Visual perception of habitats adopted for post-mining landscape rehabilitation

Environmental Management

Volumn 46, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 424-435

  Sklenicka, Petr ^a   Molnarova, Kristina ^a  

^a CZECH UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES PRAGUE   (Czech Republic)

Author keywords

Naturalness; Post mining landscape; Recultivation; Scenic beauty; Visual assessment

Indexed keywords

NATURALNESS; POST-MINING LANDSCAPE; RECULTIVATION; SCENIC BEAUTY; VISUAL ASSESSMENTS;

COAL RECLAMATION; ECOSYSTEMS; PHOTOGRAPHY; RECLAMATION;

FORESTRY;

ABANDONED MINE; COAL MINE; CONIFEROUS FOREST; DECIDUOUS FOREST; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT; GRASSLAND; HABITAT MANAGEMENT; HABITAT QUALITY; HABITAT TYPE; LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY; MIXED FOREST; PERCEPTION; RECLAIMED LAND; REVEGETATION; VISUALIZATION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CZECH REPUBLIC; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; ENVIRONMENTAL RECLAMATION; FEMALE; FOREST; GRASSLAND; HABITAT; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY; LOWEST INCOME GROUP; MALE; MINING; PHOTOGRAPHY; QUESTIONNAIRE; RESEARCH; VISION;

BEAUTY; COAL MINING; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; CZECH REPUBLIC; ECOSYSTEM; HUMANS; QUESTIONNAIRES; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

COAL; CZECH; ECOSYSTEMS; FORESTRY; MINING; PHOTOGRAPHY; RECLAMATION;

BOHEMIA; CZECH REPUBLIC;

EID: 77957684905     PISSN: 0364152X     EISSN: 14321009     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00267-010-9513-3     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. JD Balling JH Falk 1982 Development of visual preference for natural environments Environment and Behaviour 14 5 28 10.1177/0013916582141001
2. V Bejček K Šťastný 1984 The succession of bird communities on spoil banks after surface brown coal mining Ecologia Polska 32 245 259
3. Berger A (2002) Reclaiming the American West. Princeton Architectural Press, New York
4. MW Brunson BS Steel 1996 Sources of variation in attitudes and beliefs about federal rangeland management Journal of Range Management 49 69 75 10.2307/4002728
5. Carlson A (2001) Aesthetic preferences for sustainable landscapes: seeing and knowing. In: Sheppard SRJ, Harshaw HW (eds) Forest and landscapes. Linking ecology, sustainability and aesthetics. IUFRO Research Series, No. 6. CAB International, Oxon, UK, pp 31-41
6. Daniel TD (2001) Aesthetic preference and ecological sustainability. In: Sheppard SRJ, Harshaw HW (eds) Forest and landscapes. Linking ecology, sustainability and aesthetics. IUFRO Research Series, No. 6. CAB International, Oxon, UK, pp 15-29
7. V Dentoni G Massacci 2007 Visibility of surface mining and impact perception International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment 21 6 13 10.1080/17457300600906289
8. JO Durrant JM Shumway 2004 Attitudes toward wilderness study areas: a survey of six Southeastern Utah counties Environmental Management 33 271 283 10.1007/s00267-003-3019-1
9. TS Flanagan S Anderson 2008 Mapping perceived wilderness to support protected areas management in the San Juan National Forest, Colorado Forest Ecology and Management 256 1039 1048 10.1016/j.foreco.2008.06.007
10. J Frouz A Nováková 2005 Development of soil microbial properties in topsoil layer during spontaneous succession in heaps after brown coal mining in relation to humus microstructure development Geoderma 129 54 64 10.1016/j.geoderma.2004.12.033
11. H Gillarová P Trpák I Trpáková Z Sýkorová E Pecharová 2008 Landscape memory as a solution of the ecological stability of the territory after mining Gospodarka Surowcami Mineralnymi 24 289 298
12. D Habron 1998 Visual perception of wild land in Scotland Landscape Urban Plan 42 45 56 10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00069-3
13. KT Han 2007 Responses to six major terrestrial biomes in terms of scenic beauty, preference, and restorativeness Environment and Behaviour 39 529 556 10.1177/0013916506292016
14. DE Hands RD Brown 2002 Enhancing visual preference of ecological rehabilitation sites Landscape Urban Plan 58 57 70 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00240-7
15. M Hendrychová M Šálek A Červenková 2008 Invertebrate communities in man-made and spontaneously developed forests on spoil heaps after coal mining Journal of Landscape Studies 1 169 187
16. RB Hull GJ Buhyoff 1986 The scenic beauty temporal distribution method: an attempt to make scenic beauty assessments compatible with forest planning efforts Forest Science 32 271 286
17. Jensen FS (1999) Forest recreation in Denmark from the 1970s to the 1990s. The research series, vol 26. Danish Forest and Landscape Research Institute, Hoersholm
18. BP Kaltenborn T Bjerke 2002 Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences Landscape Urban Plan 59 1 11 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00243-2
19. Kaplan S (1979) Perception and landscape: conceptions and misconceptions. In: Proceedings of our national landscapes: a conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource, USDA Forest service General Technical Report PSW-35. Pacific southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkley, CA
20. RJ Lamb AT Purcell 1990 Perception of naturalness in landscape and its relationship to vegetation structure Landscape Urban Plan 19 333 352 10.1016/0169-2046(90)90041-Y
21. JN Lien GJ Buhyoff 1986 Extension of visual quality models for urban forests Environmental Management 22 245 254
22. E Lyons 1983 Demographic correlates of landscape preference Environment and Behaviour 15 487 511 10.1177/0013916583154005
23. M Martiš V Zdražil I Kašparová I Svoboda E Pecharová 2008 Strategy for reconstructing the ecological and aesthetic functions of the Kladno region landscape disturbed by hard coal mining Journal of Landscape Studies 1 103 111
24. A Misgav S Amir 2001 Integration of visual quality considerations in development of Israeli vegetation management policy Environmental Management 27 845 857 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MzhvFWjsA%3D%3D 10.1007/s0026702353
25. JI Nassauer 1995 Messy ecosystems, orderly frames Landscape Journal 14 161 170
26. Å Ode G Fry MS Tveit P Messager D Miller 2009 Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference Journal of Environmental Management 90 375 383 10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.013
27. K Prach P Pysek 2001 Using spontaneous succession for restoration of human-disturbed habitats: experience from Central Europe Ecological Engineering 17 55 62 10.1016/S0925-8574(00)00132-4
28. JS Price RG McLaren DL Rudolph 2009 Landscape restoration after oil sands mining: conceptual design and hydrological modelling for fen reconstruction International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment 24 109 123 10.1080/17480930902955724
29. T Purcell RJ Lamb E Mainardi Peron S Falchero 1994 Preference or preferences for landscape? Journal of Environmental Psychology 14 195 209 10.1016/S0272-4944(94)80056-1
30. Ribe RG (1991) A test of differences in scenic perceptions and needs across the recreation opportunity spectrum. Final report, cooperative research agreement NC-89-08. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, Chicago
31. Robottom I, Hart P (1993) Research in environmental education: engaging the debate. Deakin University Press, Geelong, Australia
32. Ruso B, Renninger LA, Atzwanger K (2003) Human habitat preferences: a generative territory for evolutionary aesthetics research. In: Voland E, Grammer K (eds) Evolutionary aesthetics. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp 279-294
33. L Sauvé 2005 Currents in environmental education: Mapping a complex and evolving pedagogical field Canadian Journal of Environmental Education 10 11 37
34. HW Schroeder 1989 Esthetic perception of the urban forest: a utility perspective Journal of Arboriculture 15 292 294
35. F Schulz G Wiegleb 2000 Development options of natural habitats in a post mining landscape Land Degradation and Development 11 99 110 10.1002/(SICI)1099-145X(200003/04)11:2<99::AID-LDR368>3.0.CO;2-I
36. Sheppard SRJ (2001) Beyond visual resource management: emerging theories of an ecological aesthetic and visible stewardship. In: Sheppard SRJ, Harshaw HW (eds) Forests and landscapes-linking ecology, sustainability and aesthetics. IUFRO research series no. 6. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, pp 149-172
37. P Sklenicka E Charvatova 2003 Stand continuity-a useful parameter for ecological networks in post-mining landscapes Ecological Engineering 20 287 296 10.1016/S0925-8574(03)00053-3
38. P Sklenicka T Lhota 2002 Landscape heterogeneity-the quantitative criterion for landscape reconstruction Landscape Urban Plan 58 147 156 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00217-1
39. C Steinitz 1990 Toward a sustainable landscape of high visual preference and high ecological integrity: the loop road in Acadia National Park, USA Landscape Urban Plan 19 213 250 10.1016/0169-2046(90)90023-U
40. E Strumse 1996 Demographic differences in the visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in Western Norway Journal of Environmental Psychology 16 17 31 10.1006/jevp.1996.0002
41. L Tahvanainen L Tyrväinen M Ihalainen N Vuorela O Kolehmainen 2001 Forest management and public perceptions-Visual versus verbal information Landscape Urban Plan 53 53 70 10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00137-7
42. M Tveit Å Ode G Fry 2006 Key concepts in a framework for analyzing visual landscape character Landscape Research 31 229 255 10.1080/ 01426390600783269
43. L Tyrväinen H Silvennoinen O Kolehmainen 2003 Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 1 135 149 10.1078/1618-8667-00014
44. RS Ulrich 1986 Human responses to vegetation and landscapes Landscape Urban Plan 13 29 44 10.1016/0169-2046(86)90005-8
45. AE Van den Berg SL Koole 2006 New wilderness in the Netherlands: an investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes Landscape Urban Plan 78 362 372 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.11.006
46. AE Van den Berg CAJ Vlek JF Coeterier 1998 Group differences in the aesthetic evaluation of nature development plans: a multilevel approach Journal of Environmental Psychology 18 141 157 10.1006/jevp.1998.0080
47. RJ Virden 1990 A comparison study of wilderness users and non-users: implications for managers and policymakers Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 8 13 24
48. EH Zube DG Pitt 1981 Cross-cultural perceptions of scenic and heritage landscapes Landscape Plan 8 69 87 10.1016/0304-3924(81)90041-1