Field afforestation preferences: A case study in northeastern Finland

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 43, Issue 1-3, 1998, Pages 79-90

  Karjalainen, Eeva ^a   Komulainen, Minna ^a  

^a FINNISH FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

Author keywords

Field afforestation; Landscape preferences; Scenic beauty

Indexed keywords

AFFORESTATION; ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; FOREST MANAGEMENT;

FINLAND;

EID: 0032576561     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00076-0     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Bell, S., 1993. Elements of Visual Design in the Landscape. E&FN Spon, London.
2. Brown T.C., Daniel T.C. Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands. Forest Science. 32(2):1986;471-487.
3. Brush, R., 1976. Perceived quality of scenic and recreational environments. Some methodological issues. In: Craik, K.H., Zube, E.H. (Eds.), Perceiving Environmental Quality. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 47-58.
4. Buhyoff G.J., Wellman J.G., Koch N.E., Gauthier L., Hultman S. Landscape preference metrics: An international comparison. J. Environ. Manage. 16:1983;181-190.
5. Buhyoff G.J., Hull R.B., Lien J.N., Cordell H.K. Prediction of scenic quality for southern pine stands. Forest Science. 30(3):1986;769-778.
6. Cook P.S., Cable T.T. The scenic beauty of shelterbelts on the Great Plains. Landscape Urban Plann. 32:1995;63-69.
7. Drake, L., 1987. Värdet av bevarat jordbrukslandskap - Resultat av intervjuundersökningar. [The value of preserving the agricultural landscape - Results from surveys], (in Swedish, with English summary), Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Economics and Statistics, Report 289, Uppsala.
8. Gustavsson, R., Ingelög, T., 1994. Det Nya Landskapet. [The New Landscape], (in Swedish), Skogsstyrelsen, Jönköping.
9. Haider W. The aesthetics of white pine and red pine forests. The Forestry Chronicle. 4:1994;402-410.
10. Hammitt W.E., Patterson M.E., Noe F.P. Identifying and predicting visual preference of southern Appalachian forest recreation vistas. Landscape Urban Plann. 29:1994;171-183.
11. Hull R.B., Buhyoff G.J. The scenic beauty temporal distribution method: An attempt to make scenic beauty assessment compatible with forest planning efforts. Forest Science. 32(2):1986;271-286.
12. Hultman S. Friluftsskogen i folkets ögon, [Recreation forest through public's eyes], (in Swedish). Sveriges Skogsförbunds Tidskrift. 1:1979;32-49.
13. Hunziker M. The spontaneous reafforestation in abandoned agricultural lands: Perception and aesthetic assessment by locals and tourists. Landscape Urban Plann. 31:1995;399-410.
14. Jensen F.S. Landscape managers' and politicians' perception of the forest and landscape preferences of the population. For. and Landsc. Res. 1(1):1993;79-93.
15. Johnson R.B., Brunson M.W., Kimura T. Using image-capture technology to assess scenic value at the urban/forest interface: A case study. J. Environ. Manage. 40:1994;183-195.
16. Karjalainen, E., Komulainen, M., 1998. The visual effect of felling on the broad landscape in Northeastern Finland. J. Environ. Manage (Forthcoming).
17. Koch N.E., Jensen F.S. Skovens friluftsfunktion i Danmark. IV del. Befolkningens ønsker til skovens og det åbne lands udformning. [Forest recreation in Denmark. Part IV: The preferences of the population], (in Danish, with English summary). Forstl. Forsøgsv. Danm., København. 41:1988;243-516.
18. Kreimer A. Environmental preferences: A critical analysis of some research methodologies. Journal of Leisure Research. 9(2):1977;88-97.
19. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. 1995. The Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Assessment. E&FN Spon, London.
20. Lowland Landscape Design Guidelines. 1992, The Forestry Authority. HMSO, London.
21. Lucas, O., 1991. The Design of Forest Landscapes. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
22. Magill, A.W., 1992. Managed and natural landscapes: What do people like? U.S. Dept. Agric. For. Serv. Res. Pap. PSW-RP-213.
23. Maisema-aluetyöryhmän mietintö I. Maisemanhoito. 1992. [Landscape management, (in Finnish, with English abstract), Report I of the working group on landscape areas]. Ministry of Environment, Report no. 66, Painatuskeskus Oy, Helsinki.
24. Pellonmetsittäjän opas. 1992. [Field afforestation guidelines], (in Finnish), Taimi-Tapio Oy, Helsinki.
25. Pukkala T., Kellomäki S., Mustonen E. Prediction of the amenity of a tree stand. Scand. J. For. Res. 3:1988;533-544.
26. Savolainen, R., Kellomäki, S., 1981. Metsän maisemallinen arvostus. [Scenic value of forest landscape], (in Finnish, with English summary), Acta Forestalia Fennica 170.
27. Selby, J.A., Petäjistö, L., 1994. Field afforestation in Finland in the 1990s: Objections, preconditions and alternatives. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Research Papers 502.
28. Selby A., Petäjistö L. Pellon metsityksestä yrittäjyyteen ja työllistämiseen [From field afforestation to enterprises and employment], (in Finnish). Finnish Forest Research Institute, Research Papers. 562:1995;25-32.
29. Schroeder H., Daniel T.C. Progress in predicting the perceived scenic beauty of forest landscapes. Forest Science. 27(1):1981;71-80.
30. Shafer, E.L., Richards, T.A., 1974. A comparison of viewer reactions to outdoor scenes and photographs of those scenes. U.S. Dept. Agric. For. Serv. Res. Pap. NE-302.
31. Strumse E. Perceptual dimensions in the visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in western Norway. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 14:1994;281-292.
32. Sullivan W.C. III Perceptions of the rural-urban fringe: Citizen preferences for natural and developed settings. Landscape Urban Plann. 29:1994;85-101.
33. Tahvanainen L., Tyrväinen L. Maaseutumaisema ja peltojen metsitys [Rural landscape and field afforestation], (in Finnish). Finnish Forest Research Institute, Research Papers. 581:1995;212-221.
34. Tahvanainen L., Tyrväinen L., Nousiainen I. Effect of afforestation on the scenic value of rural landscape. Scand. J. For. Res. 11:1996;397-405.
35. Toimiva maaseutu. Maaseutuohjelma, 1996. Maa-ja metsätalousministeriön asettaman työryhmän ehdotukset ja perustelut, [Programme for the countryside. Proposals and rationales of the working party appointed by Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry], (in Finnish), Maaseutupolitiikan yhteistyöryhmän julkaisu 1/1996. Sisäasianministeriön monistamo, Helsinki.
36. Willis, K., Garrod, G., 1991. Landscape values: A contingent valuation approach and case study of the Yorkshire Dales National Park. ESRC Countyside change initiative. Countyside Change Working Paper Series. Working Paper 21.
37. Willis K. Contingent valuation in a policy context. Landscape Res. 19(1):1994;17-20.
38. Vodak M.C., Roberts P.L., Wellman J.D., Buhyoff G.J. Scenic impacts of eastern Hardwood management. Forest Science. 31(2):1985;289-301.