Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 55–74 | Cite as

The aesthetics of forestry: What has empirical preference research taught us?

  • Robert G. Ribe
Research

Abstract

Multiple-use forest management has come to include an attention to scenic values, and methods are being developed to incorporate aesthetic considerations into decision making. A considerable body of scientific research has been conducted exploring public preferences for forest landscapes and intersubjective and contextual influences upon their perception. This research is surveyed. Findings regarding the perception of forest conditions, such as tree density and size, ground cover, species makeup and nonmanagement are considered. The scenic effects of forest treatments such as thinning, burning, and chemical application are outlined. Findings for harvest and regeneration practices such as clear-cutting, shelterwoods, selection cuts, and slash treatments are reported. Advances that consider the effects of time upon forest beauty and experiences are explored, along with a problem in multiple-use evaluation of scenic changes. Research on these topics and on observer intersubjective problems and general theory development is supported as a course of advancement in the field.

Key words

Scenic beauty Forest management Multiple use Visual assessment Landscape preferences 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. Anderson, L. M. 1981. Land use designations affect perception of scenic beauty in forest landscapes.Forest Science 27:392–400.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, L. M., D. J. Levi, T. C. Daniel, and J. H. Dieterich. 1982. The esthetic effects of prescribed burning: A case study. USDA Forest Service Research Note RM-413. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.Google Scholar
  3. Arthur, L. M. 1977. Predicting scenic beauty of forest environments: Some empirical tests.Forest Science 23:151–159.Google Scholar
  4. Ashcroft, B. C. 1982. Public attitudes to the exotic pine reforestation programme in south east Queensland. Queensland Department of Forestry, Technical Paper No. 29.Google Scholar
  5. Axelsson-Lindgren, C., and G. Sorte. 1987. Public response to differences between visually distinguishable forest stands in a recreation area.Landscape and Urban Planning 14:211–217.Google Scholar
  6. Becker, R. H. 1983. Opinions about clear-cutting and recognition of clear-cuts by forest recreation visitors.Journal of Environmental Management 17:171–177.Google Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. Benson, R. E., and J. R. Ullrich. 1981. Visual impacts of forest management activities: Findings on public preferences. USDA Forest Service Research Paper INT-262. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah.Google Scholar
  9. Benson, R. E., S. F. McCool, and J. A. Schlieter. 1985. Attaining visual quality objectives in timber harvest areas— landscape architects' evaluation. USDA Forest Service Research Note INT-348. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah.Google Scholar
  10. Boster, R. S., and T. C. Daniel. 1972. Measuring public responses to vegetative management.In Proceedings: 16th annual Arizona watershed symposium. Arizona Water Commission, Phoenix, Arizona.Google Scholar
  11. Brown, T. C. 1987. Production and cost of scenic beauty: Examples for a ponderosa pine forest.Forest Science 33:394–410.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, T. C., and T. C. Daniel. 1984. Modeling forest scenic beauty: Concepts and application to ponderosa pine. USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-256. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.Google Scholar
  13. Brown, T. C., and T. C. Daniel. 1986. Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands.Forest Science 32:471–487.Google Scholar
  14. Brun-Chaize, M. C. 1976. Forest scenery: An analysis of public preferences. d'Orleans Center of Forestry Research, Document No. 76/14, Orleans, France.Google Scholar
  15. Brush, R. O. 1973. Recent developments in landscape assessment research with implications for managing forest land for recreation. Pages 83–86in Outdoor recreation research: Applying the results. Papers from a workshop held by the USDA Forest Service at Marquette, Michigan. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NC-9. North Central Forest and Range Experiment Station, Minneapolis, Minnesota.Google Scholar
  16. Brush, R. O. 1976. Spaces within the woods: Managing forests for visual enjoyment.Journal of Forestry 74:744–747.Google Scholar
  17. Brush, R. O. 1978. Forests can be managed for esthetics: A study of forest-land owners in Massachusetts. Pages 349–360in G. Hopkins, H. K. Cordell, H. Gerhold, and L. Wood (eds.), Proceedings of the national urban forestry conference. College of Environmental Science and Forestry Publication Number 80-003. State University of New York, Syracuse, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Brush, R. O. 1979. The attractiveness of woodlands: Perceptions of forest landowners in Massachusetts.Forest Science 25:495–506.Google Scholar
  19. Buyhoff, G. J., and W. A. Leuschner. 1978. Estimating psychological disutility from damaged forest stands.Forest Science 24:424–432.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Buhyoff, G. J., W. A. Leuschner, and J. D. Wellman. 1979. Aesthetic impacts of southern pine beetle damage.Journal of Environmental Management 8:261–267.Google Scholar
  22. Buhyoff, G. J., W. A. Leuschner, and L. K. Arndt. 1980. Replication of a scenic preference function.Forest Science 26:227–230.Google Scholar
  23. Buhyoff, G. J., L. K. Arndt, and D. B. Propst. 1981. Interval scaling of landscape preference by direct- and indirect-measurement methods.Landscape Planning 8:257–268.Google Scholar
  24. Buhyoff, G. J., J. D. Wellman, and T. C. Daniel. 1982. Predicting scenic quality for mountain pine beetle and western spruce budworm damaged forest vistas.Forest Science 28:827–838.Google Scholar
  25. Buhyoff, G. J., R. B. Hull IV, J. N. Lien, and H. K. Cordell. 1986. Prediction of scenic quality for southern pine stands.Forest Science 32:769–778.Google Scholar
  26. Clay, G. 1965. The woodland scene: Time for another look.Landscape Architecture 56:28–29.Google Scholar
  27. Cook, W. L., Jr. 1972. An evaluation of the aesthetic quality of forest trees.Journal of Leisure Research 4:293–302.Google Scholar
  28. Crow, Dame S. 1979. The landscape of forests and woods. Forestry Commission, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
  29. Daniel, T. C., and R. S. Boster. 1976. Measuring landscape esthetics: The scenic beauty estimation method. USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-167. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.Google Scholar
  30. Daniel, T. C., and H. Schroeder. 1979. Scenic beauty estimation model: Predicting perceived beauty of forest landscapes. Pages 514–523in G. H. Elsner and R. C. Smardon (eds.), Our national landscape: Proceedings of a conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-35. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
  31. Dearden, P. 1983. Forest harvesting and landscape assessment techniques in British Columbia, Canada.Landscape Planning 10:239–254.Google Scholar
  32. Duffield, J. W. 1970. Silviculture need not be ugly.Journal of Forestry 68:464–467.Google Scholar
  33. Echelberger, H. E. 1979. The semantic differential in landscape research. Pages 524–531in G. H. Elsner and R. C. Smardon (eds.), Our national landscape: Proceedings of a conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-35. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
  34. Gardner, P. D., H. J. Cortner, K. F. Widaman, and K. J. Stenberg. 1985. Forest-user attitudes toward alternative fire management policies.Environmental Management 9:303–310.Google Scholar
  35. Gilg, A. W. 1975. The objectivity of Linton type methods of assessing scenery as a natural resource.Regional Studies 9:181–191.Google Scholar
  36. Gustke, L. D., and R. W. Hodgson. 1980. Rate of travel along an interpretive trail: The effect of an environmental discontinuity.Environment and Behavior 12:53–63.Google Scholar
  37. Haakenstadt, H. 1972. Forest management in an area of outdoor life: An investigation of public opinion about Oslomarka.Meld. Lantbrukshogskolans Annale 51:1–79.Google Scholar
  38. Hamilton, L., T. Rader, and D. Smith. 1973. Aesthetics and owner attitudes toward suburban forest practices.Northern Logger 22:18–19, 38–39.Google Scholar
  39. Hamilton, J. W., G. J. Buhyoff, and J. D. Wellman. 1979. The derivation of scenic utility functions and surfaces and their role in landscape management. Pages 271–278in G. H. Elsner and R. C. Smardon (eds.), Our national landscape: Proceedings of a conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-35. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
  40. Herzog, T. R. 1984. A cognitive analysis of preference for field-and-forest environments.Landscape Research 9:10–16.Google Scholar
  41. Hull, R. B., IV. 1986. Sensitivity of scenic beauty assessments.Landscape and Urban Planning 13:319–321.Google Scholar
  42. Hull, R. B., and G. J. Buhyoff. 1986. The scenic beauty temporal distribution method: An attempt to make scenic beauty assessments compatible with forest planning efforts.Forest Science 32:271–286.Google Scholar
  43. Hull, R. B., IV, G. J. Buhyoff, and T. C. Daniel. 1984. Measurement of scenic beauty: The law of comparative judgement and scenic beauty estimation procedures.Forest Science 30:1084–1096.Google Scholar
  44. Hull, R. B., G. J. Buhyoff, and H. K. Cordell. 1987. Psychophysical models: An example with scenic beauty perceptions of roadside pine forests.Landscape Journal 6:113–122.Google Scholar
  45. Jacob, H. 1973. The emotional recreation potential of different forest types.Natur und Landschaft 47:161–163.Google Scholar
  46. Kardell, L. 1979. Hur skulle jag skota min rekreationsskog.Sveriges Skogsvardsforbunds Tidskrift 78:385–433.Google Scholar
  47. Karhu, I., and S. Kellomaki. 1980. Effects of silvicultural practices on the forest landscape: A study of the opinions of the people of Puolanka, NE Finland.Silva Fennica 14:409–428.Google Scholar
  48. Kellomaki, S. 1975. Forest stand preferences of recreationists. Forestalia Fennica. City of Helsinki Real Estate Department, Forestry and Agriculture Division Document 146.Google Scholar
  49. Kellomaki, S., and R. Savolainen. 1984. The scenic value of the forest landscape as assessed in the field and the laboratory.Landscape Planning 11:97–108.Google Scholar
  50. 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.Google Scholar
  51. Klukas, R. W., and D. P. Duncan. 1967. Vegetation preferences among Itaska Park visitors.Journal of Forestry 65:18–21.Google Scholar
  52. Kreimer, A. 1977. Environmental preferences: A critical analysis of some research methodologies.Journal of Leisure Research 9:88–97.Google Scholar
  53. Laughlin, N. A., and M. W. Garcia. 1986. Attitudes of landscape architects in the USDA Forest Service toward the visual management system.Landscape Journal 5:135–141.Google Scholar
  54. Levine, R. L., and E. E. Langenau, Jr. 1979. Attitudes toward clearcutting and their relationships to the patterning and diversity of forest recreation activities.Forest Science 25:317–327.Google Scholar
  55. Litton, R. B., Jr. 1968. Pages 271–278in Forest landscape description and inventories. USDA Forest Service Research Paper PSW-49. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
  56. Madill, R. J. 1973. The impact of clearcutting on the perception of forest aesthetics. Unpublished M.S. Thesis. University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.Google Scholar
  57. McCool, S. F., R. E. Benson, and J. L. Ashor. 1986. How the public perceives the visual effects of timber harvesting: An evaluation of interest group preferences.Environmental Management 10:385–391.Google Scholar
  58. McGee, C. E. 1970. Clearcutting and aesthetics in the southern Appalachians.Journal of Forestry 68:540–544.Google Scholar
  59. Methven, I. R. 1974. Development of a numerical index to quantify the aesthetic impact of forest management practices. Information Report PS-X-51. Petawa Forest Experiment Station, Canada.Google Scholar
  60. Michal, I. 1973. The recreational exploitability of the forest and its aesthetic value: Part 1.Leshictvi 19:767–780.Google Scholar
  61. Michal, I. 1974. The recreational exploitability of the forest and its aesthetic value: Part 2.Leshictvi 20:383–405.Google Scholar
  62. Oka, K., and Y. Ueno. 1982. Landscape management and selective cutting system in the Imasu District, Japan.Forest Recreation Research 6:1–14.Google Scholar
  63. Patey, R. C., and R. M. Evans. 1979. Identification of scenically preferred forest landscapes. Pages 532–538in G. H. Elsner and R. C. Smardon (eds.), Our national landscape: Proceedings of a conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-35. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
  64. Pitt, D. G. 1985. Perceptually based alternatives to the USDA Forest Service visual management system. Pages 58–60in B. Orland (ed.), Prospect, Retrospect, Continuity: Proceedings of the annual conference of the Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture. Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture. Urbana, Illinois.Google Scholar
  65. Radar, T. D. 1971. A study of suburban forests: Suburban forest landowners and aesthetic values. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
  66. Ribe, R. G. 1988. Getting the scenic beauty estimation method to a ratio scale: A simple revision to assess positive and negative landscapes.In People's needs, planet management, paths to co-existence: Proceedings of the Environmental Design Research Association 19 (in press).Google Scholar
  67. Rutherford, W., Jr., and E. L. Shafer, Jr. 1969. Selection cuts increased natural beauty in two Adirondack forest stands.Journal of Forestry 67:415–419.Google Scholar
  68. Savolainen, R., and S. Kellomaki. 1981. Scenic value of forest landscape. Forestalia Fennica. City of Helsinki Real Estate Department, Forestry and Agriculture Division Document 170.Google Scholar
  69. Schroeder, H. W., and T. C. Brown. 1983. Alternative functional forms for an inventory-based landscape perception model.Journal of Leisure Research 15:156–163.Google Scholar
  70. Schroeder, H. W., and T. C. Daniel. 1980. Predicting the scenic quality of forest road corridors.Environment and Behavior 12:349–366.Google Scholar
  71. 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
  72. Schweitzer, D. L., J. R. Ullrich, and R. E. Benson. 1976. Esthetic evaluation of timber harvesting in the northern rockies: A progress report. USDA Forest Service Research Note INT-203. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah.Google Scholar
  73. Shafer, E. L., Jr., J. F. Hamilton, and E. A. Schmidt. 1969. Natural landscape preferences: A predictive model.Journal of Leisure Research 1:1–19.Google Scholar
  74. Shelby, B., and R. Harris. 1985. Comparing methods for determining visitor evaluations of ecological impacts: Site visits, photographs and written descriptions.Journal of Leisure Research 17:57–67.Google Scholar
  75. Simpson, C. J., T. L. Rosenthal, T. C. Daniel, and G. M. White. 1976. Social influence variations in evaluating managed and unmanaged forest areas.Journal of Applied Psychology 61:759–767.Google Scholar
  76. Staffelbach, E. 1984. A new foundation for forest aesthetics.Allgemeine Forstzeitschrift 47:1179–1181.Google Scholar
  77. Taylor, J. G., and T. C. Daniel. 1984. Prescribed fire: Public education and perception.Journal of Forestry 82:361–365.Google Scholar
  78. Ulrich, R. S. 1986. Human responses to vegetation and landscapes.Landscape and Urban Planning 13:29–44.Google Scholar
  79. USDA Forest Service. 1972. Quantitative analysis of the visual resource. USDA Northern Region, Landscape Architecture Branch, Division of Recreation and Lands. Minneapolis, Minnesota.Google Scholar
  80. USDA Forest Service. 1974. National forest landscape management: The visual management system, vol. 2, chap. 1. USDA Handbook No. 462. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  81. Vodak, M. C., P. L. Roberts, J. D. Wellman, and G. J. Buhyoff. 1985. Scenic impacts of eastern hardwood management.Forest Science 31:289–302.Google Scholar
  82. Wagar, J. A. 1974. Recreational and esthetic considerations. Pages H1-H15in O. P. Cramer (ed.), Environmental effects of forest residues management in the Pacific Northwest. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-24. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon.Google Scholar
  83. Willhite, R. G., and W. R. Sise. 1974. Measurement of reaction to forest practices.Journal of Forestry 72:567–571.Google Scholar
  84. Williamson, D. N., and J. A. Chalmers. 1982. Perceptions of forest scenic quality in northeast Victoria: A technical report of research phases I and II. Landscape management series. Forests Commission Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.Google Scholar
  85. Wohlwill, J. F. 1968. Amount of stimulus exploration and preference as differential functions of stimulus complexity.Perception and Psychophysics 4:307–312.Google Scholar
  86. Yarrow, C. 1966. A preliminary survey of the public's concepts of amenity in British forestry.Forestry 39:59–67.Google Scholar
  87. Yeiser, J. L., and C. L. Shilling. 1978. Student responses to selected terms and scenes in natural resource management.Journal of Forestry 76:497–498.Google Scholar
  88. Zube, E. H., J. L. Sell, and J. G. Taylor. 1982. Landscape perception: Research, application and theory.Landscape Planning 9:1–33.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert G. Ribe
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Landscape Architecture School of Architecture and Allied ArtsUniversity of OregonEugeneUSA

Personalised recommendations