Visual-quality impacts of forest pest activity at the landscape level: A synthesis of published knowledge and research needs

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 77, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 321-342

  Sheppard, Stephen ^a   Picard, Paul ^b  

^a Landscape Architecture Program ^*  (Canada)

^b Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning ^*  (Canada)

Author keywords

Aesthetics; Forest pest infestations; Mountain pine beetle; Public perceptions; Social acceptability; Visual impact; Visual resource management

Indexed keywords

FORESTRY; IMAGE QUALITY; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; SENSORY PERCEPTION;

AESTHETICS; FOREST PEST INFESTATIONS; MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE; PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS; SOCIAL ACCEPTABILITY; VISUAL IMPACT; VISUAL-RESOURCE MANAGEMENT;

PEST CONTROL;

BEETLE; FOREST ECOSYSTEM; LANDSCAPE; MOTH; PEST DAMAGE; RESEARCH WORK; VISUAL ANALYSIS;

FORESTRY; INSECTS; PEST CONTROL;

NORTH AMERICA;

COLEOPTERA; DENDROCTONUS; LYMANTRIA DISPAR;

EID: 33746658077     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.007     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Anderson L.M. Landscape designations affect perceptions of scenic beauty in forest landscapes. For. Sci. 27 (1981) 392-400
2. Bell, S., 1993. Elements of Visual Design in the Landscape. E et FN Spon, London, 212 p.
3. Blair W.G.E. Visual impact assessment in urban environments. In: Smardon R.C., Palmer J.F., and Felleman J.P. (Eds). Foundations for Visual Project Analysis (1986), John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY 233-244 (Chapter 13)
4. British Columbia Ministry of Forests (BCMoF), 1994. A first look at visually effective green-up in British Columbia: a public perception study, vol. 1. Technical Report 1994, Ministry of Forests, Recreation Branch, BC.
5. British Columbia Ministry of Forests (BCMoF), 1995. Visual Landscape Design Training Manual, vol. 2. Recreation Branch Publication 1994, Recreation Branch, BCMoF, Victoria, BC.
6. British Columbia Ministry of Forests (BCMoF), 1997. Visual Landscape Inventory: Procedures and Standards Manual. BC Ministry of Forests Forest Practices Branch for the Culture Task Force, Resources Inventory Committee, May 1997.
7. British Columbia Ministry of Forests (BCMoF), 2001. Visual Impact Assessment Guidebook, second ed. Forest Practices Code of BC. Forest Practices Branch, BCMoF, Victoria, BC.
8. Buhyoff G.J., and Leuschner W.A. Estimating psychological disutility from damaged forest stands. For. Sci. 26 (1978) 424-432
9. Buhyoff G.J., and Wellman J.D. The specification of non-linear psychophysical function for visual landscape dimensions. J. Leisure Res. 12 (1980) 257-272
10. Buhyoff G.J., Leuschner W.A., and Arndt L.K. Replication of a scenic preference function. For. Sci. 26 (1980) 227-230
11. Buhyoff G.J., Leuschner W.A., and Wellman J.D. Aesthetic impacts of southern pine beetle damage. J. Environ. Manage. 8 3 (1979) 261-267
12. Buhyoff G.J., Leuschner W.A., and Wellman J.D. Southern pine beetle infestation affects aesthetic values of forest landscapes. S. J. Appl. For. 3 2 (1979) 48-55
13. Buhyoff G.J., Wellman J.D., and Daniel T.C. Predicting scenic quality of mountain pine beetle and western spruce budworm damaged forest vistas. For. Sci. 28 (1982) 827-838
14. Canadian Institute of Forestry, 2003. Emulation of natural disturbance patterns as a model of forest management. Position Statement. Canadian Institute of Forestry (Institut Forestier du Canada), July 18th, 2003. Electronic document accessed via the Internet on November 2nd, 2003 at: http://www.cif-ifc.org/pp.html.
15. Clay G.R., and Marsh S.E. Spectral analysis for articulating scenic color changes in a coniferous landscape. Photogramm. Eng. Rem. S. 63 12 (1997) 1353-1362
16. Clay, G.R., Gimblett, H.R., 1998. Integrating spatial data with photography for visualizing changes in a forested environment. J. Urban Reg. Inf. Syst. Assoc. (URISA) (Fall).
17. 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, USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO.
18. Daniel, T.C., Orland, B., Hetherington, J., Paschke, J.L., 1993. Public perception and attitudes regarding spruce bark beetle damage to forest resources on the Chugach National Forest, Alaska. Final Report Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, vol. 10. Forest Pest Management Region, Fort Collins, CO.
19. EPLAB Environmental Perception Lab (EPLAB), 2003. EPLAB web page including a list of projects undertaken. Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, AZ. Accessed via the Internet on November 2nd, 2003 at: http://eplab.psych.arizona.edu/projects.htm.
20. Gobster P.H. An ecological aesthetic for forest landscape management. Landsc. J. 18 1 (1999) 54-64
21. Goebl M. Gypsy moth infestations on the Allegheny National Forest has direct impacts on recreationists: coping with the gypsy moth in the new frontier. In: Fosbroke S., and Hicks R. (Eds). Proceedings of a Workshop for Forest Managers (1987), West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, August 4-6 59-64
22. Hodgson R.W., and Thayer R.L. Implied human influence reduces landscape beauty. Landsc. Plann. 7 (1980) 171-179
23. Hollenhorst, S.J., Brock, S.M., Freimund, W.A., Twery, M.J., 1991. Effects of gypsy moth infestation on near-view aesthetic preferences and recreation behavior intentions. In: McCormick, L.H., Gottschalk, K.W. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth Central Hardwoods Conference, University Park, PA, March 4-6, 1991, pp. 23-33 (USFS General Technical Report NE-148, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Radnor, PA).
24. Hollenhorst S.J., Brock S.M., Freimund W.A., and Twery M.J. Predicting the effects of gypsy moth on near-view aesthetic preferences and recreational appeal. For. Sci. 39 1 (1993) 28-40
25. Hull, R.B., 1988. Forest visual quality management and research. In: Watson, A.H. (Compiler), Outdoor Recreation Benchmark 1988: Proceedings of the National Outdoor Recreation Forum. USFS General Technical Report SE-52, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, NC, pp. 485-498.
26. Hull R.B., and Buhyoff G.J. Distance and scenic beauty: a non-monotonic relationship. Environ. Behav. 15 1 (1983) 77-91
27. Systems Laboratory (IMLAB), 2003. IMLAB web page including a list of past projects. Faculty of Landscape Architectute, Penn State University, PA. Accessed via the Internet on November 2nd, 2003 at: http://www.imlab.psu.edu/.
28. Litton R.B. Aesthetic values. Forest Resource Management: Decision-Making Principles and Cases (1979), W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia pp. 215-225
29. Lucas O.W.R. The Design of Forest Landscapes (1991), Forestry Commission, Oxford University Press
30. Lynch A.M., and Twery M.J. Forest visual resources and pest management: potential applications of visualization technology. Landsc. Urban Plann. 21 4 (1992) 319-321
31. Lynch, A.M., Daniel, T.C., Orland, B., 1993a. The effects of defoliation on forest scenic beauty. In: Robinson, J.V. (Ed.), Report of the 63rd Rocky Mountain Conference of Entomologists, Overton, TX.
32. Lynch A.M., White W.B., Orland B., Maffei H.M., and Daniel T.C. Visualization and perceived scenic beauty effects of management alternatives of western spruce budworm. Proceedings of the 44th Annual Western Forest Insect Work Conference/Western International Forest Disease Work Conference. Sacramento, CA (1993)
33. McCool S.F., Benson R.E., and Ashor J.L. How the public perceives the visual effects of timber harvesting: an evaluation of interest group preferences. J. Environ. Manage. 10 3 (1986) 385-391
34. McQuillan A.G. The potential of fractal geometry as a tool for achieving naturalism in forest aesthetics. In: O'Hara K.L. (Ed). Uneven-Aged Management Opportunities, Constraints and Methodologies (1995), MFCES Miscellaneous Pubication No. 56, School of Forestry, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 51-66
35. NPS National Park Service (NPS), 2003. Blue Ridge Parkway: Appalachian Ecology. US National Park Service web page accessed via the Internet on November 2nd, 2003 at: http://www.nps.gov/blri/ecology.htm#types.
36. Natural Resources Canada, 2003. Mountain Pine Beetle. Pacific Forestry Center, Canadian Forest Service. Electronic document accessed on the Internet on June 12th, 2003 at: http://www.pfc.forestry.ca/entomology/mpb/index_e.html.
37. Orland, B., Daniel, T.C., Paschke J.L., Hetherington, J., 1993. Visualization of forest management issues on the Dixie National Forest. Final Report. US Forest Service Forest Pest Management, Region 4 and Methods Application Group (FPM-MAG), 60 pp.
38. Pâquet, J., 1993. Seuils d'acceptabilité de l'impact des coupes à blanc sur la qualite esthétique des paysages forestiers boréaux. Mémoire de maîtrise présente au programme d'aménagement du territoire et développement regional. Université Laval, Sainte-Foy, 61 p.
39. Pâquet J., and Bélanger L. Public acceptability thresholds of clearcutting to maintain visual quality of boreal balsam fir landscapes. For. Sci. 43 1 (1997) 46-55
40. Picard, P., 2002. Do visual quality objectives necessarily constrain timber harvest levels? Exploring the potential of partial cutting. Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, 132 p. (122 references).
41. Picard, P., Sheppard, S.R.J., 2002a. Visual resource management in British Columbia. Part I: the effects of visual resource management on timber availability: a review of case studies and policy. Research Report, BC J. Ecosyst. Manage. 1(2). Can be obtained electronically at: http://www.siferp.org/jem/2001/vol1/no2/art1.pdf.
42. Picard, P., Sheppard, S.R.J., 2002b. Visual resource management in British Columbia. Part II: partial cutting in the front-country-a win-win solution for short-term timber availability and aesthetics? Research Report, BC J. Ecosyst. Manage. 1(2). Can be obtained electronically at: http://www.siferp.org/jem/2001/vol1/no2/art3.pdf.
43. Ribe R. Is scenic beauty a proxy for acceptable management? The influence of environmental attitudes on landscape perceptions. Environ. Behav. 34 6 (2002) 757-780
44. Riesenman, M.F., 1977. An analysis of southern pine beetle's impact on aesthetic values of forested landscapes. Unpublished Master Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.
45. Rosenberger, R.S., Smith, E.L., 1997a. Assessing scenic beauty impacts of insects and management. Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team (FHTET), USDA Forest Service. Research Paper 98-08, Fort Collins, CO, 39 p.
46. Rosenberger, R.S., Smith, E.L., 1997b. Nonmarket economic impacts of forest insect pests: a literature review. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report PSW-GTR-164, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Berkeley, CA, 38 p.
47. Sheppard S.R.J. Beyond visual resource management: emerging theories of an ecological aesthetics and visible stewardship. In: Sheppard S.R.J., and Harshaw H.J. (Eds). Forest and Landscapes: Linking Ecology, Sustainability and Aesthetics. IUFRO Research Series 6 (2001), CABI Publishing, Wallingford, England 149-172 (Chapter 11)
48. Sheppard S.R.J., and Salter J. The role of visualization in forest planning. In: Burley J., Evans J., and Youngquist J. (Eds). Encyclopedia of Forest Sciences (2004), Academic Press/Elsevier, Oxford, UK pp. 486-498
49. Sheppard S.R.J. Knowing a socially sustainable forest when you see one: implications for results-based forestry. For. Chron. 79 5 (2003) 865-875
50. Shindler, B.A., Brunson, M., Stankey, G.H., 2002. Social Acceptability of Forest Conditions and Management Practices: A Problem Analysis. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-537, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR, 68 p.
51. Vining J., Daniel T.C., and Schroeder H.W. Predicting scenic values in forested residential landscapes. J. Leisure Res. 16 2 (1984) 124-135
52. Yeiser J.L., and Shilling C.L. Students' responses to selected terms and scenes in natural resource management. J. For. 76 8 (1978) 497-498
53. Young C., and Wesner M. Aesthetic values of forests: measuring the visual impact of forestry operations. Unasylva 213 54 (2003) 23-28
54. Zube E.H., Sell J.L., and Taylor J.G. Landscape perception research, application, and theory. Landsc. Plann. 9 1 (1982) 1-35