Public Attitudes and Preferences for Upland Landscapes - Defra

used but the evidence suggests that the proposed payment mechanism could also impact
on whether individuals are willing to pay in principle or not.
- Mean figures for respondents’ WtP for the maintenance (or enhancement) of single
national parks/ESA areas varied significantly. This, in part, is likely to reflect variation in
the methodologies employed in the reviewed studies and as a consequence, studies are
not always readily comparable or transferable to represent conclusive public views on
upland landscapes and preferences. Despite this, the distinct regional variation identified
within one study suggests that both demographic factors and the existing composition of
specific upland areas (e.g. abundance of landscape features) may also influence WtP.
Depth of evidence and implications for future work:
- Within the work reviewed, considerably less attention is given to the views of the ‘general
public’ (indirect beneficiaries who also contribute to agricultural support in the uplands)
than is given to the views of upland residents and visitors (direct beneficiaries). As there
is evidence that responses to and likely preferences for Upland landscapes will vary by
demographic factors (such occupational class, ethnicity, proximity of residence to
Uplands etc.) care should be taken when interpreting and applying the results of
individual studies.
- The majority of studies focus on the public’s attitude to upland landscape only and do not
consider whether a better understanding of the interaction between landscape and other
services delivered by the uplands (e.g. water/food production) influence the public’s
preferences.
- A critical gap is that there was a limited amount of evidence on preferences for a future
uplands landscape that took into account the broader range of services that could
potentially be delivered by the Uplands. The use of deliberative approaches that consider
in more detail how the public perceive the interaction between the different services
delivered by the uplands and how these influence landscape preferences could enable a
deeper understanding for policy. This could explore, for example, the impact of
alternative payment mechanisms on the public’s willingness to pay for various goods and
services associated with uplands landscapes.
This literature review is limited to evidence identified through a simple non-systematic search and
does not encompass any additional analysis. Subject to feedback on this discussion paper there
may be scope to extend the review to:
- Consider more studies on specialist and non-landscape uses of the uplands. For example
Upham et al’s study on the generation of bio-energy in the uplands (2003) and studies on
specialist recreational use of the landscape and the value of the landscape to specialist
users (e.g. Grijalva et al. 2002).
- Provide a systematic review of Contingent Valuation studies focused on upland areas and
more rigorously compare methods and findings to give a better indication of what different
members of the public are willing to pay to preserve the uplands.
- To explore in more detail the impact of proposed payment mechanisms on the public’s
willingness to pay for various goods.
- Determine the relative benefits of applying an ecosystems approach to understanding the
value which the public derive from the uplands and identify methodological approaches
that will help overcome the limitations associated with such approaches.
24