Public Attitudes and Preferences for Upland Landscapes - Defra

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SAC for Centre for Uplands (2005) Heyes and Heyes (1999) Public benefits of upland areas. Preservation of Dartmoor National Park 2000 questionnaire posted to random sample of households in Cumbria and Manchester. 136 questionnaire s returned from Cumbria and 54 from Manchester 980 surveys completed with visitors to Dartmoor National Park Contingent Valuation Dichotomous choice Contingent Valuation Open ended Taxation Not stated £47/household/year Entry fee to Dartmoor National Park 74% £2/individual to enter the park based on median WtP. 22
7.2. Limitations of Contingent Valuations studies As noted above, the high level of variation in results from the different studies is likely to arise as a result of the range of methodology employed as well as the nature of respondents. However, it is also possible that many of the WtP values given are reasonably conservative estimates. One likely reason for this being that respondents exercise ‘protest bids’ which reflect an unwillingness to pay for a good that they feel they have a right to benefit from (and so their WtP does not reflect the true value which they derive from the goods or service). The effect of protest bids may be particularly evident in studies where payment for entry into a park/area is the proposed payment mechanism (Heyes and Heyes 1999). Although some of the studies took care to minimise protest bids (e.g. by asking respondents to explain why they were/were not willing to pay or why they were willing to pay a certain value) it may be difficult to completely eliminate the impact of this kind of bias. Heyes and Heyes (1999) carried out a study where they asked respondents both for their WtP to visit Dartmoor National Park and their ‘willingness to travel’ (WtT); the distance individuals were willing to travel were then converted into monetary values. Although it is difficult to accurately calculate WtT costs (given the difficult of incorporating opportunity costs) WtT values calculated by the authors using three different methodological approaches were all greater than the WtP values for the same sample (with the lowest WtT value based only on transport costs and not incorporating opportunity costs at all). Summary section 7 - Mean figures for the maintenance (or enhancement) of single national parks/SDA/ESA areas ranged between £5.65/household/year and £73/person/year. This is likely to reflect the methodology employed but variability in WtP across regions (despite consistent methodology) implies that both demographic factors and current composition of different upland landscapes influence WtP. - Where stated between 46% and 82% of respondents were willing to pay in principle to protect uplands National Parks - The majority of samples consisted of local residents and visitors to National Parks and so the results are likely to be biased. Where random members of the public have been sent postal questionnaires it is also likely that a responder bias was introduced (with individuals that have an existing interest being more likely to respond). 8. Conclusions and further research This review summarises relevant evidence about the public’s attitude towards and preferences for the uplands. Although not a full systematic review, the evidence suggests that a proportion of the public value and would in principle be willing to pay to maintain the landscape value of the uplands. Key conclusions from the review: - Upland landscapes have intense experiential qualities and can contribute to a sense of heritage (historic man-made features contribute to cultural value) and identity (especially the moorland context for residents) but understanding individual preferences is complex. - Studies suggest broadleaved woodland and heather moorland are valued features of the upland landscape, while an increase is grassland is often viewed negatively. When asked about the landscape as a whole, a significant proportion of respondents favour the maintenance of a landscape similar to today’s landscape with some features, such as broadleaved woodland enhanced. - Between 46% and 82% of respondents were willing to pay in principle to protect uplands National Parks. The number of respondents willing to pay is likely to reflect the sample 23
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 and 18: cover over the current landscape wh
Page 19 and 20: Table 3 Economic valuation studies
Page 21: Hanley et al. (1998) Hanley et al.
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?