Public Attitudes and Preferences for Upland Landscapes - Defra

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Summary section 6 - A cautious interpretation of the evidence suggests that broadleaved woodland and heather moorland are valued features of upland landscapes and that managed grassland is generally less favoured. However, when asked about the landscape as a whole, respondents favour the maintenance of a landscape similar to today’s or with some features such as broadleaved forest and field boundaries enhanced. - The results of studies intended to determine public preferences (and the value which the public place on the uplands) are highly dependent on the nature of the population sampled, the nature of their engagement with the landscape and their existing level of knowledge. - Preferences for landscape also varied regionally and this is likely to reflect the current characteristics of different upland areas and the socio-demographic characteristics of the population living in the region of different upland areas. - It is important to consider the strength of individuals’ preferences as well as the preferences themselves. 7. Valuation of upland landscapes 7.1. Overview of Willingness to Pay (WtP) values from reviewed studies As with table 2, all of the studies summarised in the table below specifically consider the public’s perceptions of the uplands, however other studies which provide broader contextual findings on the UK public’s willingness to pay for cultural and other services which are linked to agriculture (see FERA et al 2010 on WtP for agri-environment schemes) are referenced as context. In terms of the economic valuation of the upland landscape there was some variation between the different studies. Willingness to Pay (WtP) values ranged from £119.05 per household/year to maintain all 11 National Parks to £3.10 to maintain just one estate within the North York Moors National Park. An overview of the WtP values derived by the various studies is given in Table 3. The majority of values are based on Contingent Valuation (CV), with the exception of Hanley et al. (1998)’s third recorded approach and Hanley et al. (2007) which employed a Choice Experiment methodology. Mean figures for the maintenance (or enhancement) of single National Parks, ESA (in Scotland) or SDA areas ranged between £5.65/household/annum and £73/annum. Based on available evidence it seems that residents are willing to pay marginally more than the general public but even people who had never visited the specified area were willing to pay something for its maintenance (Hanley et al. 1998). This is reflected in the fact that 76% of a large, national random sample of respondents were willing to pay for environmental stewardship schemes for all of England (WtP = £26.09/household/year) (FERA et al 2010). Differences in valuation are likely to arise as a result of a number of factors including the study methodology and the mechanism by which the hypothetical payment would be delivered. All but two of the studies employed CV methods, some used an open ended approach and others dichotomous choice which is more likely to lead respondents to give higher values). The use of a postal survey versus interviews for data collection and the level of background information given to respondents can further influence responses. However, Hanley et al. (2007) identified distinct regional differences in WtP despite consistent methodology across the sample. WtP for the preferred scenario ranged from £6.33 to £26.92 across the 5 English regions surveyed as part of this study. 18
Table 3 Economic valuation studies Study Location/WtP for what White P. C. L. and J. C. Lovett (1999) White P. C. L. and J. C. Lovett (1999) Willis K.G and G.D.Garr od (1993) Management of all 11 National Parks for Nature Conservation Management of Levisham Estate in the North York Moors National Park Sample Methodology Payment mechanism 344 visitors to key tourist sites within the North York Dales National Park 500 residents of area near National Park boundary (206 responses) Yorkshire Dales 300 residents from 4 Parishes in North Yorkshire. 300 visitors at car parks within the National Park Face to face interview, dichotomous choice (from 50p - £200) Postal questionnaire with short intro and dichotomous choice questions (10p - £20) Face to face interviews with questions asked about landscape preferences as well as WtP/household/year to preserve the Yorkshire Dales landscape Open ended questions for CV Respondents asked to state preferences – 53% preferred visitor fees, 25% national tax, 17% said donations, 5% said local taxation Percentage of sample willing to pay (in principle) WtP 82% £119.05/individual/year An annual tax 46·3% £3.10 Not specified Not stated WtP to preserve preferred landscape – Residents - £25, Visitors - £27 WtP to preserve today’s landscape £24 (for both visitors and residents) 19
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 and 16: Hanley et al. (1998) employed a Cho
Page 17: cover over the current landscape wh
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?