Connecting landscapes: examining and enhancing the relationship between stakeholder values and cultural landscape management in England

Abstract

In England’s post-Brexit environment, as the nation’s approach to cultural landscapes is reassessed, understanding what stakeholders value and how they currently engage with landscape management is likely to be increasingly important. This study explores this at a localised scale. Examining the value of an ecosystems services perspective, it focuses on two case-study landscapes in Gloucestershire. Using interviews, focus groups, mapping tasks and questionnaires it examines how stakeholder values intersect with current policies and practices. Based on this analysis, it suggests the need for greater integration and knowledge exchange between stakeholders to ensure the sustainability of landscape management. It suggests new strategies, such as a centralised e-portal of resources, are required to ensure awareness and dialogue between stakeholders. This study is part of a larger European project comparing how the values of stakeholders in heritage landscapes can be better integrated into cultural landscape management.

Keywords:

• Stakeholder
• Stewardship
• cultural landscapes
• integration
• management
• values
• perceptions
• ecosystems services

Introduction

In a changing economic and political environment, the UK faces increasing challenges regarding how to sustainably manage its cultural landscapes. Existing national management strategies attempt to emphasise the integrated nature of cultural landscapes and the variety of ‘cultural services’ they provide, underpinned through commitment to the European Landscape Convention (ELC) (Council of Europe [CofE], 2000). The UK’s withdrawal from the European Union is likely to significantly impact such mechanisms however, and is already leading to debate around England’s approach to cultural landscapes (e.g. Franks, 2016). Before any changes are made to existing processes, however, it is increasingly important to consider how stakeholder values and engagement relate to existing strategies and explore what is required for their integration within landscape management to ensure sustainability.

Despite recognition of the importance of stakeholder values in management strategies (e.g. Dougill et al., 2006), there are few intensive analyses of the relationship between policy and landscape stakeholders. Our aim is to redress this through an assessment of the relationship between landscape values and management strategies within two English landscapes. Underpinning this aim, we have three objectives: to assess how stakeholders define and value these landscapes; to evaluate how stakeholders perceive and engage with current management and examine the extent to which current strategies connect to their values. Building on this, we examine ways in which to integrate stakeholders with each other and landscape management.

This study emerges from a JPI-Heritage Plus funded research project designed to integrate stakeholders in the management of European cultural landscapes (www.refitproject.com; Tully, 2016). Focused around significant European archaeological monuments (Iron Age oppida),¹ it uses varied methodologies to interrogate the realities of applying ecosystems services approaches to cultural landscapes. This study focuses on the results from our English case studies; future analysis will compare practices between England, Spain and France.

Approaching cultural landscapes

Two concepts underpin the UK’s landscape management strategies. The notion of ‘cultural landscapes’, encapsulated in the ELC, emphasises the interaction between humans and nature in creating landscapes. Ecosystems Services recognise the intangible benefits people derive from landscapes (Hernandez-Morcillo, Plieninger, & Bieling, 2013). Both approaches underline the importance of perceptions concerning landscapes. In England, these concepts underpin agri-environment schemes (Stewardship), overseen by Natural England on behalf of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). These affect over one third of England’s landscape and aim to integrate management of the natural and historic environment (Natural England [NE], 2011). Natural England, alongside other bodies (e.g. AONBs), also develop guidance (Landscape Character Assessments: LCAs) with an aim of maintaining the perceived character of England’s landscapes.

Notwithstanding some recognition of the place of cultural services (e.g. spiritual values; recreation) in ecosystems, there remains an often-implicit division between seeing landscapes as environmental resources and as culturally significant (Schaich, Bieling, & Plieninger, 2010). This separation is frequently reflected in management studies, which assess strategies’ relationships to the environment (Boatman et al., 2008), the economy (Courtney, Mills, Gaskell, & Chaplin, 2013), and heritage (Waterton, 2005), but seldom consider how these are inter-related or map onto stakeholder experiences. Those studies that consider perceptions often assess the values upon which to build policy, rather than interrogating the effectiveness of current strategies (e.g. Lock & Cole, 2011). Others tend to focus on particular groups, such as landowners (Boatman et al., 2013), divorcing managers from residents and other interested bodies, despite recognition of the need to integrate non-specialists in landscape management (Reed, 2008). Our study, therefore, explores whether ecosystems services can better underpin landscape management approaches.

Methodology

The REFIT project focuses on two case study landscapes in the UK, undertaking qualitative, as well as quantitative, stakeholder studies. While archaeological monuments are at the heart of both landscapes, these were not the focus, although they do provide comparative elements for all the European case studies. The landscapes, Bagendon and Salmonsbury, in Gloucestershire are located c. 15 miles apart within the Cotswolds AONB (Figure 1). Both face similar pressures and contain comparably ephemeral archaeological remains. Despite these similarities, contrasts in landscape character and management (Table 1) allow for comparing how contextual differences impact stakeholders’ perceptions of landscapes and their management. One significant difference is that the Salmonsbury landscape is managed by Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust (GWT), which is dedicated to engaging with all aspects of the landscape; assessing how their vision impacted on management strategies was of particular interest.

Figure 1. Location of case-study landscapes [with limit of Cotswold AONB and relevant LCA boundaries] (drawn by T. Moore/ J. Vidal, with permission. Base map data: Crown copyright. An Ordnance Survey/ Edina supplied service).

Table 1. Comparison of the characteristics of the two case-study landscapes.

	Bagendon	Salmonsbury
Geography	Rural. Spans interface of Cotswold hills and Thames Valley (Figure 1)	Peri-urban. Low-lying, close to confluence of Dickler and Windrush rivers (Figure 1)
Archaeology	Iron Age oppidum dominates historic landscape	Iron Age oppidum dominates the historic landscape
Built environment	Little new building. Most development is agriculture related	Numerous new developments and pressure for further housing
Modern Population	Decreasing. Parish inhabitants 239 (2011 Census), 265 (2001 census). Increased second home ownership	Increasing. Borough (Bourton-on-the-Water) inhabitants 3676 (2011 Census), 3442 (2001 Census). Desirable commuter-belt
National Landscape Character	107 Cotswolds	107 Cotswolds
Local Landscape Character	9. High Wold Dip-slope valley/10. High Wold dip slope	17. Pastoral Lowland vale/ 15. Farmed Slopes / 8. High Wold Valley
Contemporary land-use	Arable, pasture (mainly sheep), gardens, pony paddocks	Pasture (mainly dairy cows), including SSSI wildflower meadows
Management and ownership	Multiple landowners; varied sized holdings. Piecemeal management, including Countryside Stewardship. Parts of Oppidum are a Scheduled Ancient Monument	Entire area owned by Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust (GWT); unified management plan. All 64 ha managed within CS. Entire Oppidum is a Scheduled Ancient Monument
Leisure and tourism	Few visitors. Footpaths, private shooting, horse riding	950 000 visitors to Bourton-on-the-Water each year. Approx. 41 000 visitors to Greystones Farm per annum

Stakeholders are those who can affect or are affected by decisions associated with these landscapes, this may be directly (communities-of-place), or indirectly (communities-of-interest). For this study, our interest is primarily in the intersection between values and management practices. We have, therefore, focused on those stakeholders (landowners, farmers, residents, members of professional organisations: e.g. AONB; Natural England) who most directly engage in these landscapes, as opposed to those (e.g. visitors) with more external perceptions, partly as the latter have been the subject of other surveys (e.g. NE, 2011). Similar attitudes mean individuals’ responses can sometimes be loosely considered as representative of stakeholder groups (‘farmers’; ‘heritage management professionals’) although these should not be considered as rigid or pre-determined. ‘Values’ are recognised as the benefits, beliefs and preferences of stakeholders, while ‘perceptions’ relate to experiences effecting how a place or thing is understood and interpreted (cf. Scott, 2002, pp. 272–276).

Before undertaking the survey, a stakeholder assessment identified a broadly representative group of individuals and organisations to engage with (cf. Prell, Hubacek, & Reed, 2009). The aim was to examine the perspectives of different stakeholder communities, ameliorating concerns with both quantitative (Morgan & Krueger, 1993, p. 16) and qualitative methodologies (NE, 2009, pp. 15–18). Our methods included three strands:

(1)	Perception mapping, to elucidate stakeholders’ associations with the cultural landscapes. Drawing on collaborative cultural mapping approaches (Duxbury, Garrett-Petts, & MacLeannan, 2015), participants were given a satellite image of the approximate area and asked to draw the boundary of their definition of the cultural landscape(s) and to annotate this with values/activities/opinions. This enabled the identification of personal bonds more easily than through interviews alone (Lillehammer, 2009, pp. 263, 264).
(2)	Semi-structured interviews and focus groups, centred on qualitative data. These addressed: (1) personal perceptions of the values associated with the landscapes (2) understanding of current cultural landscape management strategies. These were recorded with participants’ consent with key words/themes identified from transcripts. Although not seeking to rigidly group associations into predefined ecosystems ‘services’, these brought to the fore values that cross-cut stakeholders.
(3)	Questionnaires, focused on the same themes. These obtained broader data on the knowledge surrounding the history, management and values associated with each cultural landscape.

The interviews and focus groups focused on 57 targeted stakeholders, aiming to include as broad a demographic as possible (see Table 2). It remains possible, however, that those most disillusioned with current landscape management may have been those who declined to participate. The following analysis combines evidence from these methodologies. While only a fraction of the data can be represented here, it aims to represent the spectrum of views. More details on the interviews, focus groups and questionnaires can be found in Tully and Moore (2017).

Table 2. Demographic breakdown of participants.

Cultural landscape	Broad self-identifier with landscape (total no. participants by group)	Demographic	Method type
Bagendon	Farmer (5)	ABC1	II & PM
	Tenant Farmer (3)	ABC1 (1), C2DE (2)	II & PM
	Resident (7)	ABC1 (6), C2DE (1)	FG & PM
	Archaeologist (2)	ABC1	II & PM
Salmonsbury	Archaeologist (1)	ABC1	II & PM
	Volunteer for GWT (3)	ABC1 (2), C2DE (1)	II & PM
	Student Royal Agricultural University (17)	ABC1 (15), C2DE (3)	FG & PM
	Resident (4)	ABC1 (2), C2DE (2)	FG & PM
	Local Councillor (1)	ABC1	II & PM
	Tenant Farmer (1)	ABC1	II & PM
	Employee GWT (4)	ABC1	II & PM
Both	Agent for national organisation (Natural England, Historic England) (3)	ABC1	II & PM
	Heritage professional (4)	ABC1	II & PM
	Local business owner (1)	ABC1	II & PM
	Environmental professional (1)	ABC1	II & PM
Bagendon	Multiple designations (34)	ABC1 (18), C2DE (16)	OS
Salmonsbury	Multiple designations (86)	ABC1 (44), C2DE (42)	OS

Key: II: Individual Interview; FG : Focus Group; PM: Perceptions Mappin; OS: Online Surve.

Perceptions: defining ‘cultural landscapes’

Initial analysis assessed how stakeholders perceived the cultural landscape, its boundaries and values. Before doing so, we explored whether stakeholders have similar ideas of what cultural landscapes are. While such concepts are prominent in academia there are few considerations of what this concept means to other stakeholders. Our surveys revealed the majority of participants, including a number of heritage and environmental professionals, were unaware of the term ‘cultural landscape’ (65 and 67.5% targeted stakeholders; 61 and 66% of survey respondents, at Bagendon and Salmonsbury, respectively). Despite this, most had a good appreciation of what it might mean, coming close to accepted definitions. The impression is that whilst superficial reflection suggests the public see landscapes as ‘natural’, more in-depth discussion reveals interlinking notions of ecological and cultural services (cf. Lock & Cole, 2011, p. 7). The cultural landscape concept, therefore, resonates with non-specialists and rightly represents a basis for integrating values.

Another important issue is how stakeholders define these cultural landscapes. The mapping exercise allowed us to examine perceptions of their physical ‘limits’ (Figures 2 and 3). For Bagendon, this focused on the village and adjoining fields, largely reflecting residents’ views out of their windows (Figure 2). Heritage professionals also delimited relatively small landscapes connected to scheduled monuments. Broader areas were defined by landowners, often centred on their own land. In all cases, these were defined by physical boundaries, such as valleys, roads and the oppidum ramparts. Overall, these indicate that what people actively engage with constitutes ‘their’ cultural landscape, with little relationship to political or natural geography.

Figure 2. Perception map of Bagendon landscape [including Bagendon parish boundaries] (copyright: T.Moore & J.Vidal, with permission. Base map data: Crown copyright. An Ordnance Survey/ Edina supplied service).

Figure 3. Perception map of Salmonsbury/Greystones landscape [including boundaries of Greystones Wildlife reserve and Bourton-on-the-Water] (copyright: T.Moore & J.Vidal, with permission. Base map data: Crown copyright. An Ordnance Survey/ Edina supplied service).

Salmonsbury displayed similar relationships. Residents and volunteers focused on a small area corresponding with that which is most accessible (Figure 3). The farmer focused on the area he uses, and heritage experts on the scheduled monument. Wildlife-related stakeholders were unusual in conceiving wider landscapes, including adjacent farms and wildlife corridors.

Both exercises revealed that respondents recognise the integrated nature of landscapes, but their physical definitions were constrained, largely by personal factors of ownership and engagement. This has implications concerning the scale at which stakeholder engagement might best operate, with most stakeholders defining quite specific landscapes at which engagement is likely to have relevance. In recent years, there has been some acceptance of this, with recognition that existing LCAs might be more effectively centred around smaller, socially coherent landscapes (Tudor, 2014). This has the potential to create tensions between personalised and managerial definitions of cultural landscapes however, with many studies of heritage and wildlife emphasising the problems (e.g. in resource viability) in defining landscapes at such scales. Negotiating the tensions between the ‘localism’ of stakeholders’ perceptions and management policies required to operate at larger scales is, therefore, a key challenge (cf. Geoghegan & Leyshon, 2014).

Perceptions: cultural services and cultural landscapes

With an expectation that people experience landscapes in myriad ways, it is important to establish the variety of stakeholders’ values and define what ecosystems services they perceive in these landscapes. Some assessments of Landscape Character have explored this (e.g. Scott, 2002), but many focus on landscape elements rather than values, under-emphasising the cultural services landscapes deliver. For the Cotswolds for instance, such a survey emphasised the value of dry-stone walls (NE, 2009, p. 31), but drew out little of stakeholder values. For this study, the values identified through different methodologies were grouped into general themes (Table 3).

Table 3. Participant associations with key themes represented as a % of total comments.

Themes	% total associations BM	% total associations SM	% total associations BOS	% total associations SOS
Archaeology/History	29	20.3	30.4	21.3
Farming	13.7	17.4	13.7	15.8
Wildlife	4.3	23.7	13.7	18.6
Aesthetic	16.8	7.2	20.5	18.6
Leisure	11.8	6.3	12.9	20.4
Intangibles: memories, sense of place	10.6	3.9	7.8	2.9
Tourism	0	1.9	0.5	1.4
Industry/economy	0.6	1.9	0.5	1.0
Topography	7.4	9.7	0	0
Education/access	0	2.9	0	0
Management	0	3.4	0	0
Built features	5.6	1.4	0	0
Total	100	100	100	100

KEY: BM: Bagendon Mapping task, SM: Salmonsbury Mapping task, BOS: Bagendon Online Survey (n = 64) SOS: Salmonsbury Online Survey (n = 114).

Farming and aesthetics

Some values resonated across all stakeholders; with both case studies including significant agricultural land, unsurprisingly farming was prevalent in people’s associations (Table 3). Attitudes towards farming were complex, however. Even in rural areas like Gloucestershire there has been a decline in farming-based employment with most stakeholders displaying relatively little in-depth agricultural knowledge. This creates a tension between farming being something many stakeholders feel invested in but have limited understanding of (cf. Lock & Cole, 2011, p. 49).

Such attitudes to farming were emphasised by a desire to ensure the landscape was not ‘under managed’, reflecting many respondents’ sense of what the landscape is perceived to ‘need’. Similarly, aesthetic values featured prominently (Table 3), but were intertwined with farming practices. At Bagendon, many stakeholders suggested it should be farmed to retain a particular landscape type. This view was expressed not only by residents but also managers, with a widespread perception that there is an ‘accurate’ Cotswold landscape. This consensus was connected to concerns that it might be undermined through perceived population changes:

There is a distinct change of people moving into the landscape …. they don’t feel as much affinity with the landscape and the need to keep it as it has always been. (Resident)

The statement reflects a wider perception of an ‘ideal’ (unchanging) Cotswold landscape, one reinforced by local landscape character types (Cotswolds AONB, 2016a) and one that ‘locals’ are considered to already ‘buy-in’ to. That heritage professionals might challenge implicit notions of a static landscape highlights tensions between visions of idealised landscape character and recognition of the changing nature of landscapes.

The perception maps revealed another divide, between ‘lived’ and ‘visited’ landscapes (Figures 2 and 3). While Bagendon village represents the ‘centre’ of many stakeholders’ landscape, with its built environment central to the aesthetic value, at Salmonsbury not a single stakeholder considered the town of Bourton-on-the-Water to be part of the cultural landscape. Salmonsbury was instead defined by a purely ‘rural’ aesthetic; ironic considering its peri-urban location. This indicates how relatively similar landscapes can be perceived very differently; one perceived as lending itself to being actively managed and another (Bagendon) perceived as dependent on the desires of its residents and landowners.

Connections between these landscapes and wildlife were similarly divergent. Wildlife was generally regarded as a core value (Table 3), particularly at Salmonsbury, reflecting the Wildlife Trust’s management. At Bagendon, however, little overt connection to wildlife was made. This is probably more typical of the wider Cotswold landscape, with wildlife for most stakeholders perceived to be part of a ‘working landscape’.

Sustainability

Current policies focus on ensuring landscape sustainability, but what does this mean to our stakeholders? Surveys revealed that sustainability is valued highly as a management aim, with 90% at Bagendon and 75% at Salmonsbury regarding it as important/very important. Despite emphasis on sustainability, stakeholders conceive it in varied ways. Some stakeholders understood sustainability in ways which echoed contemporary management (Roberts, 1994, p. 135), while for many, sustainability translated into a sense of passing on landscapes to future generations. Some emphasised notions of ‘preservation’ (protecting heritage; maintaining wildlife), yet many implicitly recognised the contradictions in sustainability; that landscapes are, by their very nature, dynamic (Antrop, 2006).

Reconciling contradictions between preservation and landscape change is therefore crucial. Recognising this connection between sustainability and dynamism, other surveys (Lock & Cole, 2011, p. 44) suggest that stakeholder awareness of history and archaeology can enhance comprehension of how landscapes change over time, which increases willingness to accept that landscapes need active management. For our case studies, archaeology and heritage rated highly as values (Table 3) but there was a lack of in-depth knowledge beyond heritage experts. Even at Salmonsbury, where heritage is part of the management plan, many stakeholders seemed unaware of its significance. This almost certainly relates to the ways in which heritage is often presented through specific stories about particular periods, rather than emphasising its potential to provide narratives of landscape change.

Integrated cultural ecosystems

Landscape sustainability is likely to be built on emphasising interconnections between cultural and other ecosystems services (e.g. Schaich et al., 2010). Fundamental to this is stakeholder awareness of how others value the landscape and the need for integration of these values in landscape management. The interview data suggested stakeholders are aware, at some level, of this and of the ‘trade-offs’ required in integrating values. Despite this, most stakeholders had relatively narrow concerns associated with their own roles. The exceptions were those working for GWT whose perception maps contained three times the variety of annotations; the Trust’s ethos seemingly ensuring that employees and volunteers consider the landscape as a palimpsest. Although elsewhere awareness was not so explicit, there was a desire by other stakeholders to be more embedded in landscape management:

By working together, as a community, we can find the best ways to work with and for the landscape. (Resident)

Although many stakeholders emphasised the need for integrating values, our study also revealed the potential tensions and incompatibility between some values. Particularly noticeable was concern around increasing population. Over 90% of respondents at Salmonsbury felt the population had increased, concurring with census data (see Table 1), compared with 47% at Bagendon. The reality at the latter, however, is that the population has decreased by 10% (see Table 1). Increased road traffic in the region, creating a wider sense of overcrowding, seems likely to account for such perceptions. Simultaneously, other stakeholders desired increased ‘opening-up’ of the landscape. With over 16 million visitors to the Cotswolds annually (Cotswolds Tourism Partnership, 2014, p. 5), tourism is valued by some as bringing financial benefit. By contrast, many highlighted concerns over visitor impacts (e.g. dogs on farm animals, damage to heritage). Despite these tensions, there was a consensus that this was a pressure that needed to be addressed, providing at least a focus for debate.

Another major tension addressed was that between farming practice and environmental protection, reflecting results from similar studies (Mills et al., 2013). Such tensions emerged further in discussion of the specifics of agri-environment schemes (explored below) and mark deep-seated concerns by almost all stakeholders on how farming and environment can co-exist.

Overview on values

Overall, the survey emphasised the importance of seeing ecosystems services not as separate values but embedded within attitudes towards cultural landscapes (Geoghegan & Leyshon, 2014). Whilst the varied values revealed that most stakeholders demonstrated relatively narrow landscape perspectives, they recognised the potential variety of ecosystems services and the need for trade-offs. Our subsequent analysis therefore explored to what extent existing frameworks allowed stakeholders to participate in such trade-offs.

Connecting values and management

Considering the variety of perspectives on cultural landscapes, to what extent do stakeholders recognise their values reflected in current management strategies? To explore this, we first assessed to what extent stakeholders were aware of how cultural landscapes are managed. Within our case studies, the most important component of this is via Natural England Stewardship schemes. Using the ‘boundaries’ of the two cultural landscapes from stakeholders’ perception maps (Figures 2 and 3), approximately 50% of the land within an 800 m radius of Bagendon village is part of a Stewardship scheme (50% under Higher-Level Stewardship). At Salmonsbury, Greystones Farm, 100% is managed under Countryside Stewardship.

Despite its importance, few stakeholders revealed awareness of Stewardship’s significance or of landscape management strategies in general. In interviews, only 35% of stakeholders named one or more of the following: Stewardship; AONB; SSSIs; planning regulations (e.g. Town and Country Planning Act); heritage or wildlife protection (e.g. Habitats directive). Those stakeholders not directly involved in management who mentioned one of the above did not really know what these entailed or how they translated into what they saw in the landscape.

Even smaller numbers of questionnaire respondents were able to identify specific management policies (25% for Bagendon and 17.5% for Salmonsbury) with the AONB, SSSI status and Scheduling representing almost 50% of responses for Bagendon and 80% for Salmonsbury. Natural England Stewardship was only mentioned by two survey respondents. Widespread reference to the AONB, which is primarily an advisory service rather than enforcer of landscape policy, suggests that, unlike some landscape organisations, its ‘brand’ has made an impact on stakeholder consciousness. Despite this, there was not a single mention of LCAs which are the main tool through which AONBs (and Natural England) hope to shape landscape management.

It is hard to judge the extent to which such limited awareness reflects the wider rural community. Natural England’s annual surveys focus on farmers’ awareness of Stewardship (Ingram, Gaskell, Mills, & Short, 2013) and the National Farmers Union carries out an annual (public) farming survey, but there appear to be no national studies that explicitly address public awareness of landscape management. Despite its significant financial investment, Stewardship appears to have limited recognition, even by those living in rural areas. This was highlighted by one resident who, despite being aware of NE and living on the fringes of land within a HLS, stated:

I shouldn’t think any [Stewardship schemes] have been used in Bagendon …. If it is, I don’t know what they are doing and nobody has ever told me about it.

Such limited awareness may have been exacerbated by the termination of initiatives, such as field signage of Stewardship schemes. As the core delivery mechanism for cultural landscape policy this suggests a fundamental disconnect between many stakeholders and management practice. That such schemes might lead to particular landscape types (wide field-margins; high hedges), and thus directly impact how they perceive the landscapes, did not appear to be recognised by stakeholders.

Defining cultural landscapes

If many stakeholders are largely unaware of landscape management processes, do those strategies at least map on to their perceptions of the cultural landscape? Currently, strategies are informed by LCAs. As discussed earlier, for the Cotswolds at least these seem to resonate with most stakeholders’ perceptions. The scale of these definitions, however, contrasted with our mapping exercise, with stakeholders tending to identify cultural landscapes at smaller scales. On the other hand, management through Stewardship tends to focus on far more narrowly defined landscapes, based on farm ownership. Unifying these approaches would have important implications for the extent to which localised values can be integrated into landscape management. Recognition that LCAs focus on too large-scale landscapes is leading to the development of Local Landscape Character Assessments (LLCAs), to be developed by local interest groups (Tudor, 2014), which may alter this balance. However, it is clear from our survey that awareness of LLCAs is very limited with little connection to Stewardship landscapes.

Approaching Stewardship

For those stakeholders more aware of mechanisms such as Stewardship, how did they relate to their landscape values? Debate over cultural landscapes often revolves around the tension between the natural environment and farming profitability (e.g. Powell et al., 2012). Attitudes towards management practice in these landscapes, particularly Stewardship, echoed such studies. Many farmers emphasised the need to make money, but also that farming activities had created the landscape:

It is like it is because of commercial activity and its best guarantee to survive as it is remains to be commercially positive. (Farmer)

The attitudes of those involved with Stewardship suggested that choosing to opt in or out of schemes was not entirely financial but marked more nuanced perceptions:

They [Stewardship schemes] make you identify things you hadn’t realised were important and might have taken for granted. (Farmer)

This is not denying the importance of profitability, but reminds us that farming stakeholders possess landscape values that balance economics with landscape character. However, tensions certainly emerged regarding how Stewardship is practiced:

… they basically don’t want you to make a living out of farming but they make it impossible to do both [farm and look after the environment]. (Farmer)

Some would argue we were paying farmers to do what they should be doing anyway without any obvious benefits to society. (Environment professional)

Similar tensions emerged when considering how the sustainability of the landscape was reflected in current management:

We used to be in [a particular] Stewardship scheme, which was good … They did that for 10 years and then they tore that scheme up and started another with a different aim. So the scheme they were paying you for, and that was maybe finally starting to make a difference, they bin …. and you have to start again …. it’s not sustainable. (Farmer)

We realised several years ago that agri-environment schemes are nice but we can only look at them as short term and we have to find other things. (Environmental professional)

There is a perception of short-termism surrounding Stewardship that runs counter to the emphasis placed by many stakeholders on long-term management. Many respondents’ perceptions of Stewardship were that it runs counter to their landscape values of long-term sustainability.

Integrated cultural services

Divisions between the natural and historic environment, conceptually and managerially, have been recognised (Waterton, 2005, pp. 312–314) and Stewardship has attempted to address such concerns. The extent to which such integration is achieved was questioned, however, and some worry that Stewardship could lead to a piecemeal approach:

It would be terrible if we found in one field we did it [Stewardship] just for the archaeology and in another just for the wildlife. (Heritage professional)

In general there was limited awareness by most stakeholders of the connection between the historic environment and Stewardship. Despite the significant value most stakeholders placed on heritage, other than at Salmonsbury, no farmers drew connections between heritage and Stewardship. This may simply denote the limited number of heritage-based options. However, it reflects more widely an impression that farmers regard Stewardship’s core aim as benefiting the natural, rather than historic, environment (Boatman et al., 2013, 41), even if there appears to have been a recent increase in uptake of historic environment options (Vince Holyoak personal communication, November 2016).

Limited recognition of the place of heritage marks a wider perception of a lack of integration in landscape management. This may partly be related to the ways in which Stewardship schemes are arranged, predominantly through bilateral agreements with landowners, leading to a potentially fragmentary approach:

A farm may do a great scheme, but if that farm is standing in the middle of a sea of nothingness, what is the point? It is the connectivity that matters. (Wildlife professional)

The dangers of Stewardship not ensuring a sufficiently wide landscape perspective for nature conservation have been recognised (Franks & Emery, 2013), but the need for greater connectivity between cultural ecosystems services, especially the historic environment, has been less well studied. Within the region, Natural England do facilitate larger-scale approaches (Short et al., 2014), but they are not commonplace and rely heavily on external coordination. The need for leadership was emphasised by some stakeholders with local examples based around organisations which can integrate multiple concerns:

We’ve been working on a project for a number of years … We’ve stuck with that approach even now the HLS is finished …. we are maintaining contacts with farmers and volunteers and working on new opportunities that arise …. (Wildlife professional)

Overview of connections

This study suggests that current cultural landscape management struggles to engage with stakeholders’ varied values and many stakeholders are unfamiliar with the processes that exist. Despite Stewardships’ attempts to transform a fractured approach, this is not reflected in stakeholder awareness. This appears to be due to limited engagement by Natural England. Despite the ELC (Article 5c) emphasising that management of cultural landscapes requires dialogue with local communities, this currently relies on national, rather than local, engagement (e.g. NE, 2011). Approaches tend to rely on those who have the vision to use Stewardship rather than actively integrating stakeholders (cf. CofE, 2006, pp. 173–178). This risks reinforcing divisions, which an ecosystems services approach seeks to overcome, with many stakeholders outside forums where landscape management is addressed. Yet the desire for greater integration does exist: ‘all different stakeholders’ was the most frequent response in surveys to the question of who should support the management of cultural landscapes. Below, we suggest, therefore, that an ecosystems services approach requires clearer mechanisms which allow for stakeholder engagement and integration.

Integrating cultural landscape management

Our case studies have highlighted numerous disparities between stakeholder values and the application of landscape theory. Most pressing are: (1) lack of awareness by many stakeholders of existing management strategies, (2) limited awareness of the values of other stakeholders, (3) disparity between the scales at which management strategies engage communities and stakeholders’ perceptions of cultural landscapes and (4) the lack of forums where stakeholders can interact or be informed of landscape management strategies. The final part of the paper suggests some ways these might be addressed.

Knowledge exchange

One of this study’s most striking results was the limited awareness of, and engagement with, cultural landscapes’ management. This may reflect local demography but such disparity was striking considering the powerful associations stakeholders had with these landscapes. Some of the tensions identified derive largely from misconceptions over different stakeholder values: an assumption that archaeologists want only to preserve heritage; that only large-scale landowners care about sustainability; or that farmers are only interested in profitability. These suggest a pressing need for greater knowledge exchange, including on farming practice and how contemporary landscape characters emerged. Awareness of the values held by others may also help break down barriers between ‘active’ and ‘passive’ stakeholders.

Whilst it is difficult to judge how representative our case studies are of England in general, the lack of awareness of management strategies is perhaps unsurprising. Landscape management is divided between varied organisations and information pertaining to the ecosystems services in those landscapes is extremely dispersed. Theoretically, much of this information is available. In reality its disparate nature, jargon-laden language and opaque signage create obstacles to all but the most persistent stakeholder. Information focuses on specific areas (farming; archaeology; wildlife), making it hard for stakeholders to easily engage with a range of potential interests.

Integration and awareness building is more than a desire for plurality; better-informed stakeholders tend to be more willing to accept the ‘trade-offs’ required when addressing cultural landscape management priorities (Bohnet, 2010). Many elements within these landscapes have the potential for building wider awareness of ecosystems services; archaeology, for example, has the potential to develop stakeholders’ understanding of the changing nature of landscapes. At Salmonsbury, presentation of the historic and natural environment is developing awareness of connections between landscape services. Elsewhere, other bodies are attempting to engage communities in exploring the changing nature of these landscapes, past and present (Cotswolds AONB, 2016b). Beyond the potentially unusual case of leadership by the GWT, existing schemes such as Stewardship could address this by being more proactive in requiring an emphasis on the varied ecosystems services landscapes contain.

Engagement

Mechanisms to undertake knowledge exchange could be varied, but perhaps most crucial and sustainable is centralising the plethora of existing digital resources. The potential for a ‘landscape e-portal’ creating a gateway to organisations, communities and information resources (on, e.g. the historic environment; geology; farming; wildlife) would allow the sort of groups likely to create LLCAs pathways to more informed landscape assessments. Not only would this bridge gaps in public and professional knowledge but by facilitating connections a greater diversity of stakeholders are likely to feel ‘ownership’ of management strategies.

Greater dissemination of existing resources is likely to go only so far in enhancing engagement, particularly if it relies on a didactic approach. Within our case studies the most successful approaches have been through dynamic partnerships. Salmonsbury, run by the GWT, stands out as an example of where connections between theory and practice impact on perceptions. Key to Salmonsbury’s success is a combination of knowledge exchange and collaboration. While our surveys revealed there is some way to go in spreading their message to the wider public, the Trust have developed an integrated management approach. Connections with a range of groups, including volunteer organisations such as the Cotswolds Wardens, local wildlife and history groups, as well as schools and personal development programmes maximise their impact on local awareness.

The benefits of such a model are undeniable, but without leadership, application of integrated ecosystems services approaches remain a major challenge which Stewardship may be unable to address alone. Whilst connectivity between management stakeholders is crucial, our study also emphasises that integrating a broader range of stakeholders is essential, not least in addressing the requirements of Article 5c of the ELC. As REFIT’s cooperation with colleagues in France and Spain is demonstrating, there is increasing Europe-wide recognition of the need for more integrated approaches (Berlan-Darqué, Luginbühl, & Terrasson, 2008; Dunford, 2016) which fore-front community engagement in defining landscape priorities, as attempted by Neighbourhood plans (Gallent & Robinson, 2012). Our study emphasises that, wherever these landscapes are, such approaches are likely to work best at the scales at which stakeholders perceive their cultural landscape rather than within ‘expert defined’ landscapes. Whilst recent approaches advocating more localised landscape management (e.g. LLCAs) are to be welcomed, there remains a danger in reinforcing stakeholder ‘silos’, ignoring the value of larger-scale landscapes for heritage or wildlife, due to the sort of knowledge deficit highlighted above.

Best practice within the Salmonsbury landscape emphasises the benefits of channelling such approaches through local forums to facilitate knowledge exchange. Without facilitating organisations like Wildlife Trusts, what forums are there which might cross-cut the artificial boundaries between managerial stakeholders and other groups? These might reside in parish councils, NFU groups, or the Campaign for the Farmed Environment network, as potential links between landowners, residents and other stakeholders. Even then, it seems likely that the full range of stakeholders will never exist in one forum and mechanisms by which different stakeholders can be made aware of (and reach) each other, through e-resources, will be necessary.

Despite this study’s relatively small-scale, it emphasises the need for greater appreciation of how landscape management engages with stakeholders values at the local level. Through such analysis, we can begin to map consensus, tensions and the needs of knowledge exchange and integration. Undertaking similar surveys may reveal contrasting attitudes, allowing us to explore why such variation exists. Existing stakeholder networks also need to be ‘mapped’ to better understand how dialogue currently operates. One area that needs further study is assessing to what extent certain stakeholder demographics remain outside of our assessment. To address this, the REFIT project is exploring online representations of these landscapes to examine alternative ways in which groups experience landscapes. However, it remains a challenge to ensure that those already less engaged in management strategies do not continue to be overlooked.

Conclusions

With Brexit likely to change funding streams and priorities for cultural landscape management, there is a pressing challenge and opportunity to reconsider the emphasis placed on connections between management strategies and the ecosystems services cultural landscapes provide. As part of this, greater appreciation of stakeholder values is crucial to evaluating whether current approaches adequately engage with these.

This project provides a significant case study which highlights existing disparities between stakeholder values and management strategies. Equally, it demonstrates that there is a willingness to widen engagement. We suggest that more informed stakeholders are likely to shape management strategies that better respond to their needs. Creating greater ‘buy-in’ by stakeholders is likely to enhance acceptance of, and participation in, the necessary value ‘trade-offs’ that landscape sustainability inevitably requires. Our study also emphasises that stakeholders recognise (and desire) that these landscapes include social and cultural ‘services’ and are not limited to the ‘natural’ environment or economic metrics (Robertson, 2004). While agreement on the need for such an approach appears to exist, leadership often seems to be the missing ingredient. Recent attempts to decentralise management networks, without organised resources to raise stakeholder awareness, are in danger of silo-ing perspectives. As Brexit forces us to reassess what it is we want our management of cultural landscapes to achieve, now is the time to explore stakeholders’ landscape values and consider how to truly embed ecosystems services within management practices. Ensuring stakeholders are better informed of the services these landscapes possess should, therefore, be an urgent focus of our re-evaluation of approaches to cultural landscapes.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding

This work was supported by the AHRC through the European Union, JPI-Heritage Plus initiative [AH/N504403/1].

Acknowledgements

We are extremely grateful to stakeholders for their participation and the support of the GWT and Cotswold AONB.. We are grateful to Rob Witcher, David Pritchard and two anonymous reviewers for comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

Notes

1. See www.refitproject.com for a definition.