Public Attitudes and Preferences for Upland Landscapes - Defra

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 2 SAC research – Upland characteristics Upland landscapes • Upland landscapes can be characterised as providing scenic views over the fells and moors. • The lower lying landscape is characterised by traditional farm buildings and dry stone walls. • The less intensive form of agriculture in upland areas results in greater peace and tranquillity; • and offers greater opportunities for wild plants, birds and animals. Traditional farm management • Hill farming has not seen the large changes experienced by lowland farming in recent decades, which has involved more intensive farming practices and specialisation. • Hill farms are typically small family farms, with close links to the local community. • This form of farming involves a number of traditional skills such as shepherding, maintaining dry stone walls, and common land management. Community culture • Local communities are closely linked with hill farming through activities such as local shows and other community activities resulting in a strong local culture. • These close links also mean that there are strong social networks within upland communities. 6.2. Impact of sampling and responder characteristics on preferences One important factor - influencing both willingness to pay and preferences - which may merit further consideration here is the characteristics of respondents (potentially influenced by the sampling frame). It is likely that respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics, including interests and their primary reason for interaction with the landscape, will have an impact on the overall results as to both landscape preference and valuation. For example White and Lovett (1999) carried out both a postal survey and interviews with visitors to the North York Moors National Park. The main reasons given for visiting the National Park within the interview survey were walking and the views whereas within the postal survey bird watching was the main reason given (by 67%). There were also differences in the preferred landscape. Of the interview respondents 70% preferred heather moorland over broadleaved woodland and traditional grazing pasture. In contrast, 70% of postal survey respondents preferred broad leaved forest over heather moorland and grazing land. The authors attribute the difference in preferences between those interviewed and those returning a postal survey to the fact that the majority of interviews were conducted in a car park near a major road where people were likely to stop to admire the view of the moor. Respondents who had stopped in the car park were more likely to favour the landscape which offered most recreational value; in contrast, for survey respondents rating broadleaved woodland as the most important landscape feature, the perceived degree of threat was the single most important factor. Similarly, Black (2009) found that over half of the respondents to a questionnaire distributed within the North Pennines National Park were members of environmental organisations. The author notes that environmental organisation members scored significantly higher than non-members in a knowledge quiz on wildlife and conservation, and were significantly more likely to pay for desired environmental outcomes. Those with higher quiz scores and environmental awareness were more likely to choose increased blanket bog or tree 16
cover over the current landscape which may explain the overall preference in the sample for an increase in blanket bog and associated increase in important birds and mammals 13 . These examples also highlight that the degree to which respondents value the landscape for cultural services such as recreation is closely linked to respondents’ awareness of and views on the other services delivered by the uplands. In the absence of the provision of additional information to all respondents, the latter will depend on their respondent’s existing level of knowledge; the demographic implications of this are evident from Hanley et al.’s unsurprising finding that individuals educated to higher levels had greater environmental awareness (2007). The fact that respondents take factors such as biodiversity into account when thinking about their overall preferences for landscape also highlights the difficulty of disaggregating preferences for the cultural services from preferences for the uplands as a whole. This reflects some of the challenges associated with the ecosystems approach highlighted in the introduction to this review. Based on a robust sample covering 5 English regions, Hanley et al (2007) found that WtP for upland features such as moorland landscapes also varied spatially. Possible reasons for this heterogeneity include differences in regional cultures, in incomes, and in the relative scarcity of landscape features (as marginal WtP is expected to depend on the current abundance of a given landscape feature within a given area). In addition, the underlying reasons for landscape preferences also vary between regions. For example, income has a significant relationship with WtP for upland features in both Yorkshire and Humber and the South East, but this relationship is positive in Yorkshire and Humber (with individuals with a higher income being more likely to want to pay for Public goods associated with the uplands) and negative in the South East. Based on regional differences in preference, the authors raise the potential policy implication that payments to farmers should differ by region (to reflect the value of the public goods they deliver). For example, based on the findings from this study, payments for heather moorland conservation would be highest in the West Midlands, lowest in the North West and zero in Yorkshire and Humberside. However, the authors acknowledge the obvious practical and political implication of this. Only a minority of the studies explicitly looked at the impact of informing the public about the link between management practices and impacts on the landscape. Black (2009) tried to take into account the impact of giving respondents additional information about the management practices (with particular reference to managing grouse moors for shooting) and found that having additional information did not appear to impact on how much respondents were willing to pay for preferred landscapes. However, it is possible that having information about management practices impacted negatively on the amount that respondents were willing to pay for specific features, e.g. heather moorland and grassland. 6.3. Role of preference strength A final point that should be emphasised (and which can be addressed to an extent using economic valuation techniques) is that it is important to take into account the strength of individuals’ preferences as well as the preferences themselves. For example, although only a minority of respondents in Willis and Garrod’s sample favoured abandoned, conserved or sporting landscapes, those respondents who did prefer these landscapes were, on average, willing to pay more for them than those who favoured today’s landscape were willing to pay to maintain the status quo (1993). To an extent, strength of individuals’ preferences could be explored further by considering samples of individuals who have a more specialist engagement with the uplands – e.g. those who use the upland landscape for specialist activities such as climbing or field sports. This was done by Grijalva et al. (2002) for National Parks in the United States but no comparable study for the UK was identified in the searches conducted for this literature review. 13 Although it’s also likely that people favoured an increase in mammals and birds associated with an increase blanket bog because these species are likely to be more emblematic than plants and insects. A number of studies have shown that the public are more likely to pay to preserve more emblematic species. 17
Page 1 and 2: Public Attitudes and Preferences fo
Page 3 and 4: 1. Introduction 1.1. Background The
Page 5 and 6: Although care must be taken not to
Page 7 and 8: landscape (e.g. food and production
Page 9 and 10: context for how we interpret the pu
Page 11 and 12: (for biomass energy) and extensive
Page 13 and 14: Black (2009) Rank† Landscape Biod
Page 15: Hanley et al. (1998) employed a Cho
Page 19 and 20: Table 3 Economic valuation studies
Page 21 and 22: Hanley et al. (1998) Hanley et al.
Page 23 and 24: 7.2. Limitations of Contingent Valu
Page 25 and 26: 9. Overview of referenced studies (
Page 27 and 28: Grijalva T.C., Berrens, R. P., Boha

Public Attitudes and Preferences for Upland Landscapes - Defra

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?