Public Attitudes and Preferences for Upland Landscapes - Defra
Public Attitudes and Preferences for Upland Landscapes - Defra
Public Attitudes and Preferences for Upland Landscapes - Defra
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>Public</strong> <strong>Attitudes</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Preferences</strong> <strong>for</strong> Upl<strong>and</strong><br />
L<strong>and</strong>scapes<br />
A summary of existing evidence on how the broader public perceive<br />
<strong>and</strong> value the English Upl<strong>and</strong> L<strong>and</strong>scape<br />
March 2011<br />
Short evidence review prepared <strong>for</strong> <strong>Defra</strong>’s Agricultural Change <strong>and</strong> Environment<br />
Observatory. Research report no. 24.<br />
Principal contact: Caryl Williams (caryl.williams@defra.gsi.gov.uk)<br />
Summary<br />
Hill farming shapes the management of the upl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> has considerable wider cultural <strong>and</strong><br />
ecosystem impacts. Recognising the value of these impacts <strong>for</strong> different groups – upl<strong>and</strong><br />
communities, visitors <strong>and</strong> the wider public - is a key consideration in the context of defining future<br />
policies <strong>for</strong> upl<strong>and</strong>s l<strong>and</strong> management.<br />
This short paper draws on a range of existing studies to explore public attitudes to different<br />
features of upl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scapes, the public’s preferences <strong>for</strong> the future of the upl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> how the<br />
public value typical upl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scapes.<br />
Key conclusions:<br />
- The upl<strong>and</strong>s deliver a range of cultural services <strong>for</strong> different individuals <strong>and</strong><br />
underst<strong>and</strong>ing individual preferences is complex.<br />
- Upl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scapes provide recreational benefits as well as a sense of heritage (e.g.<br />
through historic man-made features) <strong>and</strong> contribute to a sense of local identity.<br />
- Broadleaved woodl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> heather moor are valued by the public as features of the<br />
upl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scape. However, a significant proportion of respondents across studies favour<br />
the maintenance of a l<strong>and</strong>scape that is similar to today’s l<strong>and</strong>scape.<br />
- Individual relationships with <strong>and</strong> preferences <strong>for</strong> upl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scapes are likely to be<br />
influenced by occupational class, education, ethnicity, age <strong>and</strong> other factors.<br />
- Respondents were willing to pay in principle to protect upl<strong>and</strong> National Parks but the<br />
percentage of individuals willing to pay varied between samples (from 46% to 82%). This<br />
is likely, in part to reflect the different methodologies employed.<br />
- The public’s willingness to pay (WtP) <strong>for</strong> single national parks/upl<strong>and</strong> areas varied<br />
considerably within <strong>and</strong> between studies. Between studies this is likely to reflect<br />
differences in methodology. However inter-regional variation identified within one study<br />
suggested that both demographic factors <strong>and</strong> the existing composition of upl<strong>and</strong> areas<br />
(e.g. the relative abundance of different features) can influence respondents’ WtP.<br />
Depth of evidence <strong>and</strong> implications <strong>for</strong> future work:<br />
- Methodological approaches adopted by the studies vary extensively <strong>and</strong>, as a<br />
consequence, studies were not always readily comparable or transferable to represent<br />
conclusive public views on upl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scapes <strong>and</strong> preferences.<br />
- Within the work reviewed, considerably less attention is given to the preferences of the<br />
‘general public’ (indirect beneficiaries who also contribute to agricultural support in the<br />
upl<strong>and</strong>s) than is given to the views of upl<strong>and</strong> residents <strong>and</strong> visitors.<br />
- The use of in-depth approaches to consider in more detail how the public perceive the<br />
interaction between the different services delivered by the upl<strong>and</strong>s would allow a more indepth<br />
exploration of respondents’ preferences <strong>and</strong> would also shed light on other factors<br />
influencing the public’s WtP – including proposed payment vehicle.<br />
1
Table of Contents<br />
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 3<br />
1.1.Background.............................................................................................................. 3<br />
1.2.Objectives ................................................................................................................ 5<br />
1.3.Methodology ............................................................................................................ 5<br />
2. Studies Reviewed ....................................................................................................... 6<br />
2.1. Sampling <strong>and</strong> representation .................................................................................. 6<br />
2.2. Limitations of available evidence ............................................................................ 6<br />
3. Factors influencing the public’s interaction with upl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scapes ................... 7<br />
4. The public’s experience of individual upl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scape features ......................... 9<br />
5. <strong>Public</strong> underst<strong>and</strong>ing of the relationship between agriculture <strong>and</strong> upl<strong>and</strong><br />
l<strong>and</strong>scape features ....................................................................................................... 10<br />
6. <strong>Preferences</strong> <strong>for</strong> upl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scapes (<strong>and</strong> services) ............................................... 11<br />
6.1. Overview of preferences from studies reviewed ................................................... 11<br />
6.2. Impact of sampling <strong>and</strong> responded characteristics on preferences ...................... 16<br />
6.3.Role of preference strength ................................................................................... 17<br />
7. Valuation of upl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scapes .............................................................................. 18<br />
7.1. Overview of Willingness to Pay (WtP) values from reviewed studies ................... 18<br />
7.2. Limitations of Contingent Valuation studies .......................................................... 24<br />
8. Conclusions <strong>and</strong> further research ........................................................................... 24<br />
9. Overview of referenced studies ............................................................................... 26<br />
2
1. Introduction<br />
1.1. Background<br />
There is no statutory definition of the English upl<strong>and</strong>s but a regularly adopted definition is that<br />
of l<strong>and</strong> categorised as “Less Favoured Areas (LFA)”, the EU classification <strong>for</strong> socially <strong>and</strong><br />
economically disadvantaged agricultural areas. The 9 upl<strong>and</strong> regions on which <strong>Defra</strong> have based<br />
this categorization are described (from an agricultural perspective) <strong>and</strong> mapped geographically in<br />
<strong>Defra</strong>’s statistical notice on the upl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> other LFAs 1 . Research 2,3 indicates that upl<strong>and</strong><br />
farming is facing real pressures <strong>and</strong> a reduction or significant change to the nature of upl<strong>and</strong><br />
agriculture could there<strong>for</strong>e have a major impact on what upl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scapes look like in the future,<br />
as well as on the other benefits delivered. The visual quality of the l<strong>and</strong>scape requires<br />
sustainable l<strong>and</strong> management but this is dependent on an in<strong>for</strong>med underst<strong>and</strong>ing of what the<br />
public value.<br />
The special status of upl<strong>and</strong> regions - most have separate local governance<br />
arrangements (National Parks), l<strong>and</strong>scape protection status (e.g. Areas of Outst<strong>and</strong>ing Natural<br />
Beauty), special conservation designation (e.g. Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - means that<br />
they are a resource of national significance. Although there is distinct variation between different<br />
upl<strong>and</strong> regions, farming is a key feature associated with the upl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> has considerable<br />
cultural <strong>and</strong> environmental significance. This is because of the interdependence between farming<br />
<strong>and</strong> food production, wider management of l<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> ecosystems, recreation <strong>and</strong> tourism 4 . Some<br />
upl<strong>and</strong> regions also feature unique tenure <strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>-management systems (e.g. commons <strong>and</strong><br />
grouse moor management) which have an impact on the l<strong>and</strong>scape <strong>and</strong> add to the complexity of<br />
upl<strong>and</strong> farming systems. The non-production goods which upl<strong>and</strong> farming provides (e.g. the<br />
maintenance of the l<strong>and</strong>scape <strong>for</strong> recreational use etc.) are often cited as justification <strong>for</strong> the<br />
continued financial support of upl<strong>and</strong> farmers (see discussion in Hodge, 2000). However, as<br />
Harvey (2003) proposes, in order to ensure that agricultural activities provide the optimal level of<br />
public goods, it is not only necessary to separate financial support <strong>for</strong> broader public goods from<br />
payments <strong>for</strong> agricultural production but it is also important to identify the attributes of public<br />
goods <strong>and</strong> to determine their value to members of the public that benefit from them. Importantly,<br />
Harvey emphasises the need to recognise different public preferences in the design of rural<br />
policy l<strong>and</strong>-use.<br />
The Ecosystems Approach is an increasingly common approach to valuing all of the<br />
services delivered in any given area. Ecosystem services can be categorised into 4 overarching<br />
groups 5 :<br />
• Regulating services: the benefits derived from the way ecosystem processes are<br />
regulated such as water purification, air quality maintenance <strong>and</strong> climate regulation.<br />
• Provisioning services: the products obtained from ecosystems such as food, fibre<br />
<strong>and</strong> medicines.<br />
1 http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/foodfarm/enviro/farmpractice/documents/FPS2009upl<strong>and</strong>s.pdf<br />
2 http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/foodfarm/enviro/observatory/research/documents/upl<strong>and</strong>s-indepth.pdf<br />
3 http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/foodfarm/enviro/observatory/research/documents/Upl<strong>and</strong>sFPS_report09.p<br />
df<br />
4 http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/foodfarm/enviro/observatory/research/documents/upl<strong>and</strong>s2010.pdf<br />
5 http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/policy/natural-environ/documents/eco-actionplan.pdf<br />
3
• Cultural services: services providing non-material benefits from ecosystems such as<br />
spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation <strong>and</strong> aesthetic<br />
experiences.<br />
• Supporting services: many ecosystem services are necessary <strong>for</strong> the production of<br />
all other ecosystem services from which society benefits, such as soil <strong>for</strong>mation <strong>and</strong><br />
nutrient cycling.<br />
Figure 1 (below) from the <strong>Defra</strong> report “Provision of Ecosystem Services through<br />
Environmental Stewardship” (2009) illustrates how prescribed changes in hill farming<br />
management (under Environment Stewardship) can affect the provision of ecosystem services;<br />
<strong>for</strong> example reducing agricultural intensity can lead to less food (shown as orange) but more<br />
regulating (e.g. water quality), cultural (e.g. heritage) <strong>and</strong> biodiversity services (shown as<br />
green/dark green). Promoting some of the cultural services delivered by the upl<strong>and</strong>s (e.g.<br />
through an environmental stewardship scheme) will also impact on other services; <strong>for</strong> example a<br />
positive impact on biodiversity. <strong>Defra</strong>’s <strong>for</strong>thcoming publication - National Ecosystem Assessment<br />
Scenarios more explicitly illustrates the impacts of trade-offs resulting from social <strong>and</strong> political<br />
priorities on a range of ecosystems (<strong>Defra</strong> – <strong>for</strong>thcoming a). Although the public do not take into<br />
account all of the services provided by the upl<strong>and</strong>s when they visit or value them, there are<br />
various opportunities to involve the public in how we can better underst<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> capture the value<br />
of the goods delivered by the upl<strong>and</strong>s, <strong>and</strong> particularly by hill farming.<br />
Figure 1: Potential net service delivery (marginal change) in the upl<strong>and</strong>s under Environmental<br />
Stewardship (positive <strong>and</strong> negative)*<br />
Source: Provision of Ecosystem Services Through Environmental Stewardship, <strong>Defra</strong> 2009<br />
*The colours indicating impact follow the principle of a Red, Amber, Green (RAG) rating with dark green indicating<br />
considerable positive impacts, light green indicating some positive impacts, amber indicating no-change <strong>and</strong> red<br />
indicating negative impacts.<br />
The comprehensive report commissioned by Natural Engl<strong>and</strong> “Economic valuation of<br />
upl<strong>and</strong> ecosystem services” (Economics <strong>for</strong> the Environment 2009) directly seeks to value three<br />
cultural services delivered in a number of upl<strong>and</strong> case studies (many of the UK stated<br />
preferences studies used to in<strong>for</strong>m the case studies are included separately in this review). The<br />
three cultural services identified are: the use <strong>and</strong> enjoyment of upl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>for</strong> outdoor recreation;<br />
the use <strong>and</strong> enjoyment of upl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>for</strong> field sports; <strong>and</strong> the non-use values of historic <strong>and</strong> cultural<br />
l<strong>and</strong>scapes. In reality however, it is very difficult to effectively capture data on the non-use value<br />
of ecosystems (or to disaggregate this from use values) <strong>and</strong> this is reflected in the greater focus<br />
given to recreational use values in the studies reviewed here. A further difficulty is that of<br />
disaggregating the cultural services provided by the l<strong>and</strong>scape (as defined in the Ecosystems<br />
Approach) from other services delivered by the upl<strong>and</strong>s (e.g. biodiversity) <strong>and</strong> this is considered<br />
further in Section 6, below.<br />
4
Although care must be taken not to double count the value of individual services delivered<br />
by the upl<strong>and</strong>s (by considering both their known market value <strong>and</strong> the public’s stated<br />
preferences), there is also some value in engaging the public in considering the non-cultural<br />
services delivered by the upl<strong>and</strong>s (e.g. l<strong>and</strong>scape preservation Vs carbon regulation). Making<br />
respondents more aware of all of the services delivered by the upl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> the trade-offs<br />
between them will allow respondents to express more in<strong>for</strong>med choices about the future of the<br />
upl<strong>and</strong>s, putting their own cultural preferences <strong>for</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scape in the wider ecosystem context.<br />
Based on the ecosystems approach there are a growing number of innovative payments <strong>for</strong><br />
ecosystem services (PES) schemes, many of which are relevant to farming in the upl<strong>and</strong> context.<br />
The principle is one where payments to l<strong>and</strong> managers (including from private sector) can be<br />
made to undertake actions that increase the quality <strong>and</strong> quantity of desired ecosystem services<br />
e.g. reducing diffuse pollution to improve water quality. SCaMP (Sustainable Catchment<br />
Management Programme) is an example of an on-going PES scheme delivering multiple<br />
ecosystem benefits; improving biodiversity, stabilising water quality, supporting rural<br />
communities, enhancing l<strong>and</strong>scape, reducing peat carbon emissions, protecting carbon stores<br />
<strong>and</strong> aiding fragile habitats to withst<strong>and</strong> future climate change.<br />
1.2. Objectives<br />
It is advocated that different groups of stakeholders with various degrees <strong>and</strong> types of interest<br />
are involved in decisions on ecosystem services (<strong>Defra</strong> – <strong>for</strong>thcoming b). This can range from<br />
active stakeholders who often have an invested interest in one or more ecosystem service (<strong>for</strong><br />
example, farmers <strong>and</strong> water companies, see Doungall et al 2006) to members of the general<br />
public but given the need to limit the scope of this paper, it is the perspective of the public in<br />
general which is of primary concern here. In a minority of the studies considered here, some<br />
attention is given to the potential trade-offs between different kinds of services (e.g. provisioning<br />
services <strong>and</strong> cultural services) but a lack of consideration of the broader services delivered by<br />
the upl<strong>and</strong>s is identified as an evidence gap.<br />
This paper will:<br />
- Discuss some key methodological issues <strong>and</strong> consider the different benefits derived from<br />
the upl<strong>and</strong>s by different groups of people;<br />
- Explore in detail the aesthetic, recreational <strong>and</strong> other experiential benefits which<br />
individuals derive from the upl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> how this is reflected in public preferences;<br />
- Consider the potential cultural <strong>and</strong> recreational value of the upl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>for</strong> different<br />
individuals.<br />
1.3. Methodology<br />
This paper predominantly discusses primary research studies which consider the public’s<br />
attitude toward <strong>and</strong>/or valuation of upl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scapes. Although the review takes into account<br />
some key studies that do not specifically focus on the upl<strong>and</strong>s (largely carried out on behalf of<br />
<strong>Defra</strong>), these are drawn upon to contextualise the upl<strong>and</strong>s focused studies, especially in terms of<br />
public attitude toward environmental change <strong>and</strong> toward agriculture more generally. However, all<br />
of the studies summarised in sections 6 <strong>and</strong> 7 of this review are specifically focused on the<br />
upl<strong>and</strong>s. Studies specifically on public attitudes toward the upl<strong>and</strong>s were identified through nonsystematic<br />
searches using an internet search engine <strong>and</strong> relevant references from reviewed<br />
studies were identified <strong>and</strong> in turn reviewed. Although studies from outside of Great Britain are<br />
excluded, studies from Scotl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Wales are included. The studies reviewed date from 1993 to<br />
present (with the vast majority published after 2000) <strong>and</strong> so some caution should be exercised<br />
when comparing studies, where differences may reflect broader social shifts over time. Given the<br />
approach adopted, this review does not provide systematic coverage of all relevant studies but<br />
highlights key themes emerging from the literature <strong>and</strong> areas where a systematic evidence<br />
assessment or further primary research could add value.<br />
5
2. Studies reviewed<br />
The table in section 9 lists all of the studies considered in this review. For the studies<br />
involving valuation based on the public’s stated preferences there is a predominance of studies<br />
focused on l<strong>and</strong>scapes within National Parks. Although this may raise concerns as to whether<br />
attitudes to upl<strong>and</strong> National Parks are representative of the public’s attitude to upl<strong>and</strong> areas more<br />
broadly 6 , the review does also take into account one large study focused on Severely<br />
Disadvantaged Areas (SDAs) more generally. A variety of research approaches have been used<br />
in the studies reviewed here including:<br />
• qualitative discussion groups exploring the qualities of different l<strong>and</strong>scape features<br />
<strong>and</strong> broadening our underst<strong>and</strong>ing of the different benefits that l<strong>and</strong>scapes may<br />
contribute to the public (e.g. Research box et. al. 2009);<br />
• interviews or postal surveys to ascertain the general public’s preferences <strong>for</strong> the<br />
upl<strong>and</strong>s (Scottish Agricultural College 2005.), <strong>and</strong><br />
• interviews <strong>and</strong> surveys to determine an approximate monetary value <strong>for</strong> features<br />
of a given l<strong>and</strong>scape or a l<strong>and</strong>scape as a whole (Willis <strong>and</strong> Garrod 1993).<br />
2.1. Sampling <strong>and</strong> representation<br />
Despite the breadth of approaches adopted, the dominance of respondents who were<br />
local residents or visitors to upl<strong>and</strong> areas (compared to members of the wider public) is a<br />
weakness of the current evidence base <strong>and</strong> reflects a greater focus on the recreational use value<br />
of the upl<strong>and</strong>s over non-use cultural services Even within some of studies which have<br />
intentionally sought to include the views of the wider public, it is likely that the use of postal<br />
questionnaires has led to a degree of responder bias (as individuals that have an active interest<br />
in the environment or upl<strong>and</strong> areas are more likely to respond). As the majority of people making<br />
use of rural spaces are middle class <strong>and</strong> white (see literature review in Suckhall et al. 2009) the<br />
exclusion of non-direct users of the upl<strong>and</strong>s is likely to lead to the underrepresentation of the<br />
views of individuals from lower socio-economic groups <strong>and</strong> Black <strong>and</strong> Minority Ethnic groups<br />
(BME). In reality, individuals who do not actively engage with the upl<strong>and</strong> environment may value<br />
the non-use cultural services delivered by the upl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> will benefit from some of the other<br />
services delivered by the upl<strong>and</strong>s (e.g. water, food, the capacity of the upl<strong>and</strong>s to absorb<br />
carbon), <strong>and</strong> so their views should also be taken into account.<br />
2.2. Limitations of available evidence<br />
In their comprehensive evidence review on public attitude to environmental change,<br />
Upham et al. (2009) suggest that significant evidence already exists about why people value<br />
l<strong>and</strong>scapes <strong>and</strong> how to measure these values <strong>and</strong> perceptions. However, the review also notes<br />
that the number of studies on attitudes to ecosystem <strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scape change (focused on the<br />
future) which take into account the reasons behind people’s preferences <strong>and</strong> go beyond<br />
immediate responses is low: “The potential <strong>for</strong> further research is substantial, but the scope or<br />
terms of this will need careful definition if the intention is to in<strong>for</strong>m policy. Most notably... it is<br />
important not to simply ask the public abstract / in principle questions: context, contingencies,<br />
trade-offs <strong>and</strong> choices are all key but are rarely explored”. This assertion is supported by the<br />
findings from this review.<br />
As noted, most of the studies reviewed here asked respondents about the l<strong>and</strong>scape as<br />
opposed to specific ecosystem services <strong>and</strong> as a result, few of the studies reviewed here have<br />
engaged the public in considering how services which may not be as strongly associated with the<br />
6 Across Engl<strong>and</strong>, National Parks account <strong>for</strong> around 40% of the LFA as a whole. However 97% of the North York<br />
Moors, 72% of the South West Moors <strong>and</strong> 68% of the Lake District are designated National Parks.<br />
6
l<strong>and</strong>scape (e.g. food <strong>and</strong> production <strong>and</strong> GHG absorption) relate to the recreational <strong>and</strong> cultural<br />
services primarily associated with the upl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scape. In focus groups intended to in<strong>for</strong>m a<br />
survey on Environmental Stewardship (ES) it was noted that respondents did not recognise the<br />
impact that environmental management (<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scape change) may have on atmospheric<br />
greenhouse gases (FERA 2010); this highlights the need to provide respondents with more<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mation in order to gain an in<strong>for</strong>med response about their overall preferences <strong>for</strong> ecosystems.<br />
The more detailed discussion of findings below does demonstrate that some respondents are<br />
already likely to also consider the role of biodiversity in the context of discussions of l<strong>and</strong>scape<br />
(see Black, 2009 below), however, the broader factors which respondents are likely to consider in<br />
the absence of additional in<strong>for</strong>mation will reflect their own level of existing knowledge <strong>and</strong><br />
familiarity with upl<strong>and</strong> areas.<br />
Further to this, none of the studies reviewed explicitly distinguish between the recreational<br />
use services of the l<strong>and</strong>scape <strong>and</strong> the cultural non-use services (as proposed by the EFTEC<br />
report <strong>for</strong> Natural Engl<strong>and</strong> 2009). The qualitative evidence considered here <strong>and</strong> the fact that<br />
some of the studies reviewed found that some members of the public were willing to pay to<br />
maintain the upl<strong>and</strong>s despite never having visited them, clearly demonstrate that the upl<strong>and</strong>s do<br />
provide non-use cultural services. However, in the majority of instances, it was impossible to<br />
distinguish as to whether respondents were valuing the use or non-use cultural services<br />
delivered by the upl<strong>and</strong>s.<br />
The use of deliberative approaches, which in<strong>for</strong>m respondents sufficiently to allow them<br />
to consider trade-offs between the different services delivered by the upl<strong>and</strong>s could help to<br />
address both of these limitations. Such approaches are becoming increasingly relevant with<br />
increased use of ecosystem services approaches. In addition, deliberative approaches could be<br />
particularly useful <strong>for</strong> considering public views on potential trade-offs between expenditure on<br />
ecosystem services (e.g. through agricultural subsidies). The use of approaches which include<br />
the views of stakeholders, including members of the public, <strong>and</strong> take into account their own<br />
values <strong>and</strong> insight, can also have the benefit of leading to more desirable <strong>and</strong> sustained policy<br />
outcomes (<strong>Defra</strong> – <strong>for</strong>thcoming b).<br />
3. Factors influencing public interaction with upl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scapes<br />
Drawing on a review of existing evidence on how the public value agricultural l<strong>and</strong>scapes,<br />
Swannick et al. (2007) conclude that individuals’ perceptions of l<strong>and</strong>scape <strong>and</strong> the value they<br />
attach to it are likely to be influenced by:<br />
− age <strong>and</strong> socioeconomic status;<br />
− gender, although this has been relatively little explored;<br />
− cultural background <strong>and</strong> ethnic origin;<br />
− relationship with the l<strong>and</strong>scape in terms of status as residents/visitors or<br />
insiders/outsiders or urban/rural dwellers, with familiarity an important related factor;<br />
− use of the l<strong>and</strong>scape, <strong>for</strong> example differences between farmers, tourists <strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scape<br />
managers;<br />
− levels of educational attainment;<br />
− environmental value orientations which may or may not be correlated with another<br />
influential factor, membership of environmental organisations<br />
7
Age <strong>and</strong> socio-economic status are factors influencing the level of access to certain<br />
l<strong>and</strong>scapes. For example, individuals from lower occupational classes are less likely to make<br />
direct use of rural l<strong>and</strong>scapes <strong>and</strong> green spaces than individuals from occupational classes A-C. 7<br />
Suckall et al. (2009) also found that children from a ‘middle class’ school in Sheffield reacted<br />
more favourably to the Peak District National Park than a similar group of children from a school<br />
in a more working class region of the same city. Individuals from BME groups were also unlikely<br />
to favour the upl<strong>and</strong>s over other places (<strong>for</strong> example an urban shopping mall) - although no<br />
attempt was made to determine how ethnicity relates to preferences independent of social class.<br />
However individuals who had been part of an environmental outreach scheme to increase the<br />
participation of individuals from BME groups in the countryside had more positive perceptions of<br />
the Peak District than a control group. This suggests that <strong>for</strong>ms of intervention which increase<br />
members of the public’s awareness <strong>and</strong> direct experiences of natural l<strong>and</strong>scapes may also<br />
influence preferences. A <strong>for</strong>thcoming customer segmentation study commissioned by <strong>Defra</strong><br />
which grouped individuals by lifestyle, attitudes <strong>and</strong> values (as opposed to socio-demographic<br />
factors only) also found that upl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scapes were seen as challenging <strong>and</strong> unappealing by<br />
those in the segments ‘Good <strong>for</strong> the kids <strong>and</strong> me’ (young mothers), ‘Locally limited’ (lower<br />
income groups aged between 16-34) <strong>and</strong> ‘Reluctant <strong>and</strong> uninspired’ (aged between 34 <strong>and</strong> 54<br />
struggling with work, money <strong>and</strong> families) (<strong>Defra</strong> <strong>for</strong>thcoming c).<br />
SAC (2006) employed focus groups to explore public opinion on some of the more visible<br />
services delivered by the upl<strong>and</strong>s. Although these focus groups included both urban <strong>and</strong> rural<br />
participants, all participants had a reasonably high level of engagement with the upl<strong>and</strong>s – i.e.<br />
the urban participants, from Sheffield, regularly visited the upl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>for</strong> recreational purposes.<br />
Despite this, there were still some obvious differences in the way in which the rural <strong>and</strong> urban<br />
groups related to the upl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scape – <strong>for</strong> example the urban group were more likely to<br />
describe the l<strong>and</strong>scape using words such as ‘photogenic’ <strong>and</strong> ‘tranquil’ while those residing in<br />
upl<strong>and</strong> areas suggested more personal <strong>and</strong> arguably emotional adjectives such as ‘inspiring’,<br />
‘vulnerable’, <strong>and</strong> ‘gr<strong>and</strong>eur’. Likewise, Research Box et al. (2009) found that, although<br />
respondents did not always find moorl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scapes important (with some noting that they felt<br />
too exposed within such l<strong>and</strong>scapes), moorl<strong>and</strong> was particularly important <strong>for</strong> those living in<br />
proximity to it. For example, <strong>for</strong> respondents in Exmoor, moorl<strong>and</strong> was considered to contribute<br />
greatly to local identity.<br />
Moving beyond socio-demographic variables, Research box et al. note in their study that<br />
there are four categories of factors that can influence the way that people experience the<br />
l<strong>and</strong>scape: demographic factors (such as the above), situational factors (e.g. whether one<br />
interacts with the l<strong>and</strong>scape alone or in a group), awareness factors (e.g. degree of familiarity<br />
with the l<strong>and</strong>scape etc.) <strong>and</strong> preference factors (2009). Some of the studies reviewed here record<br />
the range of reasons why individuals engage with the Upl<strong>and</strong>s 8 . As the discussion on<br />
preferences <strong>and</strong> valuation (below) will show, the nature of respondents’ engagement with the<br />
upl<strong>and</strong>s impacts on both their preferences <strong>and</strong> willingness to pay <strong>for</strong> upl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scapes.<br />
In a comprehensive review of evidence on attitudes to environmental change, Upham et<br />
al. (2009) look specifically at 3 broad types of environmental change - climate change, changes<br />
in ecosystems <strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scapes <strong>and</strong> energy technologies <strong>and</strong> transfer. The report considers a<br />
wider cross-section of the public than many of the studies focused specifically on the upl<strong>and</strong>s<br />
<strong>and</strong> focuses on both broader environmental change <strong>and</strong> changes in l<strong>and</strong>scape. The report<br />
highlights some key general considerations about public attitudes which provide important<br />
7 Findings from Natural Engl<strong>and</strong>’s Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment 2009 –2010 survey<br />
http://naturalengl<strong>and</strong>.etraderstores.com/NaturalEngl<strong>and</strong>Shop/NECR049. Social-grade as used here is derived from the<br />
National Readership Study. Definitions from the grades are as follows: A =High managerial, administrative or<br />
professional; B = Intermediate managerial, administrative or professional; C1= Supervisory, clerical <strong>and</strong> junior<br />
managerial administrative or professional, C2 = Skilled manual workers, D = Semi <strong>and</strong> unskilled manual workers, E =<br />
State pensioners, casual or lowest grade workers, unemployed with state benefits only.<br />
8 As part of the study carried out by the Scottish Agricultural College on behalf of the Centre <strong>for</strong> Upl<strong>and</strong>s, respondents<br />
were asked about the activities they participate in when visiting the Upl<strong>and</strong>s. The three most common activities were<br />
walking, scenic driving <strong>and</strong> bird/wildlife watching respectively.<br />
8
context <strong>for</strong> how we interpret the public’s preferences (<strong>for</strong> example when the public express<br />
unqualified preferences as part of survey based studies). For example, it is likely that the public<br />
are less likely to be concerned about issues which they don’t anticipate will have a direct or<br />
immediate impact on them; respondents often rate climate change to be less of a concern than<br />
other factors (e.g. intensive agriculture) because the impacts of climate change are considered to<br />
be “further away” (p7). The fact that respondents may generally be positive about some <strong>for</strong>ms of<br />
change (e.g. wind energy) but opposed to their development in a place to which they are<br />
attached, is also highlighted.<br />
Summary section 3<br />
- Individuals’ attitudes <strong>and</strong> preferences <strong>for</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scape will depend on socio-demographic<br />
factors, the context in which they interact with the l<strong>and</strong>scape <strong>and</strong> also the nature of the<br />
research approach – e.g. whether questions are specifically related to l<strong>and</strong>scape or cover<br />
broader issues such as biodiversity preservation.<br />
- Focus groups demonstrate that proximity of residence to upl<strong>and</strong> areas, socio-economic<br />
factors <strong>and</strong> ethnicity are all likely to impact on individuals’ relationships with upl<strong>and</strong>s<br />
l<strong>and</strong>scapes <strong>and</strong> their preferences. Engagement strategies <strong>and</strong> the provision of additional<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mation may influence individual preferences.<br />
- People are more likely to be concerned about changes that will have an immediate or<br />
direct impact on them.<br />
4. The public’s experience of individual upl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scape features<br />
The Research Box report - “Experiencing L<strong>and</strong>scapes - capturing the cultural services<br />
<strong>and</strong> experiential qualities of l<strong>and</strong>scape” comprised a literature review <strong>and</strong> primary research using<br />
focus groups to explore the complex cultural <strong>and</strong> experiential services of various l<strong>and</strong>scapes<br />
(2009). As well as considering respondent’s attitudes to different l<strong>and</strong>scape types, the paper also<br />
considers how local residents relate specifically to their local Natural Character Area (NCA) 9 .<br />
Eight NCAs were selected including Exmoor (which was the only upl<strong>and</strong> NCA). This research is<br />
valuable in the context of this review as it provides some insight into the ways in which different<br />
members of the public relate to different l<strong>and</strong>scapes but also specifically explores some of the<br />
cultural <strong>and</strong> experiential benefits provided by key features associated with the upl<strong>and</strong>s (<strong>and</strong><br />
Exmoor particularly). However the authors acknowledge that the engagement of just local<br />
respondents in the research is a limitation <strong>and</strong> they imply that there is scope <strong>for</strong> further research<br />
involving those who are not direct users of services (but indirect beneficiaries).<br />
Hills were associated with recreation <strong>and</strong> generally found to be highly valued as<br />
l<strong>and</strong>scapes. Hills <strong>and</strong> mountains are strongly associated with escape, spiritual experiences <strong>and</strong><br />
inspiration (as are moors). Some of the other key features of upl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scapes explored<br />
included height, fields, walls <strong>and</strong> hedges, bogs <strong>and</strong> moorl<strong>and</strong>.<br />
- Height was considered integral to many l<strong>and</strong>scape experiences both <strong>for</strong> the exhilaration<br />
provided <strong>and</strong> the sense of putting things ‘in perspective’.<br />
- The contribution of field systems towards the look of the l<strong>and</strong> was considered worthy of<br />
protection. Fields were considered to deliver a sense of calm <strong>and</strong> tranquillity, as well as a<br />
sense of history <strong>and</strong> escapism. In general, fields were more important as part of “the<br />
whole view” than as something to interact with (due to lack of access) <strong>and</strong> respondents<br />
preferred irregular-shaped <strong>and</strong> small fields (as opposed to large fields with no<br />
boundaries).<br />
- The overall appeal of walls <strong>and</strong> hedges seems to derive from their association (along<br />
with farml<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> field-shapes) with a ‘quintessential’ English view. In this respect, walls<br />
9 Engl<strong>and</strong> has been divided into 159 NCAs each based on physiogeographic, l<strong>and</strong> use, historical <strong>and</strong> cultural<br />
attributes. See http://www.naturalengl<strong>and</strong>.org.uk/ourwork/l<strong>and</strong>scape/engl<strong>and</strong>s/character/areas/default.aspx<br />
9
were considered to contribute to a ‘pastoral’ scene. Specific hedges or walls were of<br />
interest in terms of nesting birds or lichen on the stonework, but also (especially with<br />
stone walls) of a sense that people had created them.<br />
- Bogs <strong>and</strong> marshes were considered to be important <strong>for</strong> birdwatchers <strong>and</strong> as a place to<br />
trap water <strong>and</strong> prevent flooding. A few people valued peat bogs <strong>for</strong> wider environmental<br />
reasons (e.g. as carbon sinks) but the mainstream generally felt that they did not deliver<br />
many cultural services on a widespread basis.<br />
- Moorl<strong>and</strong> was valued <strong>for</strong> its wildness <strong>and</strong> “bleakness” but moorl<strong>and</strong> areas were not<br />
always thought to be beautiful places by the majority of respondents. Generally, the<br />
sense of openness was considered to be the most important aspect of such l<strong>and</strong>scapes<br />
but heather, deer <strong>and</strong> rocky outcrops were features that contributed to the quality of the<br />
experience. Moorl<strong>and</strong> was perceived to deliver quite an intense experience, <strong>and</strong> could be<br />
seen as “inspiring” or “spiritual”, but was less likely to be “calming” or “historical”.<br />
Moorl<strong>and</strong>s were considered to be special l<strong>and</strong>scapes that were perceived to be truly wild<br />
with little perceived management.<br />
Although not a physical feature of the upl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scape, the sense of community <strong>and</strong><br />
the continuity of interaction between people <strong>and</strong> the environment over time was recorded as a<br />
highly valued feature of the upl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>for</strong> a small sample of local residents from three North<br />
Pennines villages (L<strong>and</strong> Use Consultants <strong>and</strong> University of Sheffield (1998), referenced in<br />
Swannick et al. (2007). This contributed to a strong sense of identity <strong>and</strong> of links with the past.<br />
This finding supports the suggestion made by Swannick et al. (2007) that, l<strong>and</strong>scape is an area<br />
of l<strong>and</strong> consisting of the physical, natural, social <strong>and</strong> cultural dimensions of the environment <strong>and</strong><br />
the interactions between them.<br />
Summary section 4<br />
- The public value features such as historical man-made features, dry stone walls <strong>and</strong><br />
irregularly shaped fields because they give a sense of people’s continued interaction with<br />
the l<strong>and</strong>scape <strong>and</strong> give the l<strong>and</strong>scape a ‘pastoral’ feel.<br />
- Moorl<strong>and</strong> is particularly important <strong>for</strong> those living in it <strong>and</strong> contributes a sense of local<br />
identity. It is also considered to have intense experiential qualities being described as<br />
inspiring <strong>and</strong> spiritual.<br />
5. <strong>Public</strong> underst<strong>and</strong>ing of the relationship between agriculture <strong>and</strong> upl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scape<br />
features<br />
Only one of the studies reviewed (SAC 2006) explicitly asked members of the public to<br />
consider the role of hill farming in delivering non-l<strong>and</strong>scape services. This research looked at the<br />
public’s appreciation of existing upl<strong>and</strong> features <strong>and</strong> their underst<strong>and</strong>ing of the relationship<br />
between agriculture <strong>and</strong> the l<strong>and</strong>scape. In general, respondents understood that a decrease in<br />
grazing would lead to an increase in scrub l<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> other vegetation <strong>and</strong> these changes were<br />
not always viewed negatively. A survey designed to in<strong>for</strong>m the focus groups in this study asked<br />
respondents to indicate their level of agreement with a number of statements about agriculture.<br />
The intention was to focus respondents’ attention on the role of agriculture <strong>and</strong> the potential<br />
policy trade-offs that could be made in managing the upl<strong>and</strong>s. Overall, respondents agreed that a<br />
reduction in agriculture would mean that the l<strong>and</strong>scape would become less attractive <strong>and</strong> that<br />
rural communities <strong>and</strong> rural economies would suffer. However, just under half of respondents<br />
agreed that the quality of lakes <strong>and</strong> rivers would improve or that conditions would become more<br />
favourable <strong>for</strong> wildlife <strong>and</strong> there seemed to be considerably more uncertainty over these two<br />
statements. The Research Box study found that in Exmoor, both positive <strong>and</strong> negative effects<br />
were expressed in relation to agriculture’s influence on the l<strong>and</strong>scape. Several older participants<br />
noted that farmers were responsible <strong>for</strong> creating the l<strong>and</strong>scape of Exmoor but there was wide<br />
agreement that some new agricultural enterprises brought changes, especially “elephant grass”<br />
10
(<strong>for</strong> biomass energy) <strong>and</strong> extensive plastic sheeting, which were thought to be alien features in<br />
the Exmoor l<strong>and</strong>scape (2006).<br />
Summary section 5<br />
- Members of the public had some degree of underst<strong>and</strong>ing of the relationship between<br />
agriculture <strong>and</strong> the l<strong>and</strong>scape but there was some uncertainty in the interactions between<br />
agriculture <strong>and</strong> the wider environment.<br />
6. <strong>Preferences</strong> <strong>for</strong> upl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scapes <strong>and</strong> services<br />
6.1. Overview of preferences from studies reviewed<br />
A number of the studies reviewed here specifically asked members of the public about<br />
their preferences in terms of upl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scape features <strong>and</strong> the results are summarised in Table<br />
1, below. It is difficult to compare results as different studies asked respondents to consider<br />
different attributes of the upl<strong>and</strong>s – with some considering l<strong>and</strong>scape only <strong>and</strong> others including<br />
biodiversity, socio-cultural factors <strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong> management. The variability is also likely to reflect<br />
sampling <strong>and</strong> the nature of the in<strong>for</strong>mation given to respondents during the interview/<br />
questionnaire process. Both broadleaved woodl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> moorl<strong>and</strong> were generally valued by<br />
members of the public; grassl<strong>and</strong> is likely to be less favoured than woodl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> moorl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong>,<br />
in studies considering whole l<strong>and</strong>scape change, respondents favoured situations where<br />
grassl<strong>and</strong> was marginally reduced or stayed the same (as opposed to situations where the<br />
proportion of grassl<strong>and</strong> increased). Despite this, within one study considering the public’s<br />
preferences in the context of whole l<strong>and</strong>scape change, nearly 50% of respondents favoured the<br />
existing l<strong>and</strong>scape over other types of l<strong>and</strong>scape.<br />
11
Table 1 Studies reviewed – summary of public preferences towards l<strong>and</strong>scapes<br />
Study <strong>Preferences</strong> Comments<br />
White P. C. L.<br />
<strong>and</strong> J. C. Lovett<br />
(Interview)<br />
(1999)<br />
White P. C. L.<br />
<strong>and</strong> J. C. Lovett<br />
(Questionnaire)<br />
(1999)<br />
Willis K.G <strong>and</strong><br />
G.D.Garrod<br />
(1991)<br />
Heather moorl<strong>and</strong><br />
Broadleaved woodl<strong>and</strong><br />
Traditional grazing pasture<br />
Broadleaved woodl<strong>and</strong><br />
Heather moorl<strong>and</strong><br />
Traditional grazing pasture<br />
Today’s l<strong>and</strong>scape:<br />
‘Conserved’ l<strong>and</strong>scape:<br />
Wild l<strong>and</strong>scape:<br />
‘Planned’ l<strong>and</strong>scape:<br />
Sporting:<br />
Ab<strong>and</strong>oned l<strong>and</strong>scape:<br />
Semi-intensive:<br />
Intensive:<br />
70%<br />
25%<br />
5%<br />
70%<br />
33%<br />
7%<br />
Residents<br />
50.2 %<br />
29.5%<br />
6.8%<br />
6.8%<br />
2.7%<br />
3.1%<br />
0.3%<br />
_<br />
Visitors<br />
47.2 %<br />
28.7%<br />
12.5%<br />
7.3%<br />
1%<br />
2.6%<br />
0.3%<br />
_<br />
Sample primarily based on visitors to the<br />
North York Moors approached in car parks<br />
where they were likely to stop to admire the<br />
view.<br />
Sample based on people residing near the<br />
North York Moors National Park <strong>and</strong> who had<br />
visited the park in the past. 66% of the<br />
sample visited the National Park <strong>for</strong> bird<br />
watching. Note published figures exceed<br />
100%.<br />
Respondents were asked <strong>for</strong> their<br />
preferences <strong>for</strong> management of a National<br />
Park <strong>and</strong> shown images which reflected the<br />
various management approaches. The<br />
‘conserved’ l<strong>and</strong>scape was an enhanced<br />
version of today’s l<strong>and</strong>scape with features<br />
such as broadleaved <strong>for</strong>est <strong>and</strong> dry stone<br />
walls accentuated.<br />
12
Black (2009) Rank† L<strong>and</strong>scape Biodiversity Combined Respondents were asked separately <strong>for</strong><br />
1<br />
An increase in An increase in An increase preferences as to l<strong>and</strong>scape <strong>and</strong> biodiversity.<br />
Woodl<strong>and</strong><br />
Blanket Bog in Blanket Once respondents were told how l<strong>and</strong>scape<br />
Bog<br />
changes would impact on biodiversity they<br />
2<br />
An increase in Status Quo<br />
were asked to rank their most favoured<br />
Blanket Bog<br />
Status Quo option based on both l<strong>and</strong>scape <strong>and</strong><br />
biodiversity combined.<br />
3<br />
Status Quo An increase in<br />
Grassl<strong>and</strong> An increase<br />
in Woodl<strong>and</strong><br />
Hanley et al<br />
(1998)<br />
4<br />
5<br />
Rank†<br />
1<br />
2<br />
3<br />
4<br />
5<br />
An increase in<br />
Heather Moor<br />
An increase in<br />
Grassl<strong>and</strong><br />
Woods<br />
Heather Moors<br />
Grassl<strong>and</strong><br />
Dry Stone Walls<br />
Archaeology<br />
An increase in<br />
Woodl<strong>and</strong><br />
An increase in<br />
Heather Moor<br />
An increase<br />
in Grassl<strong>and</strong><br />
An increase<br />
in Heather<br />
Moor<br />
Sample based on visitors to a specific<br />
Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) in<br />
Scotl<strong>and</strong>. (WtP figured are given in Table 4)<br />
13
Hanley et al<br />
(2007)<br />
The same study<br />
is also included in<br />
EFTEC (2006)<br />
“Economic<br />
Valuation of<br />
Environmental<br />
Impacts in the<br />
Severely<br />
Disadvantaged<br />
Areas” 10 .<br />
SAC <strong>for</strong> Centre<br />
<strong>for</strong> Upl<strong>and</strong>s<br />
(2005)<br />
Rank †<br />
1<br />
2<br />
3<br />
Rank†<br />
1<br />
2<br />
Environmental l<strong>and</strong>scape: (heather moorl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> bog<br />
+5%, rough grassl<strong>and</strong> -3%, mixed <strong>and</strong> broadleaved<br />
woodl<strong>and</strong> +6%, field boundaries +10%, cultural<br />
heritage – no change)<br />
Environment <strong>and</strong> agricultural l<strong>and</strong>scape: (heather<br />
moorl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> bog +3%, rough grassl<strong>and</strong> -1%, mixed<br />
<strong>and</strong> broadleaved woodl<strong>and</strong> +4%, field boundaries<br />
+6%, cultural heritage – no change)<br />
Intensive/ab<strong>and</strong>oned l<strong>and</strong>scape: (heather moorl<strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>and</strong> bog -2%, rough grassl<strong>and</strong> +1%, mixed <strong>and</strong><br />
broadleaved woodl<strong>and</strong> +5%, field boundaries +2%,<br />
cultural heritage – rapid decline)<br />
Upl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scape<br />
Community <strong>and</strong> culture<br />
Used Choice Experiment (focused on 5<br />
l<strong>and</strong>scape features) to determine implicit WtP<br />
<strong>for</strong> the impact on l<strong>and</strong>scape of three policy<br />
scenarios.<br />
Values here are given <strong>for</strong> the whole sample<br />
but there were some regional differences –<br />
e.g. the implicit prices of the cultural heritage<br />
attribute were<br />
very low in the North West region while they<br />
were quite high in the Yorkshire <strong>and</strong><br />
Humber region.<br />
Respondents were asked which of 3 upl<strong>and</strong><br />
‘attributes’ they favoured most. Details of the<br />
attributes are given in Table 3.<br />
3<br />
Farm management<br />
† 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<br />
asked to value individual l<strong>and</strong>scape components). Where this was the case, l<strong>and</strong>scape attributes are ranked in order of preference.<br />
10 http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/economics/foodfarm/reports/documents/SDA.pdf<br />
14
Hanley et al. (1998) employed a Choice Experiment 11 methodology to consider which<br />
features of the upl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scape were most valued. They found that respondents were willing to<br />
pay most to preserve woodl<strong>and</strong>, significantly less to preserve heather moorl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> grassl<strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>and</strong> least to preserve archaeology <strong>and</strong> dry stone walls. A second study by the same lead author<br />
(Hanley et al 2007) used respondents’ valuation of incremental changes in individual l<strong>and</strong>scape<br />
features to calculate overall WtP <strong>for</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scape change. However one likely weakness of this<br />
approach is that respondents do not have the opportunity to consider the interaction between<br />
individual l<strong>and</strong>scape features <strong>and</strong> the aesthetic value of the l<strong>and</strong>scape as a whole. A regression<br />
analysis employed in one study (Black 2009) indicates that l<strong>and</strong>scape provides more value to<br />
consumers than biodiversity. Both of these are public goods in that they are non-rival <strong>and</strong> nonexcludable,<br />
but l<strong>and</strong>scape is more accessible <strong>and</strong> recognisable than biodiversity. L<strong>and</strong>scapes<br />
can be observed <strong>and</strong> enjoyed aesthetically more easily than biodiversity.<br />
Willis <strong>and</strong> Garrod (1991) adopted a visual whole l<strong>and</strong>scape approach taking into account<br />
the impacts of different management practices on the l<strong>and</strong>scape as a whole. Using a CV<br />
approach, they found that respondents favoured l<strong>and</strong>scapes that are similar to ‘today’s’<br />
l<strong>and</strong>scape, or conserved l<strong>and</strong>scapes, where features such as hay meadows <strong>and</strong> broad-leaved<br />
<strong>for</strong>ests are enhanced <strong>and</strong> traditional buildings <strong>and</strong> dry-stone walls are well maintained. Intensive<br />
agricultural <strong>and</strong> semi-intensive agricultural l<strong>and</strong>scapes were the least favoured. These findings<br />
broadly reflect those of Hanley et al. (2007) who also considered l<strong>and</strong>scape change as a<br />
response to changes in l<strong>and</strong> management (although using a very different methodological<br />
approach <strong>and</strong> incorporating cultural change). A further study by Nick Hanley (not reviewed in<br />
detail here) focused on a small group of local residents in the Peak District National Park, also<br />
found that residents were willing to pay to preserve the current l<strong>and</strong>scape (<strong>and</strong> to prevent a move<br />
to a more intensively managed l<strong>and</strong>scape) 12 . This resistance to change is supported by findings<br />
on l<strong>and</strong>scapes more generally from the New Map of Engl<strong>and</strong> work in the south west. This<br />
research found that when offered a choice of future scenarios <strong>for</strong> the different l<strong>and</strong>scapes, there<br />
was an almost universal preference <strong>for</strong> alternatives which showed conservation, restoration, <strong>and</strong><br />
enhancement of the current l<strong>and</strong>scape (Swanwick, 2009 in Upham et al (2009: 52).<br />
Taking a somewhat broader approach which goes beyond l<strong>and</strong>scape alone <strong>and</strong> more<br />
explicitly incorporated biodiversity <strong>and</strong> social factors, the SAC study employed an Analytical<br />
Hierarchy Process (AHP) focused on three broad upl<strong>and</strong> attributes <strong>and</strong> their sub features. The 3<br />
broad attributes are described in table 3 below.<br />
When the attributes were broken down to their component parts, participants from both<br />
Manchester <strong>and</strong> Cumbria showed a very strong preference <strong>for</strong> wild plants, birds <strong>and</strong> mammals.<br />
The authors of the study also infer that with the exception of wildlife, respondents in Cumbria had<br />
stronger preferences <strong>for</strong> qualities associated with traditional farming <strong>and</strong> community culture than<br />
<strong>for</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scape whereas the Manchester sample showed no such preferences. These sample<br />
differences do not necessarily reflect urban/rural differences as both samples included individuals<br />
from urban <strong>and</strong> rural areas.<br />
11 Choice experiment (CE) is one of two common approaches used to determine non-market values based<br />
of the public’s stated preferences. CE approaches ask respondents to choose between different possible<br />
scenarios which have a number of attributes, including a price. A series of such choices allows the<br />
researchers to determine which attributes respondents favour most <strong>and</strong> how much they are willing to pay<br />
<strong>for</strong> them. The second approach, Contingent Valuation (CV) is discussed at length in section 7. CV surveys<br />
typically ask how much money people would be willing to pay (or willing to accept) to maintain the<br />
existence of (or be compensated <strong>for</strong> the loss of) a specific environmental feature. The approach can be<br />
open ended (where WtP is decided entirely by the respondent) or respondents can choose how much they<br />
are willing to pay from a series of paired values (dichotomous choice).<br />
12 http://old.moors<strong>for</strong>thefuture.org.uk/mftf/downloads/conferences/RELU_March_2010/Leaflet%204.%20Valuation.pdf<br />
15
Table 2 SAC research – Upl<strong>and</strong> characteristics<br />
Upl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scapes<br />
• Upl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scapes can be characterised as providing scenic views over the fells <strong>and</strong> moors.<br />
• The lower lying l<strong>and</strong>scape is characterised by traditional farm buildings <strong>and</strong> dry stone walls.<br />
• The less intensive <strong>for</strong>m of agriculture in upl<strong>and</strong> areas results in greater peace <strong>and</strong> tranquillity;<br />
• <strong>and</strong> offers greater opportunities <strong>for</strong> wild plants, birds <strong>and</strong> animals.<br />
Traditional farm management<br />
• Hill farming has not seen the large changes experienced by lowl<strong>and</strong> farming in recent decades,<br />
which has involved more intensive farming practices <strong>and</strong> specialisation.<br />
• Hill farms are typically small family farms, with close links to the local community.<br />
• This <strong>for</strong>m of farming involves a number of traditional skills such as shepherding, maintaining dry<br />
stone walls, <strong>and</strong> common l<strong>and</strong> management.<br />
Community culture<br />
• Local communities are closely linked with hill farming through activities such as local shows <strong>and</strong><br />
other community activities resulting in a strong local culture.<br />
• These close links also mean that there are strong social networks within upl<strong>and</strong> communities.<br />
6.2. Impact of sampling <strong>and</strong> responder characteristics on preferences<br />
One important factor - influencing both willingness to pay <strong>and</strong> preferences - which may<br />
merit further consideration here is the characteristics of respondents (potentially influenced by<br />
the sampling frame). It is likely that respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics, including<br />
interests <strong>and</strong> their primary reason <strong>for</strong> interaction with the l<strong>and</strong>scape, will have an impact on the<br />
overall results as to both l<strong>and</strong>scape preference <strong>and</strong> valuation. For example White <strong>and</strong> Lovett<br />
(1999) carried out both a postal survey <strong>and</strong> interviews with visitors to the North York Moors<br />
National Park. The main reasons given <strong>for</strong> visiting the National Park within the interview survey<br />
were walking <strong>and</strong> the views whereas within the postal survey bird watching was the main reason<br />
given (by 67%). There were also differences in the preferred l<strong>and</strong>scape. Of the interview<br />
respondents 70% preferred heather moorl<strong>and</strong> over broadleaved woodl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> traditional grazing<br />
pasture. In contrast, 70% of postal survey respondents preferred broad leaved <strong>for</strong>est over<br />
heather moorl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> grazing l<strong>and</strong>.<br />
The authors attribute the difference in preferences between those interviewed <strong>and</strong> those<br />
returning a postal survey to the fact that the majority of interviews were conducted in a car park<br />
near a major road where people were likely to stop to admire the view of the moor. Respondents<br />
who had stopped in the car park were more likely to favour the l<strong>and</strong>scape which offered most<br />
recreational value; in contrast, <strong>for</strong> survey respondents rating broadleaved woodl<strong>and</strong> as the most<br />
important l<strong>and</strong>scape feature, the perceived degree of threat was the single most important factor.<br />
Similarly, Black (2009) found that over half of the respondents to a questionnaire<br />
distributed within the North Pennines National Park were members of environmental<br />
organisations. The author notes that environmental organisation members scored significantly<br />
higher than non-members in a knowledge quiz on wildlife <strong>and</strong> conservation, <strong>and</strong> were<br />
significantly more likely to pay <strong>for</strong> desired environmental outcomes. Those with higher quiz<br />
scores <strong>and</strong> environmental awareness were more likely to choose increased blanket bog or tree<br />
16
cover over the current l<strong>and</strong>scape which may explain the overall preference in the sample <strong>for</strong> an<br />
increase in blanket bog <strong>and</strong> associated increase in important birds <strong>and</strong> mammals 13 . These<br />
examples also highlight that the degree to which respondents value the l<strong>and</strong>scape <strong>for</strong> cultural<br />
services such as recreation is closely linked to respondents’ awareness of <strong>and</strong> views on the other<br />
services delivered by the upl<strong>and</strong>s. In the absence of the provision of additional in<strong>for</strong>mation to all<br />
respondents, the latter will depend on their respondent’s existing level of knowledge; the<br />
demographic implications of this are evident from Hanley et al.’s unsurprising finding that<br />
individuals educated to higher levels had greater environmental awareness (2007). The fact that<br />
respondents take factors such as biodiversity into account when thinking about their overall<br />
preferences <strong>for</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scape also highlights the difficulty of disaggregating preferences <strong>for</strong> the<br />
cultural services from preferences <strong>for</strong> the upl<strong>and</strong>s as a whole. This reflects some of the<br />
challenges associated with the ecosystems approach highlighted in the introduction to this<br />
review.<br />
Based on a robust sample covering 5 English regions, Hanley et al (2007) found that WtP<br />
<strong>for</strong> upl<strong>and</strong> features such as moorl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scapes also varied spatially. Possible reasons <strong>for</strong> this<br />
heterogeneity include differences in regional cultures, in incomes, <strong>and</strong> in the relative scarcity of<br />
l<strong>and</strong>scape features (as marginal WtP is expected to depend on the current abundance of a given<br />
l<strong>and</strong>scape feature within a given area). In addition, the underlying reasons <strong>for</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scape<br />
preferences also vary between regions. For example, income has a significant relationship with<br />
WtP <strong>for</strong> upl<strong>and</strong> features in both Yorkshire <strong>and</strong> Humber <strong>and</strong> the South East, but this relationship is<br />
positive in Yorkshire <strong>and</strong> Humber (with individuals with a higher income being more likely to want<br />
to pay <strong>for</strong> <strong>Public</strong> goods associated with the upl<strong>and</strong>s) <strong>and</strong> negative in the South East. Based on<br />
regional differences in preference, the authors raise the potential policy implication that payments<br />
to farmers should differ by region (to reflect the value of the public goods they deliver). For<br />
example, based on the findings from this study, payments <strong>for</strong> heather moorl<strong>and</strong> conservation<br />
would be highest in the West Midl<strong>and</strong>s, lowest in the North West <strong>and</strong> zero in Yorkshire <strong>and</strong><br />
Humberside. However, the authors acknowledge the obvious practical <strong>and</strong> political implication of<br />
this.<br />
Only a minority of the studies explicitly looked at the impact of in<strong>for</strong>ming the public about<br />
the link between management practices <strong>and</strong> impacts on the l<strong>and</strong>scape. Black (2009) tried to<br />
take into account the impact of giving respondents additional in<strong>for</strong>mation about the management<br />
practices (with particular reference to managing grouse moors <strong>for</strong> shooting) <strong>and</strong> found that<br />
having additional in<strong>for</strong>mation did not appear to impact on how much respondents were willing to<br />
pay <strong>for</strong> preferred l<strong>and</strong>scapes. However, it is possible that having in<strong>for</strong>mation about management<br />
practices impacted negatively on the amount that respondents were willing to pay <strong>for</strong> specific<br />
features, e.g. heather moorl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> grassl<strong>and</strong>.<br />
6.3. Role of preference strength<br />
A final point that should be emphasised (<strong>and</strong> which can be addressed to an extent using<br />
economic valuation techniques) is that it is important to take into account the strength of<br />
individuals’ preferences as well as the preferences themselves. For example, although only a<br />
minority of respondents in Willis <strong>and</strong> Garrod’s sample favoured ab<strong>and</strong>oned, conserved or<br />
sporting l<strong>and</strong>scapes, those respondents who did prefer these l<strong>and</strong>scapes were, on average,<br />
willing to pay more <strong>for</strong> them than those who favoured today’s l<strong>and</strong>scape were willing to pay to<br />
maintain the status quo (1993). To an extent, strength of individuals’ preferences could be<br />
explored further by considering samples of individuals who have a more specialist engagement<br />
with the upl<strong>and</strong>s – e.g. those who use the upl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scape <strong>for</strong> specialist activities such as<br />
climbing or field sports. This was done by Grijalva et al. (2002) <strong>for</strong> National Parks in the United<br />
States but no comparable study <strong>for</strong> the UK was identified in the searches conducted <strong>for</strong> this<br />
literature review.<br />
13 Although it’s also likely that people favoured an increase in mammals <strong>and</strong> birds associated with an<br />
increase blanket bog because these species are likely to be more emblematic than plants <strong>and</strong> insects. A<br />
number of studies have shown that the public are more likely to pay to preserve more emblematic species.<br />
17
Summary section 6<br />
- A cautious interpretation of the evidence suggests that broadleaved woodl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />
heather moorl<strong>and</strong> are valued features of upl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scapes <strong>and</strong> that managed grassl<strong>and</strong><br />
is generally less favoured. However, when asked about the l<strong>and</strong>scape as a whole,<br />
respondents favour the maintenance of a l<strong>and</strong>scape similar to today’s or with some<br />
features such as broadleaved <strong>for</strong>est <strong>and</strong> field boundaries enhanced.<br />
- The results of studies intended to determine public preferences (<strong>and</strong> the value which the<br />
public place on the upl<strong>and</strong>s) are highly dependent on the nature of the population<br />
sampled, the nature of their engagement with the l<strong>and</strong>scape <strong>and</strong> their existing level of<br />
knowledge.<br />
- <strong>Preferences</strong> <strong>for</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scape also varied regionally <strong>and</strong> this is likely to reflect the current<br />
characteristics of different upl<strong>and</strong> areas <strong>and</strong> the socio-demographic characteristics of the<br />
population living in the region of different upl<strong>and</strong> areas.<br />
- It is important to consider the strength of individuals’ preferences as well as the<br />
preferences themselves.<br />
7. Valuation of upl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scapes<br />
7.1. Overview of Willingness to Pay (WtP) values from reviewed studies<br />
As with table 2, all of the studies summarised in the table below specifically consider the<br />
public’s perceptions of the upl<strong>and</strong>s, however other studies which provide broader contextual<br />
findings on the UK public’s willingness to pay <strong>for</strong> cultural <strong>and</strong> other services which are linked to<br />
agriculture (see FERA et al 2010 on WtP <strong>for</strong> agri-environment schemes) are referenced as<br />
context. In terms of the economic valuation of the upl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scape there was some variation<br />
between the different studies. Willingness to Pay (WtP) values ranged from £119.05 per<br />
household/year to maintain all 11 National Parks to £3.10 to maintain just one estate within the<br />
North York Moors National Park. An overview of the WtP values derived by the various studies is<br />
given in Table 3. The majority of values are based on Contingent Valuation (CV), with the<br />
exception of Hanley et al. (1998)’s third recorded approach <strong>and</strong> Hanley et al. (2007) which<br />
employed a Choice Experiment methodology. Mean figures <strong>for</strong> the maintenance (or<br />
enhancement) of single National Parks, ESA (in Scotl<strong>and</strong>) or SDA areas ranged between<br />
£5.65/household/annum <strong>and</strong> £73/annum. Based on available evidence it seems that residents<br />
are willing to pay marginally more than the general public but even people who had never visited<br />
the specified area were willing to pay something <strong>for</strong> its maintenance (Hanley et al. 1998). This is<br />
reflected in the fact that 76% of a large, national r<strong>and</strong>om sample of respondents were willing to<br />
pay <strong>for</strong> environmental stewardship schemes <strong>for</strong> all of Engl<strong>and</strong> (WtP = £26.09/household/year)<br />
(FERA et al 2010).<br />
Differences in valuation are likely to arise as a result of a number of factors including the<br />
study methodology <strong>and</strong> the mechanism by which the hypothetical payment would be delivered.<br />
All but two of the studies employed CV methods, some used an open ended approach <strong>and</strong><br />
others dichotomous choice which is more likely to lead respondents to give higher values). The<br />
use of a postal survey versus interviews <strong>for</strong> data collection <strong>and</strong> the level of background<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mation given to respondents can further influence responses. However, Hanley et al. (2007)<br />
identified distinct regional differences in WtP despite consistent methodology across the sample.<br />
WtP <strong>for</strong> the preferred scenario ranged from £6.33 to £26.92 across the 5 English regions<br />
surveyed as part of this study.<br />
18
Table 3 Economic valuation studies<br />
Study Location/WtP <strong>for</strong><br />
what<br />
White P.<br />
C. L. <strong>and</strong><br />
J. C.<br />
Lovett<br />
(1999)<br />
White P.<br />
C. L. <strong>and</strong><br />
J. C.<br />
Lovett<br />
(1999)<br />
Willis K.G<br />
<strong>and</strong><br />
G.D.Garr<br />
od<br />
(1993)<br />
Management of all 11<br />
National Parks <strong>for</strong><br />
Nature Conservation<br />
Management of<br />
Levisham Estate in the<br />
North York Moors<br />
National Park<br />
Sample Methodology Payment<br />
mechanism<br />
344 visitors to key<br />
tourist sites within the<br />
North York Dales<br />
National Park<br />
500 residents of area<br />
near National Park<br />
boundary<br />
(206 responses)<br />
Yorkshire Dales 300 residents from 4<br />
Parishes in North<br />
Yorkshire.<br />
300 visitors at car<br />
parks within the<br />
National Park<br />
Face to face interview,<br />
dichotomous choice<br />
(from 50p - £200)<br />
Postal questionnaire<br />
with short intro <strong>and</strong><br />
dichotomous choice<br />
questions (10p - £20)<br />
Face to face interviews<br />
with questions asked<br />
about l<strong>and</strong>scape<br />
preferences as well as<br />
WtP/household/year to<br />
preserve the Yorkshire<br />
Dales l<strong>and</strong>scape<br />
Open ended questions<br />
<strong>for</strong> CV<br />
Respondents<br />
asked to state<br />
preferences –<br />
53% preferred<br />
visitor fees, 25%<br />
national tax,<br />
17% said<br />
donations, 5%<br />
said local<br />
taxation<br />
Percentage of<br />
sample willing<br />
to pay (in<br />
principle)<br />
WtP<br />
82% £119.05/individual/year<br />
An annual tax 46·3% £3.10<br />
Not specified Not stated WtP to preserve preferred<br />
l<strong>and</strong>scape –<br />
Residents - £25,<br />
Visitors - £27<br />
WtP to preserve today’s<br />
l<strong>and</strong>scape £24 (<strong>for</strong> both<br />
visitors <strong>and</strong> residents)<br />
19
Black<br />
(2009)<br />
Hanley et<br />
al.<br />
(1998)<br />
Hanley et<br />
al.<br />
(1998)<br />
The North Pennines<br />
Area of Outst<strong>and</strong>ing<br />
Natural Beauty<br />
Breadalbane ESA<br />
Highl<strong>and</strong> Perthshire<br />
Breadalbane ESA<br />
Highl<strong>and</strong> Perthshire<br />
376 visitors to North<br />
Pennines AONB.<br />
427 respondents-<br />
40% of sample based<br />
on mail shot (to<br />
general public). 60% of<br />
sample based on face<br />
to face interviews with<br />
residents <strong>and</strong> visitors<br />
325 mailed public<br />
249 interviewed public<br />
235 interviewed<br />
visitors<br />
Face to face<br />
interviews.<br />
Background<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mation provided.<br />
Open ended questions<br />
<strong>for</strong> CV<br />
Contingent Valuation<br />
Open ended questions<br />
Contingent Valuation<br />
Dichotomous choice<br />
Annual donation<br />
<strong>for</strong> the next 5<br />
years<br />
Increase to<br />
income tax<br />
Increase to<br />
income tax<br />
Not stated £10.52 per household/year<br />
to preserve preferred<br />
l<strong>and</strong>scape (an increase in<br />
blanket bog <strong>and</strong> associated<br />
increase in rare birds <strong>and</strong><br />
mammals)<br />
£4.22 to prevent least<br />
preferred outcome<br />
Not stated £31.43 (residents)<br />
General public -<br />
56%<br />
Local residents -<br />
67%<br />
£22.02 (visitors) (per<br />
person/year)<br />
General <strong>Public</strong> (postal<br />
questionnaire) -<br />
£42/person/year.<br />
General <strong>Public</strong> interview -<br />
£57/person/year<br />
Visitors (interview)<br />
£73/person/year<br />
(Unable to calculate <strong>for</strong><br />
residents as survey design<br />
failed)<br />
20
Hanley et<br />
al.<br />
(1998)<br />
Hanley et<br />
al. (2007)<br />
Breadalbane ESA<br />
Highl<strong>and</strong> Perthshire<br />
Respondents from the<br />
4 Government office<br />
regions of the North<br />
West, Yorkshire <strong>and</strong><br />
the Humber, the West<br />
Midl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> the<br />
South West were<br />
asked about<br />
preferences <strong>for</strong> LFA<br />
areas in the GOR in<br />
which they reside.<br />
Respondents from the<br />
South East GOR were<br />
asked about LFAs in<br />
all Engl<strong>and</strong>.<br />
Results from CE were<br />
used to determine WtP<br />
<strong>for</strong> 3 policy scenarios.<br />
256 individuals<br />
interviewed in ESA<br />
area.<br />
300 respondents in<br />
each GOR region<br />
(total 1500<br />
respondents)<br />
Samples chosen<br />
according to quotas <strong>for</strong><br />
age, gender, socioeconomic<br />
group <strong>and</strong><br />
also whether<br />
respondents resided in<br />
an urban or rural area.<br />
Face-to-face, door-todoor<br />
interviews.<br />
Choice Experiment Not specified<br />
(likely tax)<br />
Choice Experiment Local or national<br />
taxation<br />
Not stated Woods – £50.46<br />
Archaeology - £6.65<br />
Heather Moors - £22.95<br />
Wet Grassl<strong>and</strong> - £20.85<br />
Dry Stone Walls £11.30<br />
Not stated To preserve environmental/<br />
agricultural l<strong>and</strong>scape (see<br />
description above):<br />
From £5.63/household/<br />
year in the North West to<br />
£25.56 in Yorkshire<br />
<strong>and</strong> Humberside.<br />
To preserve environmental<br />
l<strong>and</strong>scape (see description<br />
above):<br />
From £6.33 in the North<br />
West to £26.92 in Yorkshire<br />
<strong>and</strong> Humberside.<br />
21
SAC <strong>for</strong><br />
Centre<br />
<strong>for</strong><br />
Upl<strong>and</strong>s<br />
(2005)<br />
Heyes<br />
<strong>and</strong><br />
Heyes<br />
(1999)<br />
<strong>Public</strong> benefits of<br />
upl<strong>and</strong> areas.<br />
Preservation of<br />
Dartmoor National<br />
Park<br />
2000 questionnaire<br />
posted to r<strong>and</strong>om<br />
sample of households<br />
in Cumbria <strong>and</strong><br />
Manchester. 136<br />
questionnaire s<br />
returned from Cumbria<br />
<strong>and</strong> 54 from<br />
Manchester<br />
980 surveys<br />
completed with visitors<br />
to Dartmoor National<br />
Park<br />
Contingent Valuation<br />
Dichotomous choice<br />
Contingent Valuation<br />
Open ended<br />
Taxation Not stated £47/household/year<br />
Entry fee to<br />
Dartmoor<br />
National Park<br />
74% £2/individual to enter the<br />
park based on median WtP.<br />
22
7.2. Limitations of Contingent Valuations studies<br />
As noted above, the high level of variation in results from the different studies is likely to arise as<br />
a result of the range of methodology employed as well as the nature of respondents. However, it<br />
is also possible that many of the WtP values given are reasonably conservative estimates. One<br />
likely reason <strong>for</strong> this being that respondents exercise ‘protest bids’ which reflect an unwillingness<br />
to pay <strong>for</strong> a good that they feel they have a right to benefit from (<strong>and</strong> so their WtP does not reflect<br />
the true value which they derive from the goods or service). The effect of protest bids may be<br />
particularly evident in studies where payment <strong>for</strong> entry into a park/area is the proposed payment<br />
mechanism (Heyes <strong>and</strong> Heyes 1999). Although some of the studies took care to minimise<br />
protest bids (e.g. by asking respondents to explain why they were/were not willing to pay or why<br />
they were willing to pay a certain value) it may be difficult to completely eliminate the impact of<br />
this kind of bias. Heyes <strong>and</strong> Heyes (1999) carried out a study where they asked respondents<br />
both <strong>for</strong> their WtP to visit Dartmoor National Park <strong>and</strong> their ‘willingness to travel’ (WtT); the<br />
distance individuals were willing to travel were then converted into monetary values. Although it<br />
is difficult to accurately calculate WtT costs (given the difficult of incorporating opportunity costs)<br />
WtT values calculated by the authors using three different methodological approaches were all<br />
greater than the WtP values <strong>for</strong> the same sample (with the lowest WtT value based only on<br />
transport costs <strong>and</strong> not incorporating opportunity costs at all).<br />
Summary section 7<br />
- Mean figures <strong>for</strong> the maintenance (or enhancement) of single national parks/SDA/ESA<br />
areas ranged between £5.65/household/year <strong>and</strong> £73/person/year. This is likely to reflect<br />
the methodology employed but variability in WtP across regions (despite consistent<br />
methodology) implies that both demographic factors <strong>and</strong> current composition of different<br />
upl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scapes influence WtP.<br />
- Where stated between 46% <strong>and</strong> 82% of respondents were willing to pay in principle to<br />
protect upl<strong>and</strong>s National Parks<br />
- The majority of samples consisted of local residents <strong>and</strong> visitors to National Parks <strong>and</strong> so<br />
the results are likely to be biased. Where r<strong>and</strong>om members of the public have been sent<br />
postal questionnaires it is also likely that a responder bias was introduced (with<br />
individuals that have an existing interest being more likely to respond).<br />
8. Conclusions <strong>and</strong> further research<br />
This review summarises relevant evidence about the public’s attitude towards <strong>and</strong><br />
preferences <strong>for</strong> the upl<strong>and</strong>s. Although not a full systematic review, the evidence suggests that<br />
a proportion of the public value <strong>and</strong> would in principle be willing to pay to maintain the<br />
l<strong>and</strong>scape value of the upl<strong>and</strong>s.<br />
Key conclusions from the review:<br />
- Upl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scapes have intense experiential qualities <strong>and</strong> can contribute to a sense of<br />
heritage (historic man-made features contribute to cultural value) <strong>and</strong> identity (especially<br />
the moorl<strong>and</strong> context <strong>for</strong> residents) but underst<strong>and</strong>ing individual preferences is complex.<br />
- Studies suggest broadleaved woodl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> heather moorl<strong>and</strong> are valued features of the<br />
upl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scape, while an increase is grassl<strong>and</strong> is often viewed negatively. When asked<br />
about the l<strong>and</strong>scape as a whole, a significant proportion of respondents favour the<br />
maintenance of a l<strong>and</strong>scape similar to today’s l<strong>and</strong>scape with some features, such as<br />
broadleaved woodl<strong>and</strong> enhanced.<br />
- Between 46% <strong>and</strong> 82% of respondents were willing to pay in principle to protect upl<strong>and</strong>s<br />
National Parks. The number of respondents willing to pay is likely to reflect the sample<br />
23
used but the evidence suggests that the proposed payment mechanism could also impact<br />
on whether individuals are willing to pay in principle or not.<br />
- Mean figures <strong>for</strong> respondents’ WtP <strong>for</strong> the maintenance (or enhancement) of single<br />
national parks/ESA areas varied significantly. This, in part, is likely to reflect variation in<br />
the methodologies employed in the reviewed studies <strong>and</strong> as a consequence, studies are<br />
not always readily comparable or transferable to represent conclusive public views on<br />
upl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scapes <strong>and</strong> preferences. Despite this, the distinct regional variation identified<br />
within one study suggests that both demographic factors <strong>and</strong> the existing composition of<br />
specific upl<strong>and</strong> areas (e.g. abundance of l<strong>and</strong>scape features) may also influence WtP.<br />
Depth of evidence <strong>and</strong> implications <strong>for</strong> future work:<br />
- Within the work reviewed, considerably less attention is given to the views of the ‘general<br />
public’ (indirect beneficiaries who also contribute to agricultural support in the upl<strong>and</strong>s)<br />
than is given to the views of upl<strong>and</strong> residents <strong>and</strong> visitors (direct beneficiaries). As there<br />
is evidence that responses to <strong>and</strong> likely preferences <strong>for</strong> Upl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scapes will vary by<br />
demographic factors (such occupational class, ethnicity, proximity of residence to<br />
Upl<strong>and</strong>s etc.) care should be taken when interpreting <strong>and</strong> applying the results of<br />
individual studies.<br />
- The majority of studies focus on the public’s attitude to upl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scape only <strong>and</strong> do not<br />
consider whether a better underst<strong>and</strong>ing of the interaction between l<strong>and</strong>scape <strong>and</strong> other<br />
services delivered by the upl<strong>and</strong>s (e.g. water/food production) influence the public’s<br />
preferences.<br />
- A critical gap is that there was a limited amount of evidence on preferences <strong>for</strong> a future<br />
upl<strong>and</strong>s l<strong>and</strong>scape that took into account the broader range of services that could<br />
potentially be delivered by the Upl<strong>and</strong>s. The use of deliberative approaches that consider<br />
in more detail how the public perceive the interaction between the different services<br />
delivered by the upl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> how these influence l<strong>and</strong>scape preferences could enable a<br />
deeper underst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>for</strong> policy. This could explore, <strong>for</strong> example, the impact of<br />
alternative payment mechanisms on the public’s willingness to pay <strong>for</strong> various goods <strong>and</strong><br />
services associated with upl<strong>and</strong>s l<strong>and</strong>scapes.<br />
This literature review is limited to evidence identified through a simple non-systematic search <strong>and</strong><br />
does not encompass any additional analysis. Subject to feedback on this discussion paper there<br />
may be scope to extend the review to:<br />
- Consider more studies on specialist <strong>and</strong> non-l<strong>and</strong>scape uses of the upl<strong>and</strong>s. For example<br />
Upham et al’s study on the generation of bio-energy in the upl<strong>and</strong>s (2003) <strong>and</strong> studies on<br />
specialist recreational use of the l<strong>and</strong>scape <strong>and</strong> the value of the l<strong>and</strong>scape to specialist<br />
users (e.g. Grijalva et al. 2002).<br />
- Provide a systematic review of Contingent Valuation studies focused on upl<strong>and</strong> areas <strong>and</strong><br />
more rigorously compare methods <strong>and</strong> findings to give a better indication of what different<br />
members of the public are willing to pay to preserve the upl<strong>and</strong>s.<br />
- To explore in more detail the impact of proposed payment mechanisms on the public’s<br />
willingness to pay <strong>for</strong> various goods.<br />
- Determine the relative benefits of applying an ecosystems approach to underst<strong>and</strong>ing the<br />
value which the public derive from the upl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> identify methodological approaches<br />
that will help overcome the limitations associated with such approaches.<br />
24
9. Overview of referenced studies (in chronological order)<br />
Authors Title Date Source Comments<br />
FERA; Newcastle<br />
University <strong>and</strong> CCRI.<br />
Agricultural Change<br />
<strong>and</strong> Environment<br />
Observatory<br />
Estimating the wildlife <strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scape<br />
benefits of environmental stewardship<br />
<strong>Public</strong> attitudes to agriculture, the<br />
farmed l<strong>and</strong>scape <strong>and</strong> natural<br />
environment<br />
EFTEC Economic Valuation of Upl<strong>and</strong><br />
Ecosystem services<br />
Black, J Conservation Values of the North<br />
Pennines<br />
The Research Box<br />
with L<strong>and</strong> Use<br />
Consultants & Rick<br />
Minter,<br />
Suckall, N. Fraser,<br />
E.D.G. Cooper, T <strong>and</strong><br />
Quinn, C.<br />
Upham, P.,<br />
Whitmarsh, L.,<br />
Poortinga, W.,<br />
Purdam, K., Darnton,<br />
A., McLachlan, C.,<br />
Devine-Wright, P.,<br />
Experiencing L<strong>and</strong>scapes:<br />
capturing the cultural services<br />
<strong>and</strong> experiential qualities of<br />
l<strong>and</strong>scape<br />
Visitor perceptions of rural l<strong>and</strong>scapes:<br />
A case study in the Peak District<br />
National Park, Engl<strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>Public</strong> <strong>Attitudes</strong> to Environmental<br />
Change: a selective review of theory<br />
<strong>and</strong> practice<br />
2010 Commissioned by <strong>Defra</strong><br />
http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/economics/foodfarm/rep<br />
orts/documents/estimatingthewildlife.pdf<br />
Primary<br />
research<br />
general<br />
2010 <strong>Defra</strong> Literature<br />
review –<br />
agriculture<br />
2009 Natural Engl<strong>and</strong> Commissioned Report NECR029 Framework<br />
<strong>for</strong> valuing<br />
Ecosystem<br />
2009 Unpublished PhD Thesis<br />
http://www.iccs.org.uk/thesis/phd-black,julie09<br />
services<br />
Primary<br />
research<br />
upl<strong>and</strong>s<br />
2009 Natural Engl<strong>and</strong> Commissioned Report NECR024 Literature<br />
review<br />
Primary<br />
research on<br />
l<strong>and</strong>scape<br />
2009 Journal of Environmental Management 90: 1195-1203 Primary<br />
research<br />
upl<strong>and</strong>s<br />
2009 Living With Environmental Change Literature<br />
review on<br />
environment<br />
25
Swannick, C Hanley, N<br />
<strong>and</strong> Termansen, M<br />
Hanley, N., Colombo,<br />
N., Mason, P., <strong>and</strong><br />
Johns, H.<br />
The same study is also<br />
included in EFTEC<br />
(2006) “Economic<br />
Valuation of<br />
Environmental Impacts<br />
in the Severely<br />
Disadvantaged<br />
Areas” 14 .<br />
Dougill, AJ., Fraser,<br />
EDG., Holden, J.,<br />
Hubacek, K., Prell, C.,<br />
Reed, MS., Stagl, S.,<br />
Stringer, LC.<br />
Scottish Agricultural<br />
College<br />
Scoping study on agricultural l<strong>and</strong>scape<br />
valuation<br />
The Re<strong>for</strong>m of Support Mechanisms<br />
<strong>for</strong> Upl<strong>and</strong> Farming: Paying <strong>for</strong> <strong>Public</strong><br />
Goods in the Severely Disadvantaged<br />
Areas of Engl<strong>and</strong><br />
Learning from Doing Participatory Rural<br />
Research: Lessons from the Peak<br />
District National Park<br />
Measuring public preferences <strong>for</strong> the<br />
upl<strong>and</strong>s<br />
Harvey, D.R Agri-Environmental Relationships &<br />
Multi-functionality: Further<br />
Considerations<br />
14 http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/economics/foodfarm/reports/documents/SDA.pdf<br />
2007 <strong>Defra</strong> Literature<br />
review <strong>and</strong><br />
guidance on<br />
valuing<br />
agricultural<br />
l<strong>and</strong>scapes<br />
2007 Journal of Agricultural Economics 58: 433–453 Primary<br />
research<br />
upl<strong>and</strong>s<br />
2006 Journal of Agricultural Economics 57: 259-275 Primary<br />
research with<br />
key<br />
stakeholders<br />
(not members<br />
2005 Commissioned by the Centre <strong>for</strong> Upl<strong>and</strong>s<br />
http://www.theupl<strong>and</strong>centre.org.uk/pubs.htm<br />
of the public)<br />
Primary<br />
research -<br />
upl<strong>and</strong>s<br />
2003 The World Economy, 26: 705 – 725 Theoretical<br />
consideration<br />
of agricultural<br />
support<br />
26
Grijalva T.C., Berrens,<br />
R. P., Bohara, A. K.<br />
<strong>and</strong> others<br />
Valuing the loss of rock climbing access<br />
in wilderness areas: A national-level,<br />
r<strong>and</strong>om-utility model<br />
Hodge, I Agri-environmental Relationships <strong>and</strong><br />
the Choice of Policy Mechanism<br />
White, P. C. L. <strong>and</strong> J.<br />
C. Lovett<br />
Heyes, C <strong>and</strong> A.<br />
Heyes<br />
Hanley, N. MacMillan,<br />
D. Wright, R.E.,<br />
Bullock, C., Simpson,<br />
I., Parsissons, D., <strong>and</strong><br />
Crabtree, B.<br />
Willis, K.G. <strong>and</strong><br />
G.D.Garrod<br />
<strong>Public</strong> preferences <strong>and</strong> willingness-to-<br />
pay <strong>for</strong> nature conservation in the<br />
North York Moors National Park, UK<br />
Willingness to Pay Versus Willingness to<br />
Travel:<br />
Assessing the Recreational Benefits<br />
from<br />
Dartmoor National Park<br />
Contingent Valuation V. Choice<br />
Experiments. Estimating the value of<br />
environmentally sensitive areas in<br />
Scotl<strong>and</strong>.<br />
Valuing L<strong>and</strong>scape – A contingent<br />
Valuation Approach<br />
Defa -<strong>for</strong>thcoming a National Ecosystem Assessment<br />
Scenarios<br />
<strong>Defra</strong> – <strong>for</strong>thcoming b Participation <strong>and</strong> deliberative techniques<br />
to embed an ecosystems approach into<br />
decision making<br />
2002 L<strong>and</strong> Economics, Vol. 78, Issue: 1, 103-120. US based<br />
study<br />
synthesising<br />
existing<br />
research<br />
2000 The World Economy, 23:257-273 Theoretical<br />
consideration<br />
of agricultural<br />
support<br />
1999 Journal of Environmental Management 55: 1–13 Primary<br />
research -<br />
upl<strong>and</strong>s<br />
1999 Journal of Agricultural Economics 50:124-139 Primary<br />
research -<br />
upl<strong>and</strong>s<br />
1998 Journal of Agricultural Economics 49:1-15 Primary<br />
Research<br />
ESA, upl<strong>and</strong>s<br />
in Scotl<strong>and</strong><br />
1993 Journal of Environmental Management 37: 1-22 Primary<br />
research -<br />
upl<strong>and</strong>s<br />
n/a New analysis<br />
based on<br />
existing<br />
evidence<br />
n/a New analysis<br />
based on<br />
existing<br />
evidence<br />
27
Defa –<strong>for</strong>thcoming c Underst<strong>and</strong>ing what people want from<br />
the natural environment using customer<br />
segmentation<br />
n/a Primary<br />
research –<br />
general<br />
28