Public Attitudes and Preferences for Upland Landscapes - Defra

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table of Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 3 1.1.Background.............................................................................................................. 3 1.2.Objectives ................................................................................................................ 5 1.3.Methodology ............................................................................................................ 5 2. Studies Reviewed ....................................................................................................... 6 2.1. Sampling and representation .................................................................................. 6 2.2. Limitations of available evidence ............................................................................ 6 3. Factors influencing the public’s interaction with upland landscapes ................... 7 4. The public’s experience of individual upland landscape features ......................... 9 5. Public understanding of the relationship between agriculture and upland landscape features ....................................................................................................... 10 6. Preferences for upland landscapes (and services) ............................................... 11 6.1. Overview of preferences from studies reviewed ................................................... 11 6.2. Impact of sampling and responded characteristics on preferences ...................... 16 6.3.Role of preference strength ................................................................................... 17 7. Valuation of upland landscapes .............................................................................. 18 7.1. Overview of Willingness to Pay (WtP) values from reviewed studies ................... 18 7.2. Limitations of Contingent Valuation studies .......................................................... 24 8. Conclusions and further research ........................................................................... 24 9. Overview of referenced studies ............................................................................... 26 2
1. Introduction 1.1. Background There is no statutory definition of the English uplands but a regularly adopted definition is that of land categorised as “Less Favoured Areas (LFA)”, the EU classification for socially and economically disadvantaged agricultural areas. The 9 upland regions on which Defra have based this categorization are described (from an agricultural perspective) and mapped geographically in Defra’s statistical notice on the uplands and other LFAs 1 . Research 2,3 indicates that upland farming is facing real pressures and a reduction or significant change to the nature of upland agriculture could therefore have a major impact on what upland landscapes look like in the future, as well as on the other benefits delivered. The visual quality of the landscape requires sustainable land management but this is dependent on an informed understanding of what the public value. The special status of upland regions - most have separate local governance arrangements (National Parks), landscape protection status (e.g. Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty), special conservation designation (e.g. Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - means that they are a resource of national significance. Although there is distinct variation between different upland regions, farming is a key feature associated with the uplands and has considerable cultural and environmental significance. This is because of the interdependence between farming and food production, wider management of land and ecosystems, recreation and tourism 4 . Some upland regions also feature unique tenure and land-management systems (e.g. commons and grouse moor management) which have an impact on the landscape and add to the complexity of upland farming systems. The non-production goods which upland farming provides (e.g. the maintenance of the landscape for recreational use etc.) are often cited as justification for the continued financial support of upland farmers (see discussion in Hodge, 2000). However, as Harvey (2003) proposes, in order to ensure that agricultural activities provide the optimal level of public goods, it is not only necessary to separate financial support for broader public goods from payments for agricultural production but it is also important to identify the attributes of public goods and to determine their value to members of the public that benefit from them. Importantly, Harvey emphasises the need to recognise different public preferences in the design of rural policy land-use. The Ecosystems Approach is an increasingly common approach to valuing all of the services delivered in any given area. Ecosystem services can be categorised into 4 overarching groups 5 : • Regulating services: the benefits derived from the way ecosystem processes are regulated such as water purification, air quality maintenance and climate regulation. • Provisioning services: the products obtained from ecosystems such as food, fibre and medicines. 1 http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/foodfarm/enviro/farmpractice/documents/FPS2009uplands.pdf 2 http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/foodfarm/enviro/observatory/research/documents/uplands-indepth.pdf 3 http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/foodfarm/enviro/observatory/research/documents/UplandsFPS_report09.p df 4 http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/foodfarm/enviro/observatory/research/documents/uplands2010.pdf 5 http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/policy/natural-environ/documents/eco-actionplan.pdf 3
Page 1: Public Attitudes and Preferences fo
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 and 18: cover over the current landscape wh
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?