rnative which met World Heritage site
Costing the heritage value of Stonehenge and the benefits
of placing the A303 in a tunnel
Stonehenge is one of 14 World Heritage sites in the UK and the 'premier
prehistoric site of Britain' (Anon 1998: 731). Its poor treatment is a
national disgrace (Tunnel Vision annexe A). The deep bore tunnel might
make good economic sense if its contribution to enhancing the heritage
value of Stonehenge could be fully costed (Stone 1998: 734). Visitors
might be discouraged if they knew part of original landscape had been
sacrificed in constructing the cut and cover tunnel (Stone n.d.: 5) while
visitor numbers might increase if it was known the site had been improved
(Maddison et al. 1998: 79).
Recent visitor levels: The exact number of people visiting
Stonehenge each year is not known, since many park on the verge of the
road and run across to the site. Recent estimates range from 700,000 to
800,000 per year (Anon 1998: 731, Maddison et al. 1998: 78, Stone n.d.:
2; Wainwright 1996: 9). One million visitors per year are expected at
the planned visitors' centre, but not all are expected to visit Stonehenge
itself, particularly in bad weather, as it will require a twenty-minute
walk to reach the site. Indeed, the site will be better protected if fewer
people visit it, and the income from visitor spending will be made at
the visitor centre (Wainwright, interview 24/2/99).
Two attempts have been made to cost the benefits of enhancing
the World Heritage site by placing the A303 in a tunnel. Both were commissioned
by English Heritage (Wainwright, interview 24/2/99).
Tunnel Vision. In 1997 the Parliamentary Office of Science
and Technology produced a report which estimated the benefits of a tunnel
in terms of the likely increase in visitors to an enhanced site. The report
took a government standard which values the citizen's non-business time
at £3 per hour. Available statistics indicated that Stonehenge was
visited by 700,000 people per year, who travelled, on average, one hour
each way and spent 20 minutes at Stonehenge. The notional use value of
the site was therefore £4.9 million per year, to which the notional
'existence' value of the site for those who did not visit it could be
added. If visitor numbers increased by 100,00 per year, but a £300
million tunnel enhanced the site sufficiently to attract a further 200,000
visitors per year, the benefit created by the tunnel over a 30 year period
would amount to £270 million.
Maddison et al. 1998 adopt a different technique. A sample
of visitors to Stonehenge, and a sample drawn from the general population,
were asked to rank 6 options for rerouting the A303. Interviewees were
asked to rank options and then to state how much extra tax they would
be willing to pay to implement their preferred option. 58% were willing
to pay £7.40 to construct a two kilometre tunnel while 42% willing
to pay £0.50p to prevent construction of a tunnel and retain the
existing surface route. If the sample were representative of the UK population
as a whole, the aggregate benefits from construction of a tunnel would
therefore be between £180-£290 million. 'These results are
mostly driven by the significant minority of respondents who care about
this issue ... (and) tend to be wealthier, more educated'. Overall, interviewees'
most preferred option, slightly ahead of a cut-and-cover tunnel, was to
reroute A303 1.5 km. to south, where it would be invisible from Stonehenge
(77, 81); while visitors preferred a northern road, without tunnel, 2
km. to north (45). However, while the southern surface route is cheap,
it was quickly rejected by planners because it crosses one of the best
parts of the World Heritage site (Wainwright, interview 24/2/99). The
northern open route is close to the 'purple' route (figure 1) which was
universally opposed by the local community. Maddison et al. assume the
only tunnel option is the cut and cover alternative, but their findings
would apply equally to a deep bore tunnel. The social value of the tunnel,
according to their estimate, would be sufficien