Public preferences for structural attributes of forests: Towards a pan-European perspective

Forest Policy and Economics

Volumn 19, Issue , 2012, Pages 12-19

  Edwards, David ^a   Jay, Marion ^b   Jensen, Frank S ^c   Lucas, Beatriz ^d   Marzano, Mariella ^a   Montagné, Claire ^e   Peace, Andrew ^a   Weiss, Gerhard ^f  

^a FOREST RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^d CENTRE TECNOLÒGIC FORESTAL DE CATALUNYA   (Spain)

^e AGROPARISTECH   (France)

^f UNIVERSITY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND LIFE SCIENCES   (Austria)

Author keywords

Culture; Delphi; Europe; Forest structure; Public preference; Recreation

Indexed keywords

DELPHI; EUROPE; FOREST STRUCTURE; PUBLIC PREFERENCES; RECREATION;

CELL CULTURE; SURVEYS;

FORESTRY;

EUROPE; FELLING; FORESTS; SURVEYS; THINNING; TISSUE CULTURE;

EID: 84859007430     PISSN: 13899341     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2011.07.006     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Guidelines for the implementation of social and cultural values in sustainable forest management. IUFRO Research Group 6.07.00 'Forest and Woodland History'. IUFRO Occasional Paper 19 2007, 23pp. M. Agnoletti (Ed.).
2. Arnberger A., Aikoh T., Eder R., Shoji Y., Mieno T. How many people should be in the urban forest? A comparison of trail preferences of Vienna and Sapporo forest visitor segments. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2010, 9:215-225.
3. Arthur L.M. Predicting scenic beauty of forest environments: Some empirical tests. Forest Science 1977, 23:151-159.
4. Axelsson-Lindgren C., Sorte G. Public responses to differences between visually distinguishable forest stands in a recreation area. Landscape and urban planning 1987, 14:211-217.
5. Bell S. Landscape pattern, perception and visualization in the visual management of forests. Landscape and Urban Planning 2001, 201-211.
6. Blasco E., Gonzalez-Olabarria J.R., Rodriguez-Veiga P., Pukkala T., Kolhemainen O., Palahi M. Predicting scenic beauty of forest stands in Catalonia (North-east Spain). Journal of Forestry Research 2009, 20(1):73-78.
7. Bliss J.C. Public perceptions of clearcutting. Journal of Forestry 2000, 98:4-9.
8. Buijs A.E., Elands B.H.M., Langers F. No wilderness for immigrants: cultural differences in images of nature and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning 2009, 91:113-123.
9. Daniel T.C., Boster R.S. Measuring landscape aesthetics: the scenic beauty method. USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-167 1976, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, 66pp.
10. de Groot R.S., Ramakrishnan P.S. Cultural and amenity services. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Series. 2005, 455-476. Island Press, Washington, DC.
11. Edwards, D., Jay, M., Jensen, F.S., Lucas, B., Marzano, M., Montagne, C., Peace, A., Weiss, G., in review. Public preferences across Europe for different forest stand types as sites for recreation. Ecology and Society.
12. Edwards D., Jay M., Jensen F.S., Lucas B., Marzano M., Montagne C., Peace A., Weiss G. Public preferences for silvicultural attributes of European forests. EFORWOOD Report D2.3.3, Forest Research, UK 2010, http://www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/INFD-6LEKA9.
13. Edwards D., Jay M., Jensen F.S., Lucas B., Marzano M., Montagne C., Peace A., Weiss G. Assessment of the recreational value of European forest management alternatives. EFORWOOD Report D2.3.6, Forest Research, UK 2010, http://www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/INFD-6LEKA9.
14. Edwards D., Jensen F.S., Marzano M., Mason B., Pizzirani S., Schelhaas M.-J. A theoretical framework to assess the impacts of forest management on the recreational value of European forests. Ecological Indicators 2011, 11:81-89.
15. Filyushkina A. Continuous Cover Forestry and Preferences of Recreationists: Implications for Forest Management in North Wales 2010, M.Sc. dissertation, Bangor University, Wales, UK.
16. 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.
17. Hay R. Sense of place in development context. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1998, 18:5-29.
18. Hunziker M., Felber P., Gehring K., Buchecker M., Bauer N., Kienast F. Evaluation of landscape change by different societal groups: results of two empirical studies in Switzerland. Mountain Research and Development 2008, 28:140-147.
19. Jay, M., Peters, K., Buijs, A., Gentin S., Kloek, M., O'Brien, L., this issue. Towards access for all? Policy and research on access of ethnic minority groups to natural areas in four European countries.
20. Jensen F.S., Koch N.E. Measuring forest preferences of the population; a Danish approach. Cemagref éditions, Antony cedex 1998, 39-82. D. Terrasson (Ed.).
21. Kaplan R. The analysis of perception via preference: a strategy for studying how the environment is experienced. Landscape planning 1985, 12:161-176.
22. Kaplan R., Kaplan S. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective 1989, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
23. Koch N.E., Jensen F.S. Skovenes friluftsfunktion i Danmark. IV.del. Befolkningens ønsker til skovenes og det åbne lands udformning. (Forest Recreation in Denmark. Part IV: The Preferences of the Population). Forstl. Forsøgsv. Danm., København 1988, 41:243-516.
24. Konijnendijk C.C. The Forest and the City: The Cultural Landscape of Urban Woodland 2008, Springer.
25. Landeta J. Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2006, 73:467-482.
26. Lee T.R. Perceptions, Attitudes and Preferences in Forests and Woodlands. Technical Paper 18, Forestry Commission, Edinburgh 2001.
27. The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications 1975, Addison Wesley, Boston, MA. H.A. Linstone, M. Turoff (Eds.).
28. Lucas O.W.R. The Design of Forest Landscapes 1991, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
29. MCPFE State of Europe's Forests 2007. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe 2007, Liaison Unit, Warsaw.
30. Nelson W.L. Statistical manipulation of Delphi statements: its success and effects on convergence and stability. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 1978, 12:41-60.
31. Novakowski N., Wellar B. Using the Delphi technique in normative planning research: methodological design considerations. Environment and Planning A 2008, 40:1485-1500.
32. O'Leary T., McCormack A., Clinch J. Afforestation in Ireland-regional differences in attitude. Land Use Policy 2000, 17:39-48.
33. Praestholm S., Jensen F.S., Hasler B., Damgaard C., Erichsen E. Forests improve qualities and values of local areas in Denmark. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2002, 1:97-106.
34. Pröbstl U., Elands B., Wirth V. Forest recreation and nature tourism in Europe: context, history and current situation. European Forest Recreation and Tourism: A Handbook 2009, 12-32. Taylor and Francis, UK. S. Bell, M. Simpson, L. Tyrväinen, T. Sievänen, U. Pröbstl (Eds.).
35. Rametsteiner E., Eichler L., Berg J. Shaping forest communication in the European Union: public perceptions of forests and forestry. Final Report 2009, ECORYS, Rotterdam.
36. Ribe R.G. The aesthetics of forestry: what has empirical preference research taught us?. Environmental Management 1989, 13:55-74.
37. Rishbeth C. Ethnic minority groups and the design of public open space: an inclusive landscape?. Landscape Research 2001, 26(4):351-366.
38. SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STAT 9.2 Users guide 2008, SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC.
39. Schelhaas, M-J., Didion, M., Arets, A., Edwards, D., Hengeveld, G., Lindner, M. Mason, B., Moiseyev, A., Nabuurs, G-J., in review. Impact of different levels of nature conservation designation on European forest resources. Ecology and Society.
40. Schraml U., Volz K.-R. Do species matter? Valuable broadleaves as an object of public perception and policy. Valuable Broadleaved Forests in Europe 2009, 213-236. S. Brill, Leiden, Boston, Köln. H. Spiecker (Ed.).
41. Scott A., Carter C., Brown K., White V. 'Seeing is not everything': exploring the landscape experiences of different publics. Landscape Research 2009, 34(4):397-424.
42. 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.
43. Stamps A.E. Mystery, complexity, legibility, and coherence: a meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2004, 24:1-16.
44. Tindall D.B. Social values and the contingent nature of public opinion and attitudes about forests. The Forestry Chronicle 2003, 79(3):692-705.
45. Ueda, H., Nakajima, T., Takayama, N., Petrova, E., Matsushima, H., Furuya, K., Aoki, Y., this issue. Ways of seeing the forest: Landscape image sketches in Japan and Russia.
46. Yarrow C. A preliminary survey of the public's concepts of amenity in British forestry. Forestry 1966, 39:59-67.
47. Zandersen M., Tol R.S.J. A meta-analysis of forest recreation values in Europe. Journal of Forest Economics 2009, 15(1-2):109-130.
48. Zube E.H., Sell J.L., Taylor J.G. Landscape perception: research, application and theory. Landscape Planning 1982, 9:1-33.