heritage – no change)
Environment and agricultural landscape: (heather
moorland and bog +3%, rough grassland -1%, mixed
and broadleaved woodland +4%, field boundaries
+6%, cultural heritage – no change)
Intensive/abandoned landscape: (heather moorland
and bog -2%, rough grassland +1%, mixed and
broadleaved woodland +5%, field boundaries +2%,
cultural heritage – rapid decline)
Upland landscape
Community and culture
Used Choice Experiment (focused on 5
landscape features) to determine implicit WtP
for the impact on landscape of three policy
scenarios.
Values here are given for the whole sample
but there were some regional differences –
e.g. the implicit prices of the cultural heritage
attribute were
very low in the North West region while they
were quite high in the Yorkshire and
Humber region.
Respondents were asked which of 3 upland
‘attributes’ they favoured most. Details of the
attributes are given in Table 3.
3
Farm management
† Not all studies gave preferences as a percentage of the total sample (e.g. as the sample was broken down into a number of subgroups or respondents were
asked to value individual landscape components). Where this was the case, landscape attributes are ranked in order of preference.
10 http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/economics/foodfarm/reports/documents/SDA.pdf
14

Hanley et al. (1998) employed a Choice Experiment 11 methodology to consider which
features of the upland landscape were most valued. They found that respondents were willing to
pay most to preserve woodland, significantly less to preserve heather moorland and grassland
and least to preserve archaeology and dry stone walls. A second study by the same lead author
(Hanley et al 2007) used respondents’ valuation of incremental changes in individual landscape
features to calculate overall WtP for landscape change. However one likely weakness of this
approach is that respondents do not have the opportunity to consider the interaction between
individual landscape features and the aesthetic value of the landscape as a whole. A regression
analysis employed in one study (Black 2009) indicates that landscape provides more value to
consumers than biodiversity. Both of these are public goods in that they are non-rival and nonexcludable,
but landscape is more accessible and recognisable than biodiversity. Landscapes
can be observed and enjoyed aesthetically more easily than biodiversity.
Willis and Garrod (1991) adopted a visual whole landscape approach taking into account
the impacts of different management practices on the landscape as a whole. Using a CV
approach, they found that respondents favoured landscapes that are similar to ‘today’s’
landscape, or conserved landscapes, where features such as hay meadows and broad-leaved
forests are enhanced and traditional buildings and dry-stone walls are well maintained. Intensive
agricultural and semi-intensive agricultural landscapes were the least favoured. These findings
broadly reflect those of Hanley et al. (2007) who also considered landscape change as a
response to changes in land management (although using a very different methodological
approach and incorporating cultural change). A further study by Nick Hanley (not reviewed in
detail here) focused on a small group of local residents in the Peak District National Park, also
found that residents were willing to pay to preserve the current landscape (and to prevent a move
to a more intensively managed landscape) 12 . This resistance to change is supported by findings
on landscapes more generally from the New Map of England work in the south west. This
research found that when offered a choice of future scenarios for the different landscapes, there
was an almost universal preference for alternatives which showed conservation, restoration, and
enhancement of the current landscape (Swanwick, 2009 in Upham et al (2009: 52).
Taking a somewhat broader approach which goes beyond landscape alone and more
explicitly incorporated biodiversity and social factors, the SAC study employed an Analytical
Hierarchy Process (AHP) focused on three broad upland attributes and their sub features. The 3
broad attributes are described in table 3 below.
When the attributes were broken down to their component parts, participants from both
Manchester and Cumbria showed a very strong preference for wild plants, birds and mammals.
The authors of the study also infer that with the exception of wildlife, respondents in Cumbria had
stronger preferences for qualities associated with traditional farming and community culture than
for landscape whereas the Manchester sample showed no such preferences. These sample
differences do not necessarily reflect urban/rural differences as both samples included individuals
from urban and rural areas.
11 Choice experiment (CE) is one of two common approaches used to determine non-market values based
of the public’s stated preferences. CE approaches ask respondents to choose between different possible
scenarios which have a number of attributes, including a price. A series of such choices allows the
researchers to determine which attributes respondents favour most and how much they are willing to pay
for them. The second approach, Contingent Valuation (CV) is discussed at length in section 7. CV surveys
typically ask how much money people would be willing to pay (or willing to accept) to maintain the
existence of (or be compensated for the loss of) a specific environmental feature. The approach can be
open ended (where WtP is decided entirely by the respondent) or respondents can choose how much they
are willing to pay from a series of paired values (dichotomous choice).
12 http://old.moorsforthefuture.org.uk/mftf/downloads/conferences/RELU_March_2010/Leaflet%204.%20Valuation.pdf
15

Table 2 SAC research – Upland characteristics
Upland landscapes
• Upland landscapes can be characterised as providing scenic views over the fells and moors.
• The lower lying landscape is characterised by traditional farm buildings and dry stone walls.
• The less intensive form of agriculture in upland areas results in greater peace and tranquillity;
• and offers greater opportunities for wild plants, birds and animals.
Traditional farm management
• Hill farming has not seen the large changes experienced by lowland farming in recent decades,
which has involved more intensive farming practices and specialisation.
• Hill farms are typically small family farms, with close links to the local community.
• This form of farming involves a number of traditional skills such as shepherding, maintaining dry
stone walls, and common land management.
Community culture
• Local communities are closely linked with hill farming through activities such as local shows and
other community activities resulting in a strong local culture.
• These close links also mean that there are strong social networks within upland communities.
6.2. Impact of sampling and responder characteristics on preferences
One important factor - influencing both willingness to pay and preferences - which may
merit further consideration here is the characteristics of respondents (potentially influenced by
the sampling frame). It is likely that respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics, including
interests and their primary reason for interaction with the landscape, will have an impact on the
overall results as to both landscape preference and valuation. For example White and Lovett
(1999) carried out both a postal survey and interviews with visitors to the North York Moors
National Park. The main reasons given for visiting the National Park within the interview survey
were walking and the views whereas within the postal survey bird watching was the main reason
given (by 67%). There were also differences in the preferred landscape. Of the interview
respondents 70% preferred heather moorland over broadleaved woodland and traditional grazing
pasture. In contrast, 70% of postal survey respondents preferred broad leaved forest over
heather moorland and grazing land.
The authors attribute the difference in preferences between those interviewed and those
returning a postal survey to the fact that the majority of interviews were conducted in a car park
near a major road where people were likely to stop to admire the view of the moor. Respondents
who had stopped in the car park were more likely to favour the landscape which offered most
recreational value; in contrast, for survey respondents rating broadleaved woodland as the most
important landscape feature, the perceived degree of threat was the single most important factor.
Similarly, Black (2009) found that over half of the respondents to a questionnaire
distributed within the North Pennines National Park were members of environmental
organisations. The author notes that environmental organisation members scored significantly
higher than non-members in a knowledge quiz on wildlife and conservation, and were
significantly more likely to pay for desired environmental outcomes. Those with higher quiz
scores and environmental awareness were more likely to choose increased blanket bog or tree
16

cover over the current landscape which may explain the overall preference in the sample for an
increase in blanket bog and associated increase in important birds and mammals 13 . These
examples also highlight that the degree to which respondents value the landscape for cultural
services such as recreation is closely linked to respondents’ awareness of and views on the other
services delivered by the uplands. In the absence of the provision of additional information to all
respondents, the latter will depend on their respondent’s existing level of knowledge; the
demographic implications of this are evident from Hanley et al.’s unsurprising finding that
individuals educated to higher levels had greater environmental awareness (2007). The fact that
respondents take factors such as biodiversity into account when thinking about their overall
preferences for landscape also highlights the difficulty of disaggregating preferences for the
cultural services from preferences for the uplands as a whole. This reflects some of the
challenges associated with the ecosystems approach highlighted in the introduction to this
review.
Based on a robust sample covering 5 English regions, Hanley et al (2007) found that WtP
for upland features such as moorland landscapes also varied spatially. Possible reasons for this
heterogeneity include differences in regional cultures, in incomes, and in the relative scarcity of
landscape features (as marginal WtP is expected to depend on the current abundance of a given
landscape feature within a given area). In addition, the underlying reasons for landscape
preferences also vary between regions. For example, income has a significant relationship with
WtP for upland features in both Yorkshire and Humber and the South East, but this relationship is
positive in Yorkshire and Humber (with individuals with a higher income being more likely to want
to pay for Public goods associated with the uplands) and negative in the South East. Based on
regional differences in preference, the authors raise the potential policy implication that payments
to farmers should differ by region (to reflect the value of the public goods they deliver). For
example, based on the findings from this study, payments for heather moorland conservation
would be highest in the West Midlands, lowest in the North West and zero in Yorkshire and
Humberside. However, the authors acknowledge the obvious practical and political implication of
this.
Only a minority of the studies explicitly looked at the impact of informing the public about
the link between management practices and impacts on the landscape. Black (2009) tried to
take into account the impact of giving respondents additional information about the management
practices (with particular reference to managing grouse moors for shooting) and found that
having additional information did not appear to impact on how much respondents were willing to
pay for preferred landscapes. However, it is possible that having information about management
practices impacted negatively on the amount that respondents were willing to pay for specific
features, e.g. heather moorland and grassland.
6.3. Role of preference strength
A final point that should be emphasised (and which can be addressed to an extent using
economic valuation techniques) is that it is important to take into account the strength of
individuals’ preferences as well as the preferences themselves. For example, although only a
minority of respondents in Willis and Garrod’s sample favoured abandoned, conserved or
sporting landscapes, those respondents who did prefer these landscapes were, on average,
willing to pay more for them than those who favoured today’s landscape were willing to pay to
maintain the status quo (1993). To an extent, strength of individuals’ preferences could be
explored further by considering samples of individuals who have a more specialist engagement
with the uplands – e.g. those who use the upland landscape for specialist activities such as
climbing or field sports. This was done by Grijalva et al. (2002) for National Parks in the United
States but no comparable study for the UK was identified in the searches conducted for this
literature review.
13 Although it’s also likely that people favoured an increase in mammals and birds associated with an
increase blanket bog because these species are likely to be more emblematic than plants and insects. A
number of studies have shown that the public are more likely to pay to preserve more emblematic species.
17

Summary section 6
- A cautious interpretation of the evidence suggests that broadleaved woodland and
heather moorland are valued features of upland landscapes and that managed grassland
is generally less favoured. However, when asked about the landscape as a whole,
respondents favour the maintenance of a landscape similar to today’s or with some
features such as broadleaved forest and field boundaries enhanced.
- The results of studies intended to determine public preferences (and the value which the
public place on the uplands) are highly dependent on the nature of the population
sampled, the nature of their engagement with the landscape and their existing level of
knowledge.
- Preferences for landscape also varied regionally and this is likely to reflect the current
characteristics of different upland areas and the socio-demographic characteristics of the
population living in the region of different upland areas.
- It is important to consider the strength of individuals’ preferences as well as the
preferences themselves.
7. Valuation of upland landscapes
7.1. Overview of Willingness to Pay (WtP) values from reviewed studies
As with table 2, all of the studies summarised in the table below specifically consider the
public’s perceptions of the uplands, however other studies which provide broader contextual
findings on the UK public’s willingness to pay for cultural and other services which are linked to
agriculture (see FERA et al 2010 on WtP for agri-environment schemes) are referenced as
context. In terms of the economic valuation of the upland landscape there was some variation
between the different studies. Willingness to Pay (WtP) values ranged from £119.05 per
household/year to maintain all 11 National Parks to £3.10 to maintain just one estate within the
North York Moors National Park. An overview of the WtP values derived by the various studies is
given in Table 3. The majority of values are based on Contingent Valuation (CV), with the
exception of Hanley et al. (1998)’s third recorded approach and Hanley et al. (2007) which
employed a Choice Experiment methodology. Mean figures for the maintenance (or
enhancement) of single National Parks, ESA (in Scotland) or SDA areas ranged between
£5.65/household/annum and £73/annum. Based on available evidence it seems that residents
are willing to pay marginally more than the general public but even people who had never visited
the specified area were willing to pay something for its maintenance (Hanley et al. 1998). This is
reflected in the fact that 76% of a large, national random sample of respondents were willing to
pay for environmental stewardship schemes for all of England (WtP = £26.09/household/year)
(FERA et al 2010).
Differences in valuation are likely to arise as a result of a number of factors including the
study methodology and the mechanism by which the hypothetical payment would be delivered.
All but two of the studies employed CV methods, some used an open ended approach and
others dichotomous choice which is more likely to lead respondents to give higher values). The
use of a postal survey versus interviews for data collection and the level of background
information given to respondents can further influence responses. However, Hanley et al. (2007)
identified distinct regional differences in WtP despite consistent methodology across the sample.
WtP for the preferred scenario ranged from £6.33 to £26.92 across the 5 English regions
surveyed as part of this study.
18

Table 3 Economic valuation studies
Study Location/WtP for
what
White P.
C. L. and
J. C.
Lovett
(1999)
White P.
C. L. and
J. C.
Lovett
(1999)
Willis K.G
and
G.D.Garr
od
(1993)
Management of all 11
National Parks for
Nature Conservation
Management of
Levisham Estate in the
North York Moors
National Park
Sample Methodology Payment
mechanism
344 visitors to key
tourist sites within the
North York Dales
National Park
500 residents of area
near National Park
boundary
(206 responses)
Yorkshire Dales 300 residents from 4
Parishes in North
Yorkshire.
300 visitors at car
parks within the
National Park
Face to face interview,
dichotomous choice
(from 50p - £200)
Postal questionnaire
with short intro and
dichotomous choice
questions (10p - £20)
Face to face interviews
with questions asked
about landscape
preferences as well as
WtP/household/year to
preserve the Yorkshire
Dales landscape
Open ended questions
for CV
Respondents
asked to state
preferences –
53% preferred
visitor fees, 25%
national tax,
17% said
donations, 5%
said local
taxation
Percentage of
sample willing
to pay (in
principle)
WtP
82% £119.05/individual/year
An annual tax 46·3% £3.10
Not specified Not stated WtP to preserve preferred
landscape –
Residents - £25,
Visitors - £27
WtP to preserve today’s
landscape £24 (for both
visitors and residents)
19

Black
(2009)
Hanley et
al.
(1998)
Hanley et
al.
(1998)
The North Pennines
Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty
Breadalbane ESA
Highland Perthshire
Breadalbane ESA
Highland Perthshire
376 visitors to North
Pennines AONB.
427 respondents-
40% of sample based
on mail shot (to
general public). 60% of
sample based on face
to face interviews with
residents and visitors
325 mailed public
249 interviewed public
235 interviewed
visitors
Face to face
interviews.
Background
information provided.
Open ended questions
for CV
Contingent Valuation
Open ended questions
Contingent Valuation
Dichotomous choice
Annual donation
for the next 5
years
Increase to
income tax
Increase to
income tax
Not stated £10.52 per household/year
to preserve preferred
landscape (an increase in
blanket bog and associated
increase in rare birds and
mammals)
£4.22 to prevent least
preferred outcome
Not stated £31.43 (residents)
General public -
56%
Local residents -
67%
£22.02 (visitors) (per
person/year)
General Public (postal
questionnaire) -
£42/person/year.
General Public interview -
£57/person/year
Visitors (interview)
£73/person/year
(Unable to calculate for
residents as survey design
failed)
20

Hanley et
al.
(1998)
Hanley et
al. (2007)
Breadalbane ESA
Highland Perthshire
Respondents from the
4 Government office
regions of the North
West, Yorkshire and
the Humber, the West
Midlands and the
South West were
asked about
preferences for LFA
areas in the GOR in
which they reside.
Respondents from the
South East GOR were
asked about LFAs in
all England.
Results from CE were
used to determine WtP
for 3 policy scenarios.
256 individuals
interviewed in ESA
area.
300 respondents in
each GOR region
(total 1500
respondents)
Samples chosen
according to quotas for
age, gender, socioeconomic
group and
also whether
respondents resided in
an urban or rural area.
Face-to-face, door-todoor
interviews.
Choice Experiment Not specified
(likely tax)
Choice Experiment Local or national
taxation
Not stated Woods – £50.46
Archaeology - £6.65
Heather Moors - £22.95
Wet Grassland - £20.85
Dry Stone Walls £11.30
Not stated To preserve environmental/
agricultural landscape (see
description above):
From £5.63/household/
year in the North West to
£25.56 in Yorkshire
and Humberside.
To preserve environmental
landscape (see description
above):
From £6.33 in the North
West to £26.92 in Yorkshire
and Humberside.
21

SAC for
Centre
for
Uplands
(2005)
Heyes
and
Heyes
(1999)
Public benefits of
upland areas.
Preservation of
Dartmoor National
Park
2000 questionnaire
posted to random
sample of households
in Cumbria and
Manchester. 136
questionnaire s
returned from Cumbria
and 54 from
Manchester
980 surveys
completed with visitors
to Dartmoor National
Park
Contingent Valuation
Dichotomous choice
Contingent Valuation
Open ended
Taxation Not stated £47/household/year
Entry fee to
Dartmoor
National Park
74% £2/individual to enter the
park based on median WtP.
22

7.2. Limitations of Contingent Valuations studies
As noted above, the high level of variation in results from the different studies is likely to arise as
a result of the range of methodology employed as well as the nature of respondents. However, it
is also possible that many of the WtP values given are reasonably conservative estimates. One
likely reason for this being that respondents exercise ‘protest bids’ which reflect an unwillingness
to pay for a good that they feel they have a right to benefit from (and so their WtP does not reflect
the true value which they derive from the goods or service). The effect of protest bids may be
particularly evident in studies where payment for entry into a park/area is the proposed payment
mechanism (Heyes and Heyes 1999). Although some of the studies took care to minimise
protest bids (e.g. by asking respondents to explain why they were/were not willing to pay or why
they were willing to pay a certain value) it may be difficult to completely eliminate the impact of
this kind of bias. Heyes and Heyes (1999) carried out a study where they asked respondents
both for their WtP to visit Dartmoor National Park and their ‘willingness to travel’ (WtT); the
distance individuals were willing to travel were then converted into monetary values. Although it
is difficult to accurately calculate WtT costs (given the difficult of incorporating opportunity costs)
WtT values calculated by the authors using three different methodological approaches were all
greater than the WtP values for the same sample (with the lowest WtT value based only on
transport costs and not incorporating opportunity costs at all).
Summary section 7
- Mean figures for the maintenance (or enhancement) of single national parks/SDA/ESA
areas ranged between £5.65/household/year and £73/person/year. This is likely to reflect
the methodology employed but variability in WtP across regions (despite consistent
methodology) implies that both demographic factors and current composition of different
upland landscapes influence WtP.
- Where stated between 46% and 82% of respondents were willing to pay in principle to
protect uplands National Parks
- The majority of samples consisted of local residents and visitors to National Parks and so
the results are likely to be biased. Where random members of the public have been sent
postal questionnaires it is also likely that a responder bias was introduced (with
individuals that have an existing interest being more likely to respond).
8. Conclusions and further research
This review summarises relevant evidence about the public’s attitude towards and
preferences for the uplands. Although not a full systematic review, the evidence suggests that
a proportion of the public value and would in principle be willing to pay to maintain the
landscape value of the uplands.
Key conclusions from the review:
- Upland landscapes have intense experiential qualities and can contribute to a sense of
heritage (historic man-made features contribute to cultural value) and identity (especially
the moorland context for residents) but understanding individual preferences is complex.
- Studies suggest broadleaved woodland and heather moorland are valued features of the
upland landscape, while an increase is grassland is often viewed negatively. When asked
about the landscape as a whole, a significant proportion of respondents favour the
maintenance of a landscape similar to today’s landscape with some features, such as
broadleaved woodland enhanced.
- Between 46% and 82% of respondents were willing to pay in principle to protect uplands
National Parks. The number of respondents willing to pay is likely to reflect the sample
23

used but the evidence suggests that the proposed payment mechanism could also impact
on whether individuals are willing to pay in principle or not.
- Mean figures for respondents’ WtP for the maintenance (or enhancement) of single
national parks/ESA areas varied significantly. This, in part, is likely to reflect variation in
the methodologies employed in the reviewed studies and as a consequence, studies are
not always readily comparable or transferable to represent conclusive public views on
upland landscapes and preferences. Despite this, the distinct regional variation identified
within one study suggests that both demographic factors and the existing composition of
specific upland areas (e.g. abundance of landscape features) may also influence WtP.
Depth of evidence and implications for future work:
- Within the work reviewed, considerably less attention is given to the views of the ‘general
public’ (indirect beneficiaries who also contribute to agricultural support in the uplands)
than is given to the views of upland residents and visitors (direct beneficiaries). As there
is evidence that responses to and likely preferences for Upland landscapes will vary by
demographic factors (such occupational class, ethnicity, proximity of residence to
Uplands etc.) care should be taken when interpreting and applying the results of
individual studies.
- The majority of studies focus on the public’s attitude to upland landscape only and do not
consider whether a better understanding of the interaction between landscape and other
services delivered by the uplands (e.g. water/food production) influence the public’s
preferences.
- A critical gap is that there was a limited amount of evidence on preferences for a future
uplands landscape that took into account the broader range of services that could
potentially be delivered by the Uplands. The use of deliberative approaches that consider
in more detail how the public perceive the interaction between the different services
delivered by the uplands and how these influence landscape preferences could enable a
deeper understanding for policy. This could explore, for example, the impact of
alternative payment mechanisms on the public’s willingness to pay for various goods and
services associated with uplands landscapes.
This literature review is limited to evidence identified through a simple non-systematic search and
does not encompass any additional analysis. Subject to feedback on this discussion paper there
may be scope to extend the review to:
- Consider more studies on specialist and non-landscape uses of the uplands. For example
Upham et al’s study on the generation of bio-energy in the uplands (2003) and studies on
specialist recreational use of the landscape and the value of the landscape to specialist
users (e.g. Grijalva et al. 2002).
- Provide a systematic review of Contingent Valuation studies focused on upland areas and
more rigorously compare methods and findings to give a better indication of what different
members of the public are willing to pay to preserve the uplands.
- To explore in more detail the impact of proposed payment mechanisms on the public’s
willingness to pay for various goods.
- Determine the relative benefits of applying an ecosystems approach to understanding the
value which the public derive from the uplands and identify methodological approaches
that will help overcome the limitations associated with such approaches.
24

9. Overview of referenced studies (in chronological order)
Authors Title Date Source Comments
FERA; Newcastle
University and CCRI.
Agricultural Change
and Environment
Observatory
Estimating the wildlife and landscape
benefits of environmental stewardship
Public attitudes to agriculture, the
farmed landscape and natural
environment
EFTEC Economic Valuation of Upland
Ecosystem services
Black, J Conservation Values of the North
Pennines
The Research Box
with Land Use
Consultants & Rick
Minter,
Suckall, N. Fraser,
E.D.G. Cooper, T and
Quinn, C.
Upham, P.,
Whitmarsh, L.,
Poortinga, W.,
Purdam, K., Darnton,
A., McLachlan, C.,
Devine-Wright, P.,
Experiencing Landscapes:
capturing the cultural services
and experiential qualities of
landscape
Visitor perceptions of rural landscapes:
A case study in the Peak District
National Park, England
Public Attitudes to Environmental
Change: a selective review of theory
and practice
2010 Commissioned by Defra
http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/economics/foodfarm/rep
orts/documents/estimatingthewildlife.pdf
Primary
research
general
2010 Defra Literature
review –
agriculture
2009 Natural England Commissioned Report NECR029 Framework
for valuing
Ecosystem
2009 Unpublished PhD Thesis
http://www.iccs.org.uk/thesis/phd-black,julie09
services
Primary
research
uplands
2009 Natural England Commissioned Report NECR024 Literature
review
Primary
research on
landscape
2009 Journal of Environmental Management 90: 1195-1203 Primary
research
uplands
2009 Living With Environmental Change Literature
review on
environment
25

Swannick, C Hanley, N
and Termansen, M
Hanley, N., Colombo,
N., Mason, P., and
Johns, H.
The same study is also
included in EFTEC
(2006) “Economic
Valuation of
Environmental Impacts
in the Severely
Disadvantaged
Areas” 14 .
Dougill, AJ., Fraser,
EDG., Holden, J.,
Hubacek, K., Prell, C.,
Reed, MS., Stagl, S.,
Stringer, LC.
Scottish Agricultural
College
Scoping study on agricultural landscape
valuation
The Reform of Support Mechanisms
for Upland Farming: Paying for Public
Goods in the Severely Disadvantaged
Areas of England
Learning from Doing Participatory Rural
Research: Lessons from the Peak
District National Park
Measuring public preferences for the
uplands
Harvey, D.R Agri-Environmental Relationships &
Multi-functionality: Further
Considerations
14 http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/economics/foodfarm/reports/documents/SDA.pdf
2007 Defra Literature
review and
guidance on
valuing
agricultural
landscapes
2007 Journal of Agricultural Economics 58: 433–453 Primary
research
uplands
2006 Journal of Agricultural Economics 57: 259-275 Primary
research with
key
stakeholders
(not members
2005 Commissioned by the Centre for Uplands
http://www.theuplandcentre.org.uk/pubs.htm
of the public)
Primary
research -
uplands
2003 The World Economy, 26: 705 – 725 Theoretical
consideration
of agricultural
support
26

Grijalva T.C., Berrens,
R. P., Bohara, A. K.
and others
Valuing the loss of rock climbing access
in wilderness areas: A national-level,
random-utility model
Hodge, I Agri-environmental Relationships and
the Choice of Policy Mechanism
White, P. C. L. and J.
C. Lovett
Heyes, C and A.
Heyes
Hanley, N. MacMillan,
D. Wright, R.E.,
Bullock, C., Simpson,
I., Parsissons, D., and
Crabtree, B.
Willis, K.G. and
G.D.Garrod
Public preferences and willingness-to-
pay for nature conservation in the
North York Moors National Park, UK
Willingness to Pay Versus Willingness to
Travel:
Assessing the Recreational Benefits
from
Dartmoor National Park
Contingent Valuation V. Choice
Experiments. Estimating the value of
environmentally sensitive areas in
Scotland.
Valuing Landscape – A contingent
Valuation Approach
Defa -forthcoming a National Ecosystem Assessment
Scenarios
Defra – forthcoming b Participation and deliberative techniques
to embed an ecosystems approach into
decision making
2002 Land Economics, Vol. 78, Issue: 1, 103-120. US based
study
synthesising
existing
research
2000 The World Economy, 23:257-273 Theoretical
consideration
of agricultural
support
1999 Journal of Environmental Management 55: 1–13 Primary
research -
uplands
1999 Journal of Agricultural Economics 50:124-139 Primary
research -
uplands
1998 Journal of Agricultural Economics 49:1-15 Primary
Research
ESA, uplands
in Scotland
1993 Journal of Environmental Management 37: 1-22 Primary
research -
uplands
n/a New analysis
based on
existing
evidence
n/a New analysis
based on
existing
evidence
27

Defa –forthcoming c Understanding what people want from
the natural environment using customer
segmentation
n/a Primary
research –
general
28