Public Attitudes and Preferences for Upland Landscapes - Defra

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