Forest Landscapes in Europe – Visual Characteristics and the Role of Arboriculture

Chapter
Part of the World Forests book series (WFSE, volume 9)

Abstract

The relationship of people to landscapes is not exclusively defined by cultural and social links. It is also related to the visual perception of a place and the appreciation of certain landscape characteristics. Vegetation patterns in landscapes are affected not only by climatic and environmental conditions but also by the cultural impact of land use and the management of trees and forests.

This chapter explores the visual characteristics of forest landscapes based on the concept of visual scale and the concept of complexity. The development of these landscapes is linked to the influence of arboricultural activities. The aim is not to evaluate landscapes but to describe typical distribution patterns of forests and other wooden landscape elements. It is discussed how landscapes change parallel with a change in land use and how landscape planning has to take people’s perception and their relation to landscapes into account.

Keywords

Forest Cover Forest Patch Forest Landscape Landscape Metrics Landscape Element 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Anon (2006) Background information. Workshop on pan-European recommendations for afforestation and reforestation in the context of UNFCCCGoogle Scholar
  2. Antorp M (2005) Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landscape Urban Plan 70:21–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Appleton J (1975) The experience of landscape. Wiley, London, p 293Google Scholar
  4. Bailey D, Herzog F, Augenstein I, Aviron S, Billeter R, Szerencsits E, Baudry J (2007) Thematic resolution matters: indicators of landscape pattern for European agro-ecosystems. Ecol Indic 7:692–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bell S (2001) Landscape pattern, perception and visualisation in the visual management of forests. Landscape Urban Plan 54:201–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bradley GA, Kearney AR (2007) Public and professional responses to the visual effects of timber harvesting: different ways of seeing. West J Appl Forestry 1:42–54Google Scholar
  7. Brush RO (1978) Forests can be managed for aesthetics: A study of forest land owners in Massachusetts. In: Proceedings of the National Urban Forestry Conference, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry and USDA Forest Service, Syracuse, pp 349–360Google Scholar
  8. Caspersen OH, Nellemann V (2005) Landskabskaraktermetoden - et kompendium (Landscape character method - a compendium). Arbejdsrapport Skov & Landskab nr. 20-2005, Skov & Landskab, Hørsholm, 136 pp (in Danish)Google Scholar
  9. Crabtree R (1997) Political instruments for environmental forestry: carbon retention in farm woodlands. In: Adger N, Petenella F, Whitby M (eds) Climate change mitigation and European land-use politics. CABI, Wallingford, pp 187–197Google Scholar
  10. Díaz M, Campos P, Pulido F (1997) The Spanish dehesas: a diversity in land-use and wildlife. In: Pain DJ, Pienkowski MW (eds) Farming and birds in Spain. The common agricultural policy and its implication for bird conservation. Academic, London, pp 178–209Google Scholar
  11. FAO (2000) Global forest resources assessment 2000. Food and Agricultural Organisation, Forestry DepartmentGoogle Scholar
  12. FAO (2006) Global forest resources assessment 2005. Food and Agricultural Organisation – Forestry Department: 18. Annex 3 Global Tables. available online ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/008/A0400E/A0400E14.pdf Accessed 17 Jul 2009
  13. Forestry Commission (1991) Community woodland design guidelines. HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Forman RTT (1995) Some general-principles of landscape and regional ecology. Landscape Ecol 10:133–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Forman RTT, Godron M (1986) Landscape ecology. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Franco D, Franco D, Mannino I, Zanetto G (2003) The impact of agroforestry networks on scenic beauty estimation. The role of a landscape ecological network on a socio-cultural process. Landscape Urban Plan 62:119–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fry G, Sarlöv-Herlin I (1997) The ecological and amenity functions of woodland edges in the agricultural landscape, a basis for design and management. Landscape Urban Plan 37:45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gobster PH (1999) An ecological aesthetic for forest landscape management. Landscape J 18(1):54–64Google Scholar
  19. Gobster PH (2007) The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecol 22:959–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grove AT, Rackham O (2001) Mediterranean savanna: Trees without forests. In: Grove AT; Rackham O (eds) The nature of Mediterranean Europe: an ecological history. Yale University Press, New Haven and London: 190–216Google Scholar
  21. Gustafson EJ (1998) Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: what is the state of the art? Ecosystems 1:143–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haines-Young R, Chopping M (1996) Quantifying landscape structure: a review of landscape indices and their application to forested landscapes. Prog Phys Geogr 20:418–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Halldorsson G, Oddsdottir ES, Sigurdsson BD (2008) AFFORNORD – Effects of afforestation on ecosystems, landscape and rural development. TemaNord 2008:562. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, 120 ppGoogle Scholar
  24. Hamre LN, Domaas ST, Austad I, Rydgren K (2007) Land-cover and structural changes in a western Norwegian cultural landscape since 1865, based on an old cadastral map and a field survey. Landscape Ecol 22:1563–1574. doi: 10.1007/s10980-007-9154-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaplan R, Kaplan S (1989) The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Kimmins JP (2004) Ecological role of solar radiation. In: Forest ecology: a foundation for sustainable forest management and environmental ethics in forestry, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, pp 169–174Google Scholar
  27. Kreuz A (2008) Closed forest or open woodland as natural vegetation in the surroundings of linearbandkeramik settlements? Veget Hist Archaeobot 17:51–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Li H, Reynolds JF (1994) A simulation experiment to quantify spatial heterogeneity in categorical maps. Ecology 75:2446–2455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lohr VI, Pearson-Mims CH (2006) Responses to scenes with spreading, rounded, and conical tree forms. Environ Behav 38:667–688. doi: 10.1177/0013916506287355 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lothian A (1999) Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? Landscape Urban Plan 44:177–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mather AS (1992) The forest transition. Area 24:367–379Google Scholar
  32. McGarigal K, Marks BJ (1995) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-351, 122 ppGoogle Scholar
  33. McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Neel MC, Ene E (2002) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern ananlysis program for categorical maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Available from: http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html
  34. Meeus JHA (1995) Pan-European landscapes. Landscape Urban Plan 31:57–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Meeus JHA, Wijermans MP, Vroom MJ (1990) Agricultural landscapes in Europe and their transformation. Landscape Urban Plan 18:289–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Meeus JHA, Vroom M (1986) Critique and theory in Dutch landscape architecture. Landscape Urban Plan 13:277–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Meitner MJ, Gandy R, D’Eon RG (2005) Human perceptions of forest fragmentation: implications for natural disturbance management. Forest Chron 81(2):256–264Google Scholar
  38. Møller Jensen L, Hobitz P, Reenberg A, Lawesson J (1998) A quantitative method for analysing landscape structure. Geografisk Tidsskrift, Dan J Geography 98:88–93Google Scholar
  39. Nassauer JI (1995) Culture and changing landscape structure. Landscape Ecol 10:229–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nikodemus O, Bell S, Grine I, Liepins I (2005) The impact of economic, social and political ­factors on the landscape structure of the Vidzeme uplands in Latvia. Landscape Urban Plan 70:57–67. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.005 ER CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Oreszczyn S, Lane A (2000) The meaning of hedgerows in the English landscape: different stakeholder perspectives and the implications for future hedge management. J Environ Manage 60:101–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Orians GH (1980) Habitat selection: general theory and applications to human behavior. In: Lockard JS (ed) The evolution of human social behavior. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 49–66Google Scholar
  43. Otto HJ (1994) Natürliche Wald- und Baumgrenzen. In: Otto HJ (ed) Waldökologie. Ulmer, Stuttgart, pp 139–153Google Scholar
  44. Peterken G (1996) Natural woodland. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  45. Plieninger T, Pulido FJ, Konold W (2003) Effects of land-use history on size structure of holm oak stands in Spanish dehesas: implications for conservation and restoration. Environ Conserv 30:61–70. doi: 10.1017/S0376892903000055 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Powe NA, Garrod GD, Brunsdon CF, Wills KG (1997) Using a geographical information system to estimate an hedonic price model of the benefits of woodland access. Forestry 70(2):139–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rackham O (1996) Trees and woodlands in the British landscape, 3rd edn. Phoenix Giant Paperback, LondonGoogle Scholar
  48. Rackham O (1988) Trees and woodland in a crowded landscape – the cultural landscape of the British Isles. In: Birks HH, Birks HJB, Kaland PE, Moe D (eds) The cultural landscape - past, present and future. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 53–77Google Scholar
  49. Rackham O (1986) The history of the countryside. J.M. Dent Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  50. Riitters KH, O’Neill R, Hunsaker C, Wickham J, Yankee D, Timmins S, Jones K, Jackson B (1995) A factor analysis of landscape pattern and structure metrics. Landscape Ecol 101:23–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Riitters KH, Wickham JD, Wade TG (2009) An indicator of forest dynamics using a shifting landscape mosaic. Ecol indic: 107–117Google Scholar
  52. Robinson M (1978) The problem of hedges enclosing Roman earlier fields. Br Archaeological Rep 48:155–158Google Scholar
  53. Sugita S, Gaillard MJ, Brostrom A (1999) Landscape openness and pollen records: a simulation approach. Holocene 9:409–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Steiniger S, Hay GJ (2009) Free and open source geographic information tools for landscape ecology. Ecol Inform 4:183–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Swanwick C (2002) Landscape character assessment. Guidance for England and Scotland. Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  56. Tahvanainen L, Tyrväinen L, Ihalainen M, Vuorela N, Kolehmainen O (2001) Forest management and public perceptions – visual versus verbal information. Landscape Urban Plan 53:53–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. The Countryside Agency (1999) The state of the countryside 1999. The Countryside Agency Postal Sales, NorthamptonGoogle Scholar
  58. Thirgood JV (1981) Man and the Mediterranean forest: a history of resource depletion. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  59. Traustason B, Snorrason A (2008) Spatial distribution of forests and woodlands in Iceland in accordance with the CORINE landcover classification. Icel Agric Sci 21:39–48Google Scholar
  60. Tuan YF (1974) Topophilia: a study of environmental perception, attitudes, and values. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  61. Tveit M, Ode Å, Fry G (2006) Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landscape Res 31:229–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ulrich RS (1986) Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape Urban Plan 13:29–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (2000) In: Smith G, Gillet H, Smith G, Gillet H (eds) European forests and protected areas: gap analysis. Technical report. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, p 71Google Scholar
  64. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (2007) Temperate and boreal forests and protected areas. http://www.unep-wcmc.org/forest/boreal/homepage.htm. (Accessed 17 March 2009)
  65. van der Horst D (2006) A prototype method to map the potential visual-amenity benefits of new farm woodlands. Environ Plan B-Plan Des 33:221–238. doi: 10.1068/b31172 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Veen AW, Klaassen W, Kruijt B, Hutjes WAR (1996) Forest edges and the soil-vegetation-atmosphere interaction at the landscape scale: the state of affairs. Prog Phys Geogr 20:292–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Vestergaard P (2007) Naturen i det åbne land. In: Naturen i Danmark - Det abne land. Gyldendal, København, pp 19–26Google Scholar
  68. Vogt P, Riitters KH, Iwanowski M, Estreguil C, Kozak J, Soille P (2007) Mapping landscape ­corridors. Ecol Indic 7:481–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Walter H (1986) Beziehungen zwischen Klima und Arealgrenzen. In: Allgemeine Geobotanik. Ulmer, Stuttgart, pp 18–21Google Scholar
  70. Weinstoerffer J, Girardin P (2000) Assessment of the contribution of land use pattern and intensity to landscape quality: use of a landscape indicator. Ecol Model 130:95–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wickham JD, Riitters KH, Wade TG, Coulston JW (2007) Temporal change in forest fragmentation at multiple scales. Landscape Ecol 22:481–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wuyts K, De Schrijver A, Vermeiren F, Verheyen K (2009) Gradual forest edges can mitigate edge effects on throughfall deposition if their size and shape are well considered. For Ecol Manage 257:679–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V.  2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations