Public and professional responses to the visual effects of timber harvesting: Different ways of seeing

Western Journal of Applied Forestry

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 42-54

  Bradley, Gordon A ^a   Kearney, Anne R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Expertise; Forest aesthetics; Preference

Indexed keywords

HARVESTING; PROFESSIONAL ASPECTS; SOCIAL ASPECTS;

FORESTERS; LANDSCAPE; SILVICULTURAL TREATMENTS; TREE REMOVAL;

TIMBER;

FORESTS; HARVESTING;

EID: 33847658340     PISSN: 08856095     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/wjaf/22.1.42     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Anderson, E. 1978. Visual resource assessment: Local perceptions of familiar natural environments. PhD dissertation, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 213 p.
2. Anderson, L.M. 1981. Land use designations affect perception of scenic beauty in forest landscapes. For. Sci. 27(2):392-400.
3. Bacon, W. 1995. Creating an attractive landscape through viewshed management.J. For. 93(2):26-28.
4. Bradley, G.A. 1996. Forest aesthetics: Harvest practices in visually sensitive areas. Washington Forest Protection Association, Olympia, WA. 21 p.
5. British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 1981. Forest landscape handbook. Ministry of Forests, Victoria, B.C., Canada. 100 p.
6. British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 1994. A first look at visually effective green-up on British Columbia. A public perception study. Ministry of Forests, Victoria, B.C., Canada. 54 p.
7. Brown, T.C., and T.C. Daniel. 1984. Modeling forest scenic beauty: Concepts and applications to ponderosa pine. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. RM-RP-256. 35 p.
8. Brown, T.C., and T.C. Daniel. 1986. Predicting the scenic beauty of timber stands. For. Sci. 32(2):471-487.
9. Brunson, M. 1992. Professional bias, public perspectives, and communication pitfalls for natural resource managers. Rangelands 14(5):292-295.
10. Brunson, M.W., and D.K. Reiter. 1996. Effects of ecological information on judgments about scenic impacts of timber harvest. J. Environ. Manage. 46:31-41.
11. Curtis, R.O., D.D. Marshall, and D.S. DeBell (eds.). 2004. Silvicultural options for young-growth Douglas-fir forests: The Capitol Forest study - establishment and first results. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-598.
12. Forestry Authority. 1994. Forest landscape design - guidelines. The Forestry Authority, Research Division, Wrecclesham, Farnham, Surry, United Kingdom. 32 p.
13. Hammitt, W.E. 1981. The familiarity-preference components of on-site recreational experiences. Leisure Sci. 4:177-193.
14. Hammitt, W.E., and G.J. Cherem. 1980. Photographic perceptions as an on-site toll for designing road trails. South. J. Appl. For. 4(2):94-97.
15. Herzog, T.R. 1988. A cognitive analysis for preference of field-and-forest environments. P. 343-356 in Evnironmental aesthetics: Theory, research, and applications, Nasar, J., (ed.). Cambridge University Press, New York.
16. Hodgson, R.W., and R.L. Thayer. 1980. Implied human influence reduces landscape beauty. Landsc. Plan. 7:171-179.
17. Hull, R.B., and W.P. Stewart. 1992. Validity of photo-based scenic beauty assessments. J. Environ. Psych. 12:101-114.
18. Kaplan, R. 1985. The analysis of perceptions via preference: A strategy for studying how the environment is experienced. Landsc. Plan. 12:161-176.
19. Kaplan, R., and S. Kaplan. 1989. The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. University Press, New York. 340 p.
20. Kaplan, R., S. Kaplan, and R.L. Ryan. 1998. With people in mind: Design and management of everyday nature. Island Press, Washington, DC.
21. Karjalainen E. 1996. Scenic preferences concerning clear-fell areas in Finland. Land. Res. 21(2):159-173.
22. Karjalainen, E., and M. Komulainen. 1999. The visual effect of felling on small-and medium-scale landscapes in north-eastern Finland. J. Environ. Manage. 55:167-181.
23. Kearney, A.R. 2001. Effects of an informational intervention on public reactions to clearcutting. Soc. Nat. Res. 14(9):777-790.
24. Kroh, D.P., and R.H. Gimblett. 1992. Comparing live experience with pictures in articulating landscape preference. Landsc. Res. 17(2):58-69.
25. Lucas, W.R. 1991. The design of forest landscapes. British Forestry Commission, Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom. 374 p.
26. Magill, A.W. 1988. Natural resource professionals: The reluctant public servants. Environ. Prof. 10:295-303.
27. Magill, A.W. 1992. Managed and natural landscapes: What do people like? Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. PNW-213.
28. Magill, A.W. 1994. What people see in managed and natural landscapes. J. For. 92(9):12-16.
29. Mckechnie, G.E. 1977. The environmental response inventory in application. Environ. Behav. 9:255-276.
30. Merriman, L.D., Walk, K.D., and C.E. Ramsey. 1972. Public and professional definitions of the state park: A Minnesota case. J. Leisure Res. 4:259-274.
31. Påquet, J., and L. Bélanger. 1997. Public acceptability thresholds of clearcutting to maintain visual quality of boreal balsam fir landscapes. For. Sci. 43(1):46-55.
32. Peterson, G.L. 1974. A comparison of the sentiments and perceptions of wilderness managers and canoeists in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. J. Leisure Res. 6:194-206.
33. Ribe, R.G. 1989. The aesthetics of forestry: What has empirical reference research taught us? Environ. Manage. 13(1):55-74.
34. Ribe, R.G. 1990. A general model for understanding the perception of scenic beauty in northern hardwood forests. Landsc. J. 9:86-101.
35. Sewell, W.D. 1971. Environmental perceptions and attitudes of engineers and public health officials. Environ. Behav. 3:23-59.
36. Schroeder, H. 1982. Preferred features of urban parks and forests. J. Arboriculture 8:317-322.
37. Schroeder, H.W., and T.C. Daniel. 1981. Progress in predicting the perceived scenic beauty of forest landscapes. For. Sci. 27:71-80.
38. Shelby, B., J. Thompson, M. Brunson, and R. Johnson. 2003. Changes in scenic quality after harvest: A decade of ratings for six silviculture treatments. J. For. 101(2):30-35.
39. Shuttleworth, S. 1980. The use of photographs as an environmental presentation medium in landscape studies. J. Environ. Manage. 11:61-76.
40. SPSS, Inc. 1999. SPSS Base 10.0. Applications Guide. SPSS, Inc., Chicago. 426 p.
41. Twight, B.W., and W.R. Catton. 1975. The politics of images: Forest managers vs. recreation publics. Nat. Res. J. 15:297-306.
42. Ulrich, R.S. 1986. Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 13:29-44.
43. USDA Forest Service. 1974. National Forest landscape management. In The visual management system, Vol. 2. Agric. Handbook 462. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC. 47 p.
44. USDA Forest Service. 1980. National forest landscape management. In Timber, Vol. 2. Agric. Handbook 559. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC. 223 p.
45. Vining, J. 1992. Environmental emotions and decisions: A comparison of the responses and expectations of forest managers, an environmental group, and the public. Environ. Behav. 24(1):3-34.
46. Vodak, M.C., P.L. Roberts, J.D. Wellman, and G.J. Buhyoff. 1985. Scenic impacts of eastern hardwood management. For. Sci. 31:289-302.
47. Wellman, J.D., and T.J. Tipple. 1990. Public forestry and direct democracy. Environ. Prof 12:77-86.