Public Attitudes and Preferences for Upland Landscapes - Defra

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2. Studies reviewed The table in section 9 lists all of the studies considered in this review. For the studies involving valuation based on the public’s stated preferences there is a predominance of studies focused on landscapes within National Parks. Although this may raise concerns as to whether attitudes to upland National Parks are representative of the public’s attitude to upland areas more broadly 6 , the review does also take into account one large study focused on Severely Disadvantaged Areas (SDAs) more generally. A variety of research approaches have been used in the studies reviewed here including: • qualitative discussion groups exploring the qualities of different landscape features and broadening our understanding of the different benefits that landscapes may contribute to the public (e.g. Research box et. al. 2009); • interviews or postal surveys to ascertain the general public’s preferences for the uplands (Scottish Agricultural College 2005.), and • interviews and surveys to determine an approximate monetary value for features of a given landscape or a landscape as a whole (Willis and Garrod 1993). 2.1. Sampling and representation Despite the breadth of approaches adopted, the dominance of respondents who were local residents or visitors to upland areas (compared to members of the wider public) is a weakness of the current evidence base and reflects a greater focus on the recreational use value of the uplands over non-use cultural services Even within some of studies which have intentionally sought to include the views of the wider public, it is likely that the use of postal questionnaires has led to a degree of responder bias (as individuals that have an active interest in the environment or upland areas are more likely to respond). As the majority of people making use of rural spaces are middle class and white (see literature review in Suckhall et al. 2009) the exclusion of non-direct users of the uplands is likely to lead to the underrepresentation of the views of individuals from lower socio-economic groups and Black and Minority Ethnic groups (BME). In reality, individuals who do not actively engage with the upland environment may value the non-use cultural services delivered by the uplands and will benefit from some of the other services delivered by the uplands (e.g. water, food, the capacity of the uplands to absorb carbon), and so their views should also be taken into account. 2.2. Limitations of available evidence In their comprehensive evidence review on public attitude to environmental change, Upham et al. (2009) suggest that significant evidence already exists about why people value landscapes and how to measure these values and perceptions. However, the review also notes that the number of studies on attitudes to ecosystem and landscape change (focused on the future) which take into account the reasons behind people’s preferences and go beyond immediate responses is low: “The potential for further research is substantial, but the scope or terms of this will need careful definition if the intention is to inform policy. Most notably... it is important not to simply ask the public abstract / in principle questions: context, contingencies, trade-offs and choices are all key but are rarely explored”. This assertion is supported by the findings from this review. As noted, most of the studies reviewed here asked respondents about the landscape as opposed to specific ecosystem services and as a result, few of the studies reviewed here have engaged the public in considering how services which may not be as strongly associated with the 6 Across England, National Parks account for around 40% of the LFA as a whole. However 97% of the North York Moors, 72% of the South West Moors and 68% of the Lake District are designated National Parks. 6
landscape (e.g. food and production and GHG absorption) relate to the recreational and cultural services primarily associated with the upland landscape. In focus groups intended to inform a survey on Environmental Stewardship (ES) it was noted that respondents did not recognise the impact that environmental management (and landscape change) may have on atmospheric greenhouse gases (FERA 2010); this highlights the need to provide respondents with more information in order to gain an informed response about their overall preferences for ecosystems. The more detailed discussion of findings below does demonstrate that some respondents are already likely to also consider the role of biodiversity in the context of discussions of landscape (see Black, 2009 below), however, the broader factors which respondents are likely to consider in the absence of additional information will reflect their own level of existing knowledge and familiarity with upland areas. Further to this, none of the studies reviewed explicitly distinguish between the recreational use services of the landscape and the cultural non-use services (as proposed by the EFTEC report for Natural England 2009). The qualitative evidence considered here and the fact that some of the studies reviewed found that some members of the public were willing to pay to maintain the uplands despite never having visited them, clearly demonstrate that the uplands do provide non-use cultural services. However, in the majority of instances, it was impossible to distinguish as to whether respondents were valuing the use or non-use cultural services delivered by the uplands. The use of deliberative approaches, which inform respondents sufficiently to allow them to consider trade-offs between the different services delivered by the uplands could help to address both of these limitations. Such approaches are becoming increasingly relevant with increased use of ecosystem services approaches. In addition, deliberative approaches could be particularly useful for considering public views on potential trade-offs between expenditure on ecosystem services (e.g. through agricultural subsidies). The use of approaches which include the views of stakeholders, including members of the public, and take into account their own values and insight, can also have the benefit of leading to more desirable and sustained policy outcomes (Defra – forthcoming b). 3. Factors influencing public interaction with upland landscapes Drawing on a review of existing evidence on how the public value agricultural landscapes, Swannick et al. (2007) conclude that individuals’ perceptions of landscape and the value they attach to it are likely to be influenced by: − age and socioeconomic status; − gender, although this has been relatively little explored; − cultural background and ethnic origin; − relationship with the landscape in terms of status as residents/visitors or insiders/outsiders or urban/rural dwellers, with familiarity an important related factor; − use of the landscape, for example differences between farmers, tourists and landscape managers; − levels of educational attainment; − environmental value orientations which may or may not be correlated with another influential factor, membership of environmental organisations 7
Page 1 and 2: Public Attitudes and Preferences fo
Page 3 and 4: 1. Introduction 1.1. Background The
Page 5: Although care must be taken not to
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?