Openness as a key-variable for analysis of management trade-offs in urban woodlands

Urban Forestry and Urban Greening

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 281-293

  Heyman, E ^a   Gunnarsson, B ^a   Stenseke, M ^b   Henningsson, S ^b   Tim, G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Biodiversity; Goal conflict; Multiple use; Recreation; Trade off; Understory density

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; BIRD; DECIDUOUS TREE; DECISION MAKING; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; FOREST ECOSYSTEM; HABITAT CONSERVATION; MANAGEMENT PRACTICE; PHOTOGRAPH; POPULATION DENSITY; PRESSURE EFFECT; RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY; TRADE-OFF; UNDERSTORY; URBAN AREA; WOODLAND;

SWEDEN;

AVES;

EID: 81055157787     PISSN: 16188667     EISSN: 16108167     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2011.07.003     Document Type: Article

References (84)

1. Balmer O., Erhardt A. Consequences of succession on extensively grazed grasslands for central European butterfly communities: rethinking conservation practices. Conservation Biology 2000, 14:746-757.
2. Bell S., Ward Thompson C., Travlou P. Contested views of freedom and control: children, teenagers and urban fringe woodlands in Central Scotland. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2003, 2:87-100.
3. Bentsen P., Lindholst A.C., Konijnendijk C.C. Reviewing eight years of Urban Forestry & Urban Greening: taking stock, looking ahead. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2010, 9:273-280.
4. Bibby C.J., Burgess N.D., Hill D.A., Mustoe S.H. Bird Census Techniques 2000, Academic Press, London. second ed.
5. Bjerke T., Østdahl T. Animal-related attitudes and activities in an urban population. Anthrozoös 2004, 17:109-129.
6. Bjerke T., Østdahl T., Thrane C., Strumse E. Vegetation density of urban parks and perceived appropriateness for recreation. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2006, 5:35-44.
7. Brokaw N.V.L., Lent R.A. Vertical structure. Maintaining Biodiversity in Forest Ecosystems 1999, 373-399. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. M.L. Hunter (Ed.).
8. Burke D.A., Elliott K.A., Holmes S.B. The effects of partial harvest on the understory vegetation of southern Ontario woodlands. Forest Ecology and Management 2008, 255:2204-2212.
9. Camprodon J., Brotons L. Effects of undergrowth clearing on the bird communities of the Northwestern Mediterranean Coppice Holm oak forests. Forest Ecology and Management 2006, 221:72-82.
10. Cornelis J., Hermy M. Biodiversity relationships in urban and suburban parks in Flanders. Landscape and Urban Planning 2004, 69:385-401.
11. DeClerck F.A.J., Barbour M.G., Sawyer J.O. Resource use efficiency as a function of species richness and stand composition in upper montane conifer forests of the Sierra Nevada. Journal of Vegetation Science 2005, 16:443-452.
12. Fernández-Juricic E., Jimenez M.D., Lucas E. Bird tolerance to human disturbance in urban parks of Madrid (Spain): managements implications. Avian Ecology and Conservation in an Urbanizing World 2001, 259-273. Kluwer, Boston. J.M. Marzluff, R. Bowman, R. Donnelly (Eds.).
13. Fischer J., Peterson G.D., Gardner T.A., et al. Integrating resilience thinking and optimisation for conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 2009, 24:549-554.
14. Franc N., Götmark F. Openness in management: hands-off vs partial cutting in conservation forests, and the response of beetles. Biological Conservation 2008, 141:2310-2321.
15. Fredman, P., Karlsson, S.-E., Romild, U., Sandell, K. (Eds.), 2008. Vilka är ute i naturen? Delresultat från en nationell enkät om friluftsliv och naturturism i Sverige. Report No. 1, Forskningsprogrammet Friluftsliv I förändring, östersund. (in Swedish).
16. Fry G., Tveit M.S., Ode Å., Velarde M.D. The ecology of visual landscapes: Exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicators. Ecological Indicators 2009, 9:933-947.
17. Fuller R.J. Influence of treefall gaps on distributions of breeding birds within interior old-growth stands in Bialowieza forest, Poland. The Condor 2000, 102:267-274.
18. Fuller R.A., Gaston K.J. The scaling of green space coverage in European cities. Biology Letters 2009, 5:352-355.
19. Götmark F., Paltto H., Nordén B., Götmark E. Evaluation of partial cutting in broadleaved temperate forest under strong experimental control: short-term effects on herbaceous plants. Forest Ecology and Management 2005, 214:124-141.
20. Gundersen V., Frivold L.H., Löfström I., et al. Urban woodland management-the case of 13 major Nordic cities. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2005, 3:189-202.
21. Gundersen V., Frivold L.H., Myking T., Øyen B-H. Management of urban recreational woodlands: the case of Norway. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2006, 5:73-82.
22. Gundersen V.S., Frivold L.H. Public preferences for forest structures: a review of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2008, 7:241-258.
23. Gunnarsson B., Heyman E., Vowles T. Bird predation effects on bush canopy arthropods in suburban forests. Forest Ecology and Management 2009, 257:619-627.
24. Gül A., Gezer A., Kane B. Multi-criteria analysis for locating new urban forests: an example from Isparta, Turkey. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2006, 5:57-71.
25. Hedblom M., Söderström B. Woodlands across Swedish urban gradients: status, structure and management implications. Landscape and Urban Planning 2008, 84:62-73.
26. Heyman E. Clearance of understory in urban woodlands: assessing impact on bird abundance and diversity. Forest Ecology and Management 2010, 260:125-131.
27. Hill D., Daniel T.C. Foundations for an ecological aesthetic: can information alter landscape preferences?. Society and Natural Resources 2008, 21:34-49.
28. Hjältén J., Stenbacka F., Andersson J. Saproxylic beetle assemblages on low stumps, high stumps and logs: implications for environmental effects of stump harvesting. Forest Ecology and Management 2010, 260:1149-1155.
29. Hultman, S.G., 1983. Allmänhetens bedömning av skogsmiljöers lämplighet för friluftsliv. En rikstäckande enkät (Public judgement of forest environments as recreation areas. A national survey). Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet, Avd. skoglig landskapsvård, Report no. 28, 1-91. (in Swedish, with English summary).
30. James P., Tzoulas K., Adams M.D., et al. Towards an integrated understanding of green space in the European built environment. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2009, 8:65-75.
31. Jessel B. Elements, charateristics and character: information functions of landscapes in terms of indicators. Ecological Indicators 2006, 6:153-167.
32. Jorgensen A., Anthopoulou A. Enjoyment and fear in urban woodlands-does age make a difference?. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2007, 6:267-278.
33. Jorgensen A., Gobster P.H. Shades of green: measuring the ecology of urban green space in the context of human health and well-being. Nature and Culture 2010, 5:338-363.
34. Kaplan S. Aesthetics, affect and cognition: environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behaviour 1987, 19:3-32.
35. Kaplan R., Kaplan S. The Experience of Nature 1989, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
36. Karjalainen, E., 2006. The visual preferences for forest regeneration and field afforestation-four case studies in Finland. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Helsinki.
37. Kellomäki S., Savolainen R. The scenic value of the forest landscape as assessed in the field and the laboratory. Landscape Planning 1984, 11:97-107.
38. Knight A.T., Cowling R.M., Campbell B.M. An operational model for implementing conservation action. Conservation Biology 2006, 20:408-419.
39. Koch, N.E., Jensen, F.S., 1988. Skovenes friluftsfunktion i Danmark. IV. del. Befolkningens ønsker til skovenes og det åbne lands utformning. (Forest recreation in Denmark. Part IV: The preferences of the population). Det forstlige Forsøgsvæsen i Danmark 41, 243-516.
40. Konijnendijk C.C. A decade of urban forestry in Europe. Forest Policy and Economics 2003, 5:173-186.
41. Konijnendijk C.C., Busse Nielsen A., Schipperijn J., et al. Assessment of urban forestry research and research needs in Nordic and Baltic countries. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2007, 6:297-309.
42. Kroodsma R.L. Bird community ecology on power-line corridors in east Tennessee. Biological Conservation 1982, 23:79-94.
43. Lacaze J.F. Forest management for recreation and conservation: new challenges. Forestry 2000, 73:137-141.
44. Lehvävirta S., Rita H. Natural regeneration of trees in urban woodlands. Journal of Vegetation Science 2002, 13:57-66.
45. Lemperiere G., Marage D. The influence of forest management and habitat on insect communities associated with dead wood: a case study in forests of the southern French Alps. Insect Conservation and Diversity 2010, 3:236-245.
46. Lindhagen A., Hörnsten L. Forest recreation in 1977 and 1997 in Sweden: changes in public preferences and behaviour. Forestry 2000, 73:143-153.
47. Lisberg Jensen E., Ouis P. Contested construction of nature for city fringe outdoor recreation in Southern Sweden: the Arrie case. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2008, 7:171-182.
48. Lundquist, J., 2005. Kommunägd skog i Sverige-en enkät- och intervjustudie av de tätortsnära skogarnas ekonomiska och sociala värde (Municipality owned forest in Sweden-a questionnaire and interview study of social and economic values of the urban forests). Master Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala. (in Swedish, with English summary).
49. MacArthur R. Environmental factors affecting bird species diversity. American Naturalist 1964, 98:387-397.
50. Margules C.R., Pressey R.L. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 2000, 405:243-253.
51. Mörtberg U., Wallentinus H.G. Red-listed forest bird species in an urban environment-assessment of green space corridors. Landscape and Urban Planning 2000, 50:215-226.
52. Niklasson, M., Nilsson, S.G., 2005. Skogsdynamik och arters bevarande: bevarandebiologi, skogshistoria, skogsekologi och deras tillämpning i Sydsveriges landskap, Studentlitteratur, Lund.
53. Nilsson, P., Cory, N. 2009. Skogsdata 2009 (Forestry statistics 2009). Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå. (in Swedish, with English summary).
54. Nordén B., Götmark F., Ryberg M., Paltto H., Allmer J. Partial cutting reduces species richness of fungi on woody debris in oak-rich forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 2008, 38:1807-1816.
55. Ode Å., Fry G. A model for quantifying and predicting urban pressure on woodland. Landscape and Urban Planning 2006, 77:17-27.
56. Ode Å., Tveit M.S., Fry G. Capturing landscape visual character using indicators: touching base with landscape aesthetic theory. Landscape Research 2008, 33:89-117.
57. Ortega Y.K., Capen D.E. Roads as edges: effects on birds in forested landscapes. Forest Science 2002, 48:381-390.
58. Palmer J.F., Hoffman R.E. Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments. Landscape and Urban Planning 2001, 54:149-161.
59. Palmer J.F. Using spatial metrics to predict scenic perception in a changing landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 2004, 69:201-218.
60. Paltto H., Nordén B., Götmark F. Partial cutting as a conservation alternative for oak Quercus spp forest-response of bryophytes and lichens on dead wood. Forest Ecology and Management 2008, 256:536-547.
61. Pressey R.L., Cabeza M., Watts M.E., et al. Conservation planning in a changing world. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 2007, 22:583-592.
62. Pullin A.S., Knight T.M. Effectiveness in conservation practice: pointers from medicine and public health. Conservation Biology 2001, 15:50-54.
63. Pullin A.S., Knight T.M., Stone D.A., Charman K. Do conservation managers use scientific evidence to support their decision-making?. Biological Conservation 2004, 119:245-252.
64. Ribe R.G. The asthetics of forestry, what has empirical preference research taught us?. Environmental Management 1989, 13:55-74.
65. Rodewald P.G., Smith K.G. Short-term effects of understory and overstory management on breeding birds in Arkansas oak-hickory forests. Journal of Wildlife Management 1998, 62:1411-1417.
66. Ruddel E.J., Gramann J.H., Rudis V.A., Westphal J.M. The phsycological utility of Visual Penetration in near-view Forest Scenic-Beauty Models. Environment and Behaviour 1989, 21:393-412.
67. Rydberg D., Falck J. Urban forestry in Sweden from a silvicultural perspective: a review. Landscape and Urban Planning 2000, 47:1-18.
68. Sandberg, M., 2009. Barn och natur i storstaden. En studie av barns förhållande till naturområden i hemmets närhet-med exempel från Stockholm och Göteborg. Choros 2009: 1. Department of Human and Economic Geography, University of Gothenburg. (in Swedish).
69. Savolainen, R., Kellomäki, S., 1981. Metsän maisemallinen arvostus. Acta Forestalia Fennica 170. (in Finnish).
70. Siegel S., Castellan N.J. Nonparametric Statistics 1988, McGraw-Hill, New York. 2nd ed.
71. Silvennoinen H., Alho J., Kolehmainen O., Pukkala T. Prediction models of landscape preferences at the forest stand level. Landscape and Urban Planning 2001, 56:11-20.
72. Slagsvold T. Bird population changes after clearance of deciduous scrub. Biological Conservation 1977, 12:229-244.
73. Stamps A.E. Demographic effects in environmental aesthetics: a meta-analysis. Journal of Planning Literature 1999, 14:155-175.
74. Stenbacka F., Hjältén J., Hilszczański J., Dynesius M. Saproxylic and non-saproxylic beetle assemblages in boreal spruce forests of different age and forestry intensity. Ecological Applications 2010, 20:2310-2321.
75. Tahvanainen L., Tyrväinen L., Ihalainen M., Vuorela N., Kolehmainen O. Forest management and public perceptions-visual versus verbal information. Landscape and Urban Planning 2001, 53:53-70.
76. Termorshuizen J.W., Opdam P., van den Brink A. Incorporating ecological sustainability into landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 2007, 79:374-384.
77. Tveit M.S. Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference; a comparison between groups. Journal of Environmental Management 2009, 90:2882-2888.
78. Tveit M., Ode Å., Fry G. Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landscape Research 2006, 31:229-255.
79. Tyrväinen L., Silvennoinen H., Kolehmainen O. Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2003, 1:135-149.
80. Ulyshen M.D. Arthropod vertical stratification in temperate deciduous forests: implications for conservation-oriented management. Forest Ecology and Management 2011, 261:1479-1489.
81. Van Elegem B., Embo T., Muys B., Lust N. A methodology to select the best locations for new urban forests using multicriteria analysis. Forestry 2002, 75:13-23.
82. Wang X., Fang J., Sanders N.J., et al. Relative importance of climate vs local factors in shaping the regional patterns of forest plant richness across northeast China. Ecography 2009, 32:133-142.
83. Whelan C.J., Maina G.G. Effects of season, understorey vegetation density, habitat edge and tree diameter on patch-use by bark-foraging birds. Functional Ecology 2005, 19:529-536.
84. Zou C.B., Barron-Gafford G.A., Breshears D.D. Effects of topography and woody plant canopy cover on near-ground solar radiation: relevant energy inputs for ecohydrology and hydropedology. Geophysical Research Letters 2007, 34:L24S21.