Naturally dead and downed wood in Norwegian boreal forests: Public preferences and the effect of information

Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 110-119

  Gundersen, Vegard ^a   Frivold, Lars Helge ^b  

^a NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE FOR NATURE RESEARCH   (Norway)

^b NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES   (Norway)

Author keywords

Aesthetics; Conservation; Dead wood; Forest ecology; Primary forests; Recreation; Scenic values

Indexed keywords

AESTHETICS; DEAD WOOD; FOREST ECOLOGY; PRIMARY FORESTS; RECREATION; SCENIC VALUES;

BIODIVERSITY; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; ECOLOGY; FORESTRY; SURVEYS;

WOOD;

BIODIVERSITY; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; CONSERVATION; DEAD WOOD; ECOLOGY; FORESTRY; FORESTS; SURVEYS; WOOD;

EID: 79951817430     PISSN: 02827581     EISSN: 16511891     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02827581.2010.536567     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Berg, Å., Ehnström, B., Gustafsson, L., Hallingbäck, T., Jonsell, M. & Weslin, J. (1994). Threatened plant, animal and fungus species in Swedish forests: Distribution and habitat associations. Conservation Biology, 8, 718-731.
2. Brown, T. C. & Daniel, T. C. (1984). Modeling Forest Scenic Beauty: Concepts and Application to Ponderosa pine (Research Paper RM-256) (Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Services, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station).
3. Brown, T. C. & Daniel, T. C. (1986). Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands. Forest Science, 32, 471-487.
4. Bujis, A. B. (2009). Lay people's images of nature: Comprehensive frameworks of values, beliefs and value orientations. Society and Natural Resources, 22, 417-432.
5. Daniel, T. C. (2001). Aesthetic preference and ecological sustainability. In S. R. J. Sheppard, & H. W. Harshaw (Eds.), Forest and Landscapes. Linking Ecology, Sustainability and Aesthetics (pp. 15-29). Vienna: The International Union of Forestry Research Organizations (IUFRO).
6. DiSogra, C. & Callegaro, M. (2009). Computing response rates for probability-based web panels, In JSM Proceedings Papers Presented at the Joint Statistical Meetings Washington, DC, August 1-6, 2009 and other ASA-Sponsored Conferences, Statistical Computing Section (Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association).
7. Esseen, P. -A., Ehnström, B., Ericson, L. & Sjöberg, K. (1997). Boreal forests. Ecological Bulletins, 46, 16-47.
8. FAO (2004). Global Forest Resources Assessment Update 2005. Terms and Definitions: Final Version (Forest Resources Assessment Programme, Working Paper 83) (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Forestry Department).
9. FAO (2006). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005: Progress Towards Sustainable Forest Management (FAO Forestry Paper 147) (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations).
10. Framstad, E., Berglund, H., Gundersen, V., Heikkilä, R., Lankinen, N., Peltola, T., et al. (2009). Increased Biomass Harvesting for Bioenergy: Effects on Biodiversity, Landscape Amenities and Cultural Heritage Values (TemaNord 2009:591) (Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers).
11. Gjerde, I. & Baumann, C. (Eds.) (2002). Miljøregistrering i skog: biologisk mangfold. Hovedrapport [Environmental inventory in forests: Biological diversity. Main report] (Ås: Norwegian Forest Research Institute). (In Norwegian)
12. Gobster, P. H. (1999). An ecological aesthetic for forest landscape management. Landscape Journal, 18, 54-65.
13. Gobster, P. H., Nassauer, J. I., Daniel, T. C. & Fry, G. (2007). The shared landscape: What does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecology, 22, 959-972.
14. Greenbaum, A. (2005). Nature connoisseurship. Environmental Values, 14, 389-407.
15. Gundersen, V. (2005). Urban woodland management in Norway: Integrating aesthetic and ecological elements in silviculture, Doctoral dissertation, Department of Ecology and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway, 2005.
16. Gundersen, V. & Frivold, L. H. (2008). Public preferences for forest structures: A review of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 7, 241-258.
17. Gundersen, V., Frivold, L. H., Löfström, I., Jørgensen, B. B., Falck, J. & Øyen, B. -H. (2005). Urban woodland management - the case of 13 major Nordic cities. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 3, 189-202.
18. Gundersen, V., Frivold, L. H., Myking, T. & Øyen, B. -H. (2006). Management of urban recreational woodlands: The case of Norway. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 5, 73-82.
19. Haider, W. (1994). The aesthetics of white pine and red pine forests. The Forestry Chronicle, 70, 402-410.
20. Hallikainen, V. (1998). The Finnish Wilderness Experience (Research Papers 71) (Rovaniemi: The Finnish Forest Research Institute).
21. Hellström, E. (2001). Conflict cultures - Qualitative comparative analysis of environmental conflicts in forestry. Silva Fennica Monographs, 2, 1-109.
22. Hörnsten, L. & Fredman, P. (2000). On the distance to recreational forests in Sweden. Landscape and Urban Planning, 51, 1-10.
23. Hull, R. B. & Revell, G. R. B. (1989). Cross-cultural comparison of landscape scenic beauty evaluations: A case study in Bali. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, 177-191.
24. Hultman, S. G. (1983). Public Judgement of Forest Environments as Recreation Areas 2: A National Survey (Report No. 28), (Uppsala: Section of Environmental Forestry, The Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences). (In Swedish, with English summary)
25. Hytönen, M. (1995). History, evolution and significance of the multiple use concept. In M. Hytönen (Ed.), Multiple-use Forestry in the Nordic Countries (pp. 43-65). Helsinki: The Finnish Forest Research Institute.
26. Hytönen, M. & Blöndal, S. (1995). Timber production and the forest industry. In M. Hytönen (Ed.), Multiple use Forestry in the Nordic Countries (pp. 81-116). Helsinki: The Finnish Forest Research Institute.
27. Jensen, F. S. (1993). Landscape managers' and politicians' perception of the forest and landscape preferences of the population. Forest and Landscape Research, 1, 79-83.
28. Jensen, F. S. (2000). The effects of information on Danish forest visitors' acceptance of various management actions. Forestry, 73, 165-172.
29. Jensen, F. S. & Skovsgaard, J. P. (2009). Precommercial thinning of pedunculate oak: Recreational preferences of the population of Denmark for different thinning practices in young stands. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 24, 28-36.
30. Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Kardell, L. (1990). Talltorpsmon i Åtvidaberg. 1. Förändringar I upplevelsen av skogen mellan 1978 och 1989 [Talltorpsmon in Åtvidaberg. 1. Changes in the perception of the forest between 1978 and 1989] (Report No. 46) (Uppsala: Section of Environmental Forestry, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences). (In Swedish)
32. Karjalainen, E. (2006). The visual preferences for forest regeneration and field afforestation - four case studies in Finland, Dissertationes Forestales 31, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Helsinki, 2006.
33. Komulainen, M. (1995). Landscape management in forestry. In M. Hytönen (Ed.), Multiple use Forestry in the Nordic Countries (pp. 295-320). Helsinki: The Finnish Forest Research Institute.
34. Lindhagen, A. & Hörnsten, L. (2000). Forest recreation in 1977 and 1997 in Sweden: Changes in public preferences and behaviour. Forestry, 73, 143-151.
35. Living Forests (2006). Standard for sustainable forest management in Norway. Available at http://www.levendeskog.no/ (accessed 2 March 2010).
36. Martikainen, P., Siitonen, J., Kaila, L., Punttila, P. & Rauh, J. (1999). Bark beetles (Coleoptera, Scolytidae) and associated beetle species in mature managed and old-growth boreal forests in southern Finland. Forest Ecology and Management, 116, 233-245.
37. Nabuurs, G. -J., Päivinen, R., Pussinen, A. & Schelhaas, M. -J. (2003). Development of European Forests until 2050. Leiden, Boston, MA, Köln: Brill Academic Publishers.
38. Nassauer, J. I. (1995). Messy ecosystems orderly frames. Landscape Journal, 14, 161-170.
39. Ode, Å.K. & Fry, G.L.A. (2002). Visual aspects in urban woodland management. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 1, 15-24.
40. Parsons, R. (1995). Conflict between ecological sustainability and environmental aesthetics: Conundrum, canard or curiosity. Landscape and Urban Planning, 32, 227-244.
41. Ribe, R. G. (1989). The aesthetics of forestry: What has empirical preference research taught us? Environmental Management, 13, 55-74.
42. Ribe, R. G. (1990). A general model for understanding the perception of scenic beauty in Northern hardwood forests. Landscape Journal, 9, 86-101.
43. Saastamoinen, O. & Hytönen, M. (1995). Multiple use research. In M. Hytönen (Ed.), Multiple use Forestry in the Nordic countries (pp. 417-445). Helsinki: The Finnish Forest Research Institute.
44. Schroeder, H. & Daniel, T. C. (1981). Progress in predicting the perceived scenic beauty of forest landscapes. Forest Science, 27, 71-80.
45. Shafer, E. L. (1969). The Average Camper Who Doesn't Exist (Research Paper NE-142) (Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Eastern Forest Experiment Station).
46. Sheppard, S. R. J. (2001). Beyond visual resource management: Emerging theories of an ecological aesthetics and visible stewardship. In S. R. J. Sheppard, & H. W. Harshaw (Eds.), Forest and Landscapes. Linking Ecology, Sustainability and Aesthetics (pp. 149-179). Vienna: The International Union of Forestry Research Organizations (IUFRO).
47. Sjöberg, K. & Lennartsson, T. (1995). Fauna and flora management in forestry. In M. Hytönen (Ed.), Multiple use Forestry in the Nordic Countries (pp. 191-243). Helsinki: The Finnish Forest Research Institute.
48. Statistics Norway (2007). Stat Bank Norway. Available at http://www.ssb.no/ (accessed 3 March 2010).
49. Storaunet, K. O., Rolstad, J., Gjerde, I. & Gundersen, V. (2005). Historical logging, productivity, and structural characteristics of boreal coniferous forests in Norway. Silva Fennica, 39, 429-442.
50. Storaunet, K. O., Rolstad, J. & Groven, R. (2000). Reconstructing 100-150 years of logging history in coastal spruce forest (Picea abies) with special conservation values in Central Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 15, 591-604.
51. Tyrväinen, L., Nouisiainen, I., Silvennoinen, H. & Tahvanainen, L. (2001). Rural tourism in Finland: Tourist expectation of landscape and environment. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 1, 133-149.
52. Tyrväinen, L., Pauleit, S., Seeland, K. & Vries, S. (2005). Benefits and uses of urban forests and trees. In C. C. Konijnendijk, K. Nilsson, T. B. Randrup, & J. Schipperijn (Eds.), Urban Forests and Trees (pp. 81-114). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer- Verlag.
53. Tyrväinen, L., Silvennoinen, H. & Kolehmainen, O. (2003). Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 1, 135-149.
54. Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective responses to natural environment. In I. Altman, & J. Wohlwill (Eds.), Behaviour and the Natural Environment (pp. 85-125). New York: Plenum Press.
55. Vaage, O. F. (2004). Trening, mosjon og friluftsliv: Resultater fra Levekårsundersøkelsen 2001 og Tidsbruksundersøkelsen 2000 [Training, exercise, and open-air activity: Results from the Living Conditions Survey 2001 and Time Spending Survey 2000] (Report 2004/13) (Oslo, Kongsvinger: Statistics Norway). (In Norwegian)
56. Vodiak, M. C., Roberts, P. L., Wellman, J. D. & Buhyoff, G. J. (1985). Scenic impacts of eastern hardwood management. Forest Science, 31, 289-301.