Exploring forest aesthetics using forestry photo contests: Case studies examining Japanese and German public preferences

Forest Policy and Economics

Volumn 6, Issue 3-4, 2004, Pages 289-299

  Kohsaka, Ryo ^a,b   Flitner, Michael ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Forest aesthetics; Germany; Group interview; Japan; Photo contest; Public relations

Indexed keywords

MULTIPLE FORESTS; PHOTO CONTESTS; PRIZES; SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT (SFM);

DEGREES OF FREEDOM (MECHANICS); ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; FUNCTIONS; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

FORESTRY;

EID: 2442493119     PISSN: 13899341     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2004.03.016     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Al-Kodmany K. Using visualization techniques for enhancing public participation in planning and design: process, implementation and evaluation. Landscape and Urban Planning. 45:1999;37-45
2. Aoki Y. Evolution of landscape appreciation in the history of landscape painting and in the first remembrance of landscape (in Japanese, with English abstract). Journal of The Japanese Institute of Landscape Architecture. 63:2000;371-374
3. Barthes R. Empire of Signs. 1982;Hill and Wang, New York
4. Beckley, T.M., Stedman, R.C., Ambard, M., Wallace, S., in press. New methods for understanding sense of place. Proceedings of 65th Annual Meeting of the Rural Sociological Society
5. Bell S. Landscape pattern, perception and visualisation in the visual management of forests. Landscape and Urban Planning. 54:2001;201-211
6. Bergen S.D., Ulbricht C.A., Fridley J.L., Ganter M.A. The validity of computer-generated graphic images of forest landscape. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 15:1995;135-146
7. Brown T.C., Daniel T.C. Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands. Forest Science. 32:1986;471-487
8. Brunson M., Shelby B. Assessing recreational and scenic quality. Journal of Forestry. 90:1992;37-41
9. Brunson M.W., Reiter K.D. Effects of ecological information on judgements about scenic impacts of timber harvest. Journal of Environmental Management. 46:1996;31-41
10. Cantrill J.G., Senecah S.L. Using the 'sense of self-in-place' construct in the context of environmental policy-making and landscape planning. Environmental Science and Policy. 4:2001;185-203
11. Cloke P., Jones O. From wasteland to woodland to 'little Switzerland': environmental and recreational management in place, culture and time. Font X., Tribe J. Forest Tourism and Recreation. 2000;161-182 CABI Publishing, New York
12. Daniels S. The political iconography of woodland in later Georgian England. Cosgrove D., Daniels S. The Iconography of Landscape. 1988;43-82 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
13. Daniel T.C. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning. 54:2001;267-281
14. Daniel, T.C., Boster, R.S., 1976. Measuring landscape esthetics: the scenic beauty estimation method. USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-167, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture
15. Daniel T.C., Meitner M.M. Representational validity of landscape visualizations: the effects of the graphical realism on perceived scenic beauty of forest vistas. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 21:2001;61-72
16. Flitner M. Gibt es einen 'deutschen Tropenwald'? Anleitung zur Spurensuche. Flitner M. Der deutsche Tropenwald. Bilder, Mythen, Politik. 2000;9-20 Campus, Frankfurt
17. Forestry Agency of Japan, 2001. Forestry White Paper (in Japanese). Nihon Rinngyou Kyoukai, Tokyo
18. Hull B.R. IV, Buhyoff G.J. The scenic beauty temporal distribution method: an attempt to make scenic beauty assessments compatible with forest planning efforts. Forest Science. 32:1986;271-286
19. Hunziker M., Kienast F. Potential impacts of changing agricultural activities on scenic beauty - a prototypical technique for automated rapid assessment. Landscape Ecology. 14:1999;161-176
20. Jedicke E. Biotopverbund: Grundlagen und Maßnahmen einer neuen Naturschutzstrategie. 1994;Ulmer, Stuttgart
21. Johnson L.R., Brunson M.W., Kimura T. Using image-capture technology to assess scenic value at the urban/forest interface: a case study. Journal of Environmental Management. 40:1994;183-195
22. Kant S. Extending the boundaries of forest economics. Forest Policy and Economics. 5:2003;39-56
23. Karjalainen E., Komulainen M. Field afforestation preferences: a case study in northeastern Finland. Landscape and Urban Planning. 43:1998;79-90
24. Karjalainen E., Tyrväinen L. Visualization in forest landscape preference research: a Finnish perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning. 59:2002;13-28
25. Kitamura M. Forests and Japanese (in Japanese). 1995;Shogakukan, Tokyo
26. Knight J. From timber to tourism: recommoditizing the Japanese forest. Development and Change. 31:2000;341-359
27. Koch E.N., Jensen F.S. Skovenes friluftsfunktion i Danmark. IV. (Forest recreation in Denmark. Part IV: the preferences of the population). Det Forstlige Forsøgsvaesen. 41:1988;365-417
28. Kohsaka R. Gift und Tabu. Bemerkung zur japanischen Tropenwalddebatte. Flitner M. Der deutsche Tropenwald. Bilder, Mythen, Politik. 2000;214-221 Campus, Frankfurt
29. Kohsaka, R., in press. Exploring Criteria in Forest Aesthetics: Rough Sets Theory and Discourse Analysis. IIASA Interim Report IR-03-038, Austria
30. Laulan, A.M., 1978. La fonction sociale de la photographie (with English abstract). Communications 4, 110-121
31. Lee, T.R., 2001. Perceptions, attitudes and preferences in forests and woodlands. Forestry Commission Technical Paper 18, Forestry Commission, Edinburgh
32. Lothian A. Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? Landscape and Urban Planning. 44:1999;177-198
33. Mitchell W.J.T. Iconology: Image, Text, Ideology. 1986;University Chicago Press, Chicago
34. Ode, Å., 2003. Visual aspects in urban woodland management and planning. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp. At: http://diss-epsilon.slu.se/archive/00000195/(Information retrieved on September 18th, 2003)
35. Oku H., Fukamachi K., Shimomura A. Sense of seasonal matters in the rural landscape through a photo contest (in Japanese, with English abstract). Journal of The Japanese Institute of Landscape Architecture. 61:1998;631-636
36. Parsons R., Daniel T.C. Good looking: in defense of scenic landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning. 60:2002;43-56
37. Ribe R.G. The aesthetics of forestry: what has empirical preference research taught us? Environmental Management. 13:1989;55-74
38. Rose G. Visual Methodologies: an Introduction to the Interpretation of Visual Materials. 2001;Saga Publications, London
39. Scherzinger W. Naturschutz im Wald: Qualitätsziele einer dynamischen Waldentwicklung. 1996;Ulmer, Stuttgart
40. Schlaepfer R., Iorgulescu I., Glenz C. Management of forested landscapes in mountain areas: an ecosystem-based approach. Forest Policy and Economics. 4:2002;89-99
41. Schmithüsen, F., Kazemi, Y., Seeland, K., 1997. Perceptions and attitudes of the population towards forests and their social benefits: social origins and research topics of studies conducted in Germany, Austria and Switzerland between 1960 and 1995. IUFRO Occasional Paper 7. Arbora Publishers, Zvolen
42. Schroeder H., Daniel T.C. Progress in predicting the perceived scenic beauty of forest landscapes. Forest Science. 27:1981;71-80
43. Tahvanainen L., Tyrväinen L. Model for predicting the scenic value of rural landscape: a preliminary study of landscape preferences in North Carelia. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research. 13:1998;378-384
44. Takemura Y., Toyoda H. 50 years history of Japanese nature photography: review of 1500 nature photographic books (in Japanese). 1995;Bunichi Sougou, Tokyo
45. Wang S. One hundred faces of sustainable forest management. Forest Policy and Economics. 6:2004;205-213. this issue