nt 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 sufficient to pay for a four kilometre
deep bore tunnel but the money is not, of course, 'real' money in the
government's hands, merely a notional value to the public.
Maddison et al may have underestimated the value of Stonehenge
to foreign visitors, which they estimate at £10 million. No-one
has tried to calculate the income from foreign visitors' spending elsewhere
in the UK, if Stonehenge is one of the attractions leading them to visit
the country. Nor has the fact that foreign visitors often pay for accommodation
in the vicinity of Stonehenge been taken into account.
Calculating the heritage value lost by destruction of sites
on the route of the cut and cover tunnel. Further information is needed
to make a proper comparison of the two tunnel options. Although English
Heritage contends the cost of destroying sites on the route of the cut
and cover is justified, no attempt has been made to calculate the value
of the sites that will be destroyed and add that to the cost of constructing
a cut and cover tunnel (cf. Fielden 1998: 735, Stone n.d.: 6). In Wainwright's
opinion there is no way of quantifying the value of sites that will be
destroyed during construction of the cut-and-cover tunnel (Wainwright,
interview 24/2/99).The number of as yet undiscovered sites is unknown,
although some predictions are possible (see discussion of the cut and
cover tunnel's route in relation to the density of archaeological sites,
above). No figure has been quoted for the cost of archaeological surveys
and excavations along the line of the cut and cover tunnel. It is unknown
whether a sum is included in the quoted cost for constructing the cut-and-cover
tunnel. Most significantly, perhaps, no attempt has been made to cost
the damage to the value of the World Heritage site caused by constructing
the approach cuttings to the tunnel.
In the light of our deliberations, and in accord with the motion recently
passed by the Council of the Prehistoric Society (included here as Appendix
A), we submit the following proposals for consideration by th