Harvesting where the people are: Aesthetic preferences for logging-in-progress

Journal of Forestry

Volumn 103, Issue 8, 2005, Pages 401-406

  Eckley, Michael ^a   Egan, Andrew ^b  

^a Virginia Department of Forestry   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITÉ LAVAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Aesthetics; Logging in progress; Public preferences

Indexed keywords

DATA REDUCTION; HARVESTING; LOGGING (FORESTRY); MANAGEMENT; STATISTICS; TIMBER; TRACTORS (AGRICULTURAL);

BULLDOZER; LOGGING-IN-PROGRESS; PUBLIC PREFERENCES;

FORESTRY;

GREENSPACE; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; URBAN PLANNING;

ESTHETICS; FOREST MANAGEMENT; FOREST OPERATIONS; FORESTRY; FORESTS; HARVESTING; LOGGING; SKIDDERS; SKIDDING; STATISTICS; SURVEYS; TRACTORS;

EQUUS CABALLUS;

EID: 30744451398     PISSN: 00221201     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Barlow, S.A., I.A. Munn, D.A. Cleaves, and D.L. Evans. 1998. The effects of urban sprawl on timber harvesting. J. For. 96(12):10-14.
2. Benson, R.E., and J.R. Ullrich. 1981. Visual impacts of forest management activities. Findings on public preferences. Res. Pap. INT-262, USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah. 14 p.
3. Bergen, S.D. 1995. Predicting the visual effect of forest operations. J. For. 93(2):33-37.
4. Bliss, J.C. 2000. Public perceptions of clearcutting. J. For. 98(12):4-9.
5. Bourgeouis, L., and G. Kodama. 1999. First impressions: Logging aesthetics. For. Oper. Rev. 1(1):14-17.
6. Buyhoff, G.J., and W.A. Leuschner. 1978. Estimating psychological disutility from damaged forest stands. For. Sci. 24(3):424-432.
7. Daniel, T. 2001. Aesthetic preference and ecological sustainability. P. 15-28 in IUFRO research series 6, Sheppard, S., and H. Harshaw (eds.). CABI Publishing, New York.
8. Egan, A. 1998. Clashing values at the urban fringe: Is there a niche for horse logging? North. Log. Timber Process. 7:16-17, 32.
9. Egan, A. 2000. Does it make sense to skid with horses? Independ. Sawmill Woodlot Manage. 3(3)39-41.
10. Egan, A. 2005. Training preferences and attitudes among loggers in northern New England. For. Prod. J. 55(3):19-26.
11. Egan, A., and A. Luloff. 2000. The exurbanization of America's forests: Research in rural social sciences. J. For. 98(3):26-30.
12. Egan, A., and A. Luloff. 2005. Exurban migration: Implications for forest communities, policies, and practices. P. 274-290 in Communities and forests: Where people meet the land, Lee, R., and D. Field (eds.). Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.
13. Friemund, W., M.P. Donnellly, T.A. Miller, and J.J. Vaske. 2002. Using video surveys to access dispersed backcountry visitors' norms. Leisure Sci. 24:349-362.
14. Hollenhorst, S., S.M. Brock, W.A. Friedmund, and M.J. Twery. 1993. Predicting the effects of gypsy moth on near-view aesthetic preferences and recreation appeal. For. Sci. 39(1):28-40.
15. Kittredge, D.B., M.J. Mauri, and E.J. McGuire. 1996. Decreasing woodlot size and the future of timber sales in Massachusetts: When is an operation too small? North. J. Appl. For. 13(2):96-101.
16. Kutner, M.H., C.J. Nachtsheim, and J. Neter. 2004. Applied linear regression models, 4th Ed. McGraw Hill/Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Chicago, IL.
17. Meacham, S. 2000. Draft horses, bird boxes, and other keys to an urban interface success story. P. 215-222 in Proc. of forest fragmentation, Sept. 17-20. Annapolis, MD, DeCoster, L. (ed.). The Sampson Group, Inc., Alexandria, VA.
18. 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. Environ. Manage. 10(3):385-391.
19. Ribe, R.G. 1989. The aesthetics of forestry: What has empirical preference research taught us? Environ. Manage. 13(1):55-74.
20. Ross, R.W. II 1979. The Bureau of Land Management - An overview. P. 666-671. in Our national landscape. Proc. of a conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource, Incline Village, NV, Apr. 23-25. USDA Forest Service, Berkeley, CA.
21. Schweitzer, D.L., J.R. Ullrich, and R.E. Benson. 1976. Aesthetic evaluation of timber harvesting in the northern Rockies: A progress report. USDA For. Serv., Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. 11 p.
22. Shelby, B., M. Brunson, and R. Johnson. 2003. Changes in scenic quality after harvest: A decade of ratings for six silvicultural treatments. J. For. 101(3):30-35.
23. Thorne, S. 2000. The New Hampshire forest land base survey. P. 276-290 in Proc. of forest fragmentation, Sept. 17-20. Annapolis, MD, DeCoster, L. (ed.) The Sampson Group, Inc., Alexandria, VA.
24. Tindall, D.B. 2001. Why do you think that hillside is ugly? A sociological persperctive on aesthetic values and public attitudes about forests. P. 57-50 in IUFRO research series 6, Sheppard, S., and H. Harshaw (eds.). CABI Publishing, New York.
25. Vodak, M., P.L. Roberts, J.D. Wellman, and G.J. Buhyoff. 1985. Scenic impacts of eastern hardwood management. For. Sci. 31(2):298-302.
26. Zube, E.H. 1982, Landscape perception: Research, application and theory. Landsc. Plan. 9:1-33, Table 1.