Public Attitudes and Preferences for Upland Landscapes - Defra

More documents

Recommendations

Info

• Cultural services: services providing non-material benefits from ecosystems such as spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation and aesthetic experiences. • Supporting services: many ecosystem services are necessary for the production of all other ecosystem services from which society benefits, such as soil formation and nutrient cycling. Figure 1 (below) from the Defra report “Provision of Ecosystem Services through Environmental Stewardship” (2009) illustrates how prescribed changes in hill farming management (under Environment Stewardship) can affect the provision of ecosystem services; for example reducing agricultural intensity can lead to less food (shown as orange) but more regulating (e.g. water quality), cultural (e.g. heritage) and biodiversity services (shown as green/dark green). Promoting some of the cultural services delivered by the uplands (e.g. through an environmental stewardship scheme) will also impact on other services; for example a positive impact on biodiversity. Defra’s forthcoming publication - National Ecosystem Assessment Scenarios more explicitly illustrates the impacts of trade-offs resulting from social and political priorities on a range of ecosystems (Defra – forthcoming a). Although the public do not take into account all of the services provided by the uplands when they visit or value them, there are various opportunities to involve the public in how we can better understand and capture the value of the goods delivered by the uplands, and particularly by hill farming. Figure 1: Potential net service delivery (marginal change) in the uplands under Environmental Stewardship (positive and negative)* Source: Provision of Ecosystem Services Through Environmental Stewardship, Defra 2009 *The colours indicating impact follow the principle of a Red, Amber, Green (RAG) rating with dark green indicating considerable positive impacts, light green indicating some positive impacts, amber indicating no-change and red indicating negative impacts. The comprehensive report commissioned by Natural England “Economic valuation of upland ecosystem services” (Economics for the Environment 2009) directly seeks to value three cultural services delivered in a number of upland case studies (many of the UK stated preferences studies used to inform the case studies are included separately in this review). The three cultural services identified are: the use and enjoyment of uplands for outdoor recreation; the use and enjoyment of uplands for field sports; and the non-use values of historic and cultural landscapes. In reality however, it is very difficult to effectively capture data on the non-use value of ecosystems (or to disaggregate this from use values) and this is reflected in the greater focus given to recreational use values in the studies reviewed here. A further difficulty is that of disaggregating the cultural services provided by the landscape (as defined in the Ecosystems Approach) from other services delivered by the uplands (e.g. biodiversity) and this is considered further in Section 6, below. 4
Although care must be taken not to double count the value of individual services delivered by the uplands (by considering both their known market value and the public’s stated preferences), there is also some value in engaging the public in considering the non-cultural services delivered by the uplands (e.g. landscape preservation Vs carbon regulation). Making respondents more aware of all of the services delivered by the uplands and the trade-offs between them will allow respondents to express more informed choices about the future of the uplands, putting their own cultural preferences for landscape in the wider ecosystem context. Based on the ecosystems approach there are a growing number of innovative payments for ecosystem services (PES) schemes, many of which are relevant to farming in the upland context. The principle is one where payments to land managers (including from private sector) can be made to undertake actions that increase the quality and quantity of desired ecosystem services e.g. reducing diffuse pollution to improve water quality. SCaMP (Sustainable Catchment Management Programme) is an example of an on-going PES scheme delivering multiple ecosystem benefits; improving biodiversity, stabilising water quality, supporting rural communities, enhancing landscape, reducing peat carbon emissions, protecting carbon stores and aiding fragile habitats to withstand future climate change. 1.2. Objectives It is advocated that different groups of stakeholders with various degrees and types of interest are involved in decisions on ecosystem services (Defra – forthcoming b). This can range from active stakeholders who often have an invested interest in one or more ecosystem service (for example, farmers and water companies, see Doungall et al 2006) to members of the general public but given the need to limit the scope of this paper, it is the perspective of the public in general which is of primary concern here. In a minority of the studies considered here, some attention is given to the potential trade-offs between different kinds of services (e.g. provisioning services and cultural services) but a lack of consideration of the broader services delivered by the uplands is identified as an evidence gap. This paper will: - Discuss some key methodological issues and consider the different benefits derived from the uplands by different groups of people; - Explore in detail the aesthetic, recreational and other experiential benefits which individuals derive from the uplands and how this is reflected in public preferences; - Consider the potential cultural and recreational value of the uplands for different individuals. 1.3. Methodology This paper predominantly discusses primary research studies which consider the public’s attitude toward and/or valuation of upland landscapes. Although the review takes into account some key studies that do not specifically focus on the uplands (largely carried out on behalf of Defra), these are drawn upon to contextualise the uplands focused studies, especially in terms of public attitude toward environmental change and toward agriculture more generally. However, all of the studies summarised in sections 6 and 7 of this review are specifically focused on the uplands. Studies specifically on public attitudes toward the uplands were identified through nonsystematic searches using an internet search engine and relevant references from reviewed studies were identified and in turn reviewed. Although studies from outside of Great Britain are excluded, studies from Scotland and Wales are included. The studies reviewed date from 1993 to present (with the vast majority published after 2000) and so some caution should be exercised when comparing studies, where differences may reflect broader social shifts over time. Given the approach adopted, this review does not provide systematic coverage of all relevant studies but highlights key themes emerging from the literature and areas where a systematic evidence assessment or further primary research could add value. 5
Page 1 and 2: Public Attitudes and Preferences fo
Page 3: 1. Introduction 1.1. Background The
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?