IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v106y2021ics026483772100168x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What does the UK public want farmland to look like?

Author

Listed:
  • Rust, Niki A.
  • Rehackova, Lucia
  • Naab, Francis
  • Abrams, Amber
  • Hughes, Courtney
  • Merkle, Bethann Garramon
  • Clark, Beth
  • Tindale, Sophie

Abstract

As populations grow and demand for food rises, major shifts in global agri-food policy are likely to significantly impact agricultural land use. As the UK has now separated from the Common Agricultural Policy as it left the EU, Brexit offers a unique opportunity to create UK-specific agricultural policies that may dramatically shape both the countryside’s appearance and the ecosystem services it provides. However, it is important to understand how the public – as taxpayers of agri-environment schemes – want the farmed countryside to look. To fill this knowledge gap, we undertook a novel mixed-methods study using a survey and collage-making workshops to understand aesthetic preferences for perceived “ideal” and “environmentally friendly” farm landscapes. Multinomial regression of data from a nationally representative survey of 2050 respondents demonstrated widespread support for agricultural landscapes containing trees and free-ranging livestock for ideal UK farm landscapes. Aesthetic preferences differed based on several socio-demographic variables, including gender, income and education. Landscapes with renewable energy technology, trees, and no livestock were perceived to be the most “environmentally friendly” farms, though wind turbines were visually unappealing. Eighty participants created collages of their ideal and environmentally friendly farming landscapes and completed a short survey to explain their choices. Qualitative thematic analysis of the collages and explanatory text found a desire for mosaic ideal farm landscapes focused either on agricultural or wild biological diversity. Results for the environmentally friendly farms reflected those in the survey. We discuss how our findings relate to implications for post-Brexit agricultural policy formation, particularly with regards to integrating public preferences around agri-food systems, to ensure tax-payers’ views are considered.

Suggested Citation

  • Rust, Niki A. & Rehackova, Lucia & Naab, Francis & Abrams, Amber & Hughes, Courtney & Merkle, Bethann Garramon & Clark, Beth & Tindale, Sophie, 2021. "What does the UK public want farmland to look like?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:106:y:2021:i:c:s026483772100168x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105445
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026483772100168X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105445?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Howley, 2011. "Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics’ rural landscape preferences," Working Papers 1105, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    2. Elsa T.A. Berthet & C�cile Barnaud & Nathalie Girard & Julie Labatut & Guillaume Martin, 2016. "How to foster agroecological innovations? A comparison of participatory design methods," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(2), pages 280-301, February.
    3. Lucia Filova & Jiri Vojar & Kamila Svobodova & Petr Sklenicka, 2015. "The effect of landscape type and landscape elements on public visual preferences: ways to use knowledge in the context of landscape planning," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(11), pages 2037-2055, November.
    4. Karen Puren & Vera Roos & Hendri Coetzee, 2018. "Sense of place: using people’s experiences in relation to a rural landscape to inform spatial planning guidelines," International Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 16-36, January.
    5. Howley, Peter, 2011. "Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics' preferences towards rural landscapes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 161-169.
    6. Carlton G. Davis & Clive Y. Thomas & William A. Amponsah, 2001. "Globalization and Poverty: Lessons from the Theory and Practice of Food Security," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(3), pages 714-721.
    7. Hellerstein, Daniel & Nickerson, Cynthia J. & Cooper, Joseph C. & Feather, Peter & Gadsby, Dwight M. & Mullarkey, Daniel J. & Tegene, Abebayehu & Barnard, Charles H., 2002. "Farmland Protection: The Role Of Public Preferences For Rural Amenities," Agricultural Economic Reports 33963, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    8. Bevk, Tadej & Golobič, Mojca, 2020. "Contentious eye-catchers: Perceptions of landscapes changed by solar power plants in Slovenia," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 999-1010.
    9. Peter Howley & Stephen Hynes & Cathal O Donoghue, 2012. "Countryside Preferences: Exploring Individuals' Willingness to Pay for the Conservation of the Traditional Farm Landscape," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(6), pages 703-719, December.
    10. Simoncini, Riccardo & Ring, Irene & Sandström, Camilla & Albert, Christian & Kasymov, Ulan & Arlettaz, Raphael, 2019. "Constraints and opportunities for mainstreaming biodiversity and ecosystem services in the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy: Insights from the IPBES assessment for Europe and Central Asia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    11. Claudia Bieling & Tobias Plieninger, 2013. "Recording Manifestations of Cultural Ecosystem Services in the Landscape," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(5), pages 649-667, October.
    12. Sarah P. Church & Belyna Bentlage & Roberta Weiner & Nicholas Babin & Brian R. Bulla & Katelyn Fagan & Tonya Haigh & J. Stuart Carlton & Linda S. Prokopy, 2020. "National print media vs. agricultural trade publications: communicating the 2012 Midwestern US drought," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 161(1), pages 43-63, July.
    13. Moran, Dominic & McVittie, Alistair & Allcroft, David J. & Elston, David A., 2007. "Quantifying public preferences for agri-environmental policy in Scotland: A comparison of methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 42-53, June.
    14. Zhongwei Guo & Lin Zhang & Yiming Li, 2010. "Increased Dependence of Humans on Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(10), pages 1-8, October.
    15. Cooper, Nigel & Brady, Emily & Steen, Helen & Bryce, Rosalind, 2016. "Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services’," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 218-229.
    16. van Zanten, Boris T. & Zasada, Ingo & Koetse, Mark J. & Ungaro, Fabrizio & Häfner, Kati & Verburg, Peter H., 2016. "A comparative approach to assess the contribution of landscape features to aesthetic and recreational values in agricultural landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 87-98.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Malakoff, Kaitlyn Lee & Nolte, Christoph, 2023. "Estimating the parcel-level impacts of agricultural conservation easements on farmland loss using satellite data in New England," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    2. Duckett, Dominic & Bjørkhaug, Hilde & Mur, Laura Arnalte & Palmioli, Lucia, 2022. "New ‘old’ risks on the small farm: Iconic species rewilding in Europe," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Schmidt, Katja & Walz, Ariane & Martín-López, Berta & Sachse, René, 2017. "Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 270-288.
    2. Hermes, Johannes & Albert, Christian & von Haaren, Christina, 2018. "Assessing the aesthetic quality of landscapes in Germany," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 296-307.
    3. Sarah Marie Müller & Jasmin Peisker & Claudia Bieling & Kathrin Linnemann & Konrad Reidl & Klaus Schmieder, 2019. "The Importance of Cultural Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity for Landscape Visitors in the Biosphere Reserve Swabian Alb (Germany)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-23, May.
    4. O'Donoghue, Cathal & Hynes, Stephen & Kilgarriff, Paul & Ryan, Mary & Tsakiridis, Andreas, 2020. "Assessing preferences for rural landscapes: An attribute based choice modelling approach," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 9(2), August.
    5. Bingjie Song & Guy M. Robinson & Douglas K. Bardsley, 2020. "Measuring Multifunctional Agricultural Landscapes," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-30, August.
    6. Yoshimura, Nobuhiko & Hiura, Tsutom, 2017. "Demand and supply of cultural ecosystem services: Use of geotagged photos to map the aesthetic value of landscapes in Hokkaido," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 68-78.
    7. González-García, Alberto & Palomo, Ignacio & González, José A. & López, César A. & Montes, Carlos, 2020. "Quantifying spatial supply-demand mismatches in ecosystem services provides insights for land-use planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    8. Matzek, Virginia & Wilson, Kerrie A. & Kragt, Marit, 2019. "Mainstreaming of ecosystem services as a rationale for ecological restoration in Australia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 79-86.
    9. van Zanten, Boris T. & Zasada, Ingo & Koetse, Mark J. & Ungaro, Fabrizio & Häfner, Kati & Verburg, Peter H., 2016. "A comparative approach to assess the contribution of landscape features to aesthetic and recreational values in agricultural landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 87-98.
    10. Andrzej Greinert & Maria Mrówczyńska, 2020. "The Impact of the Process of Academic Education on Differences in Landscape Perception between the Students of Environmental Engineering and Civil Engineering," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-27, June.
    11. Fan, Yubing & McCann, Laura E., 2015. "Households' Adoption of Drought Tolerant Plants: An Adaptation to Climate Change?," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205544, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Jacqueline Loos & Henrik Von Wehrden, 2018. "Beyond Biodiversity Conservation: Land Sharing Constitutes Sustainable Agriculture in European Cultural Landscapes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-11, May.
    13. Wilhelm, Jennifer A. & Smith, Richard G. & Jolejole-Foreman, Maria Christina & Hurley, Stephanie, 2020. "Resident and stakeholder perceptions of ecosystem services associated with agricultural landscapes in New Hampshire," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    14. Reza Keshtkaran & Amin Habibi & Hamidreza Sharif, 2017. "Aesthetic Preferences for Visual Quality of Urban Landscape in Derak High-Rise Buildings (Shiraz)," Journal of Sustainable Development, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(5), pages 1-94, September.
    15. Allain, Sandrine & Salliou, Nicolas, 2022. "Making differences legible: Incommensurability as a vehicle for sustainable landscape management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    16. Langemeyer, Johannes & Calcagni, Fulvia & Baró, Francesc, 2018. "Mapping the intangible: Using geolocated social media data to examine landscape aesthetics," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 542-552.
    17. Tong, Qingmeng & Qiu, Feng, 2020. "Population growth and land development: Investigating the bi-directional interactions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    18. Kota Mameno & Takahiro Kubo & Hiroyuki Oguma & Yukihiro Amagai & Yasushi Shoji, 2022. "Decline in the alpine landscape aesthetic value in a national park under climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(3), pages 1-18, February.
    19. Eija Pouta & Ioanna Grammatikopoulou & Timo Hurme & Katriina Soini & Marja Uusitalo, 2014. "Assessing the Quality of Agricultural Landscape Change with Multiple Dimensions," Land, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-19, July.
    20. Sipesihle Booi & Syden Mishi & Oddgeir Andersen, 2022. "Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Review of Provisioning and Cultural Ecosystem Services in Estuaries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-29, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:106:y:2021:i:c:s026483772100168x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.