Environmental Management

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 385–391 | Cite as

How the public perceives the visual effects of timber harvesting: an evaluation of interest group preferences

  • Stephen F. McCool
  • Robert E. Benson
  • Joseph L. Ashor
Research

Abstract

A total of 25 scenes representing the five visual quality objectives in the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service visual management system were presented to 18 professional and public interest groups in western Montana. The results indicate that nearly all the groups have similar rank orderings of the scenes in terms of visual preference. However, the groups differ according to the absolute values of their ratings. Most groups were unable, in a statistical sense, to differentiate the scenic quality of areas in the preservation and retention visual quality objectives. Landscape architects tended to rate scenes in a way similar to professional forest management groups.

Key words

Landscape preference Scenic values Visual resources 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. Arthur, L. M. 1977. Predicting scenic beauty: some empirical tests.Forest Service 23:151–160.Google Scholar
  2. Benson, R. E. 1974. Lodgepole pine logging residues: management alternatives. USDA Forest Service Research Paper INT-160. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah, 28 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Benson, R. E. 1982. Management consequences of alternative harvesting and residue treatment practices: Lodgepole pine. USDA Forest Service Research Paper INT-132. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah.Google Scholar
  4. Benson, R. E., S. F. McCool, and J. A. Schlieter. 1985. Attaining visual quality objectives in timber harvest areas: landscape architect's evaluations. USDA Forest Service Research Paper. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah.Google Scholar
  5. Buhyoff, G.J., and J. D. Wellman. 1979. Environmental preferences: a critical analysis of a critical analysis.Journal of Leisure Research 11:215–219.Google Scholar
  6. Buhyoff, G. J., J. D. Wellman, and T. C. Daniel. 1982. Predicting scenic quality or mountain pine beetle and western spruce budworm damaged forest vistas.Forest Science 28:827–838.Google Scholar
  7. Buhyoff, G. J., J. D. Wellman, H. Harvey, and R. A. Fraser. 1978. Lanscape artichitects' interpretations of people's landscape preferences.Journal of Environmental Management 6:255–262.Google Scholar
  8. Daniel, T. C., and R. Boster. 1976. Measuring landscape esthetics: the scenic beauty estimation method. USDA Forest Service Research Paper INT-167. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, 66 pp.Google Scholar
  9. Elsner, G. H., and R. C. Smardon (eds.). 1979. Proceedings: our national landscape: a conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-35. Pacific Southest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, California, 752 pp.Google Scholar
  10. Gussow, A. 1979. Conserving the magnitude of uselessness: a philosophical perspective. pages 6–11in Proceedings: our national landscape: a conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-35. Pacific Southest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
  11. Hamilton, L., T. Rader, and D. Smith. 1973. Aesthetics and owner attitudes toward suburban forest practices.Northern Logger 22(3): 18–19 and 38–39.Google Scholar
  12. Kenner, B., and S. F. McCool. 1985. Thinning and scenic attractiveness in second-growth forests: a preliminary assessment. Research Note 22. Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, 4 pp.Google Scholar
  13. Kreimer, A. 1977. Environmental preferences: A critical analysis of some research methodologies.Journal of Leisure Research 9:88–97.Google Scholar
  14. Patey, R. C., and R. M. Evans. 1979. Identification of scenically preferred forest landscapes. Pages 532–538In Proceedings: our national landscape: a conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource. USDA Forest Service Gen. Techical Report PSW-35. Pacific Southest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
  15. Rutherford, W., and E. L. Shafer. 1969. Selection cuts increased beauty in two Adirondack Forest stands.Journal of Forestry 67:415–419.Google Scholar
  16. Schroeder, H. W., and T. C. Daniel. 1981. Progress in predicting the perceived scenic beauty of forest landscapes.Forest Science 27:71–80.Google Scholar
  17. Taylor, J. G., and T. C. Daniel. 1984. Prescribed fire: public education and perception.Journal of Forestry 82:361–364.Google Scholar
  18. USDA Forest Service. 1974. National Forest landscape management: the visual management system, vol. 2, chap. 1. USDA handbook no. 462. Washington, DC, 47 pp.Google Scholar
  19. Walters, R. M., W. R. Bacon, and A. O. Twombly. 1979. Timber management simulated fieldtrip.In Proceedings: our national landscape: a conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource. USDA Forest Service Gen. Techical Report PSW-35. Pacific Southest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen F. McCool
    • 1
  • Robert E. Benson
    • 2
  • Joseph L. Ashor
    • 3
  1. 1.Wildland Recreation Management School of ForestryUniversity of MontanaMissoulaUSA
  2. 2.Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment StationUSDA Forest ServiceMissoulaUSA
  3. 3.School of ForestryUniversity of MontanaMissoulaUSA

Personalised recommendations