Future of the hills of Scotland: Stakeholders’ preferences for policy priorities

Abstract

This paper sets out to assess stakeholders’ preferences for policy priorities for the management of the hill areas of Scotland, using an adaptive conjoint analysis (ACA) method. The method is used to evaluate trade-offs that stakeholders make between policy priorities. A pre-survey was carried out to obtain a large number of defining characteristics of a Scottish hill land system, which were subsequently narrowed down to 20 attributes. A survey was implemented, where a range of stakeholders, who had an interest in the hill and upland areas of Scotland, were asked to select and rank five attributes (out of the 20) that, for them, best described a hill system. They were also asked to describe what constituted both good and poor levels for each of their 5 chosen attributes. A computerised ACA questionnaire was designed, using attributes and levels defined from the previous surveys. Respondents were asked what the policy targets for management choices and options should be in the next 10 years for the Scottish hill areas. Policy simulations were subsequently carried out using the ACA software, to compare stakeholders’ actual preferences with seven different policy profiles, designed to reflect current land use issues and orientations for the Scottish hills. Findings from the surveys showed the complexity of defining a hill system with a list of specific attributes. The ACA demonstrated that, despite differences between interest group of respondents, livestock was seen to be the most important attribute of a hill system that future policies should target. A local economy based on activities linked to the land was also highly preferred. Differences between respondents reinforced the fact that different interest groups, with different agendas, have views in conflict with others on certain issues. These emphasised how difficult it can be for policy makers to propose rural, environmental and land use policies that suit everybody. The policy simulation showed that policy profiles focussed on biodiversity and tourism matched the preferences of stakeholders more than policy profiles for forestry and wild land. This demonstrated that trade-offs are necessary when formulating policies and that policy profiles based on a mixture of objectives are preferable to more singular ones. Some of the shortcomings of the methodology, particularly regarding the composition of respondents, are discussed. We conclude by suggesting that the ACA could be a useful tool to explore and evaluate future land use policies, especially in the context of a singular issue or conflict.