Analysing recreational values and management effects in an urban forest with the visitor-employed photography method

Urban Forestry and Urban Greening

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 267-277

  Heyman, Erik ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Biodiversity; Preference; Recreation; Understory; Vegetation; Woodland

Indexed keywords

CONSERVATION PLANNING; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MANAGEMENT PRACTICE; NATURE CONSERVATION; PERCEPTION; PHOTOGRAPHY; RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY; SPECIES DIVERSITY; TRADE-OFF; UNDERSTORY; URBAN FORESTRY; VALUATION; VEGETATION STRUCTURE; WOODLAND;

GOTEBORG; SWEDEN; VASTRA GOTALAND;

EID: 84863774613     PISSN: 16188667     EISSN: 16108167     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2012.02.003     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Angold P.G., Sadler J.P., Hill M.O., Pullin A., Rushton S., Austin K., Small E., Wood B., Wadsworth R., Sanderson R., Thompson K. Biodiversity in urban habitat patches. Science of the Total Environment 2006, 360:196-204.
2. Beckley T.M., Stedman R.C., Wallace S.M., Ambard M. Snapshots of what matters most: using resident-employed photography to articulate attachment to place. Society and Natural Resources 2007, 20:913-929.
3. 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.
4. Briassoulis H. Sorry golfers, this is not your spot!: exploring public opposition to golf development. Journal of Sport and Social Issues 2010, 34:288-311.
5. Camprodon J., Brotons L. Effects of undergrowth clearing on the bird communities of the Nothwestern Mediterranean Coppice Holm oak forests. Forest Ecology and Management 2006, 221:72-82.
6. Carlborg, N., 1991. Tätortsnära skogsbruk Rapport 1 1991. Skogsstyrelsen, Jönköping (in Swedish).
7. Cherem G.J., Driver B.L. Visitor employed photography: a technique to measure common perceptions of natural environments. Journal of Leisure Research 1983, 15:65-83.
8. Dorwart C.E., Moore R.L., Leung Y. Visitor employed photography: its potential and use in evaluating visitors' perceptions of resource impacts in trail and park settings 2006, USDA For. Serv. NRS GT, 307-315.
9. Dorwart C.E., Moore R.L., Leung Y. Visitors' perceptions of a trail environment and effects on experiences: a model for nature-based recreation experiences. Leisure Sciences 2010, 32:33-54.
10. Gadow von K. Adapting silvicultural management systems to urban forests. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2002, 1:107-113.
11. Garrod B. Exploring place perception: a photo-based analysis. Annals of Tourism Research 2008, 35:381-401.
12. Göteborgs stad (City of Gothenburg) Miljörapport 2008 2009, R 2009:11 (in Swedish).
13. Gundersen V., Frivold L.H., Löfström I. Urban woodland management-the case of 13 major Nordic cities. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2005, 3:189-202.
14. 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.
15. Gundersen V., Frivold L.H. Naturally dead and downed wood in Norwegian boreal forests: public preferences and the effect of information. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 2011, 26:110-119.
16. Hedblom M., Söderström B. Woodlands across Swedish urban gradients: status, structure and management implications. Landscape and Urban Planning 2008, 84:62-73.
17. Herzog T.R, Kutzli G.E. Preference and perceived danger in field/forest settings. Environment and Behavior 2002, 34:819-835.
18. Heyman E. Clearance of understory in urban woodlands: assessing impact on bird abundance and diversity. Forest Ecology and Management 2010, 260:125-131.
19. Heyman E., Gunnarsson B., Stenseke M., Henningsson S., Tim G. Openness as a key-variable for analysis of management trade-offs in urban woodlands. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2011, 10:281-293.
20. Hill D., Daniel T.C. Foundations for an ecological aesthetic: can information alter landscape preferences?. Society and Natural Resources 2008, 21:34-49.
21. Hörnsten L., Fredman P. On the distance to recreational forests in Sweden. Landscape and Urban Planning 2000, 51:1-10.
22. Hultman, S.G., 1983. Public judgement of forest environments as recreation areas. 2. A national survey. Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet, Avd. skoglig landskapsvård, Report no. 28, pp. 1-91 (in Swedish, with English summary).
23. Jonsell M., Weslien J., Ehnström B. Substrate requirements of red-listed saproxylic invertebrates in Sweden. Biodiversity and Conservation 1998, 7:749-764.
24. Jonsson B.G, Kruys N., Ranius T. Ecology of species living on dead wood - lessons for dead wood management. Silva Fennica 2005, 39:289-309.
25. Jorgensen A., Hitchmough J., Calvert T. Woodland spaces and edges: their impact on perception of safety and preference. Landscape and Urban Planning 2002, 60:135-150.
26. Jorgensen A., Gobster P. 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.
27. Karjalainen, E., 2006. The visual preferences for forest regeneration and field afforestation - four case studies in Finland. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Helsinki, Helsinki.
28. 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.
29. Lacaze J.F. Forest management for recreation and conservation: new challenges. Forestry 2000, 73:137-141.
30. Lindhagen A., Hörnsten L. Forest recreation in 1977 and 1997 in Sweden: changes in public preferences and behaviour. Forestry 2000, 73:143-153.
31. Matsuoka R.H., Kaplan R. People needs in the urban landscape: analysis of landscape and urban planning contributions. Landscape and Urban Planning 2008, 84:7-19.
32. 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.
33. Oku H., Fukamachi K. The differences in scenic perception of forest visitors through their attributes and recreational activity. Landscape and Urban Planning 2006, 75:34-42.
34. Ribe R.G The aesthetics of forestry, what has empirical preference research taught us?. Environmental Management 1989, 13:55-74.
35. Rickets T., Imhoff M. Biodiversity, urban areas, and agriculture: locating priority ecoregions for conservation. Conservation Ecology 2003, 8:1.
36. 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.
37. Rydberg D., Falck J. Urban forestry in Sweden from a silvicultural perspective: a review. Landscape and Urban Planning 2000, 47:1-18.
38. Skår M. Forest dear and forest fear: dwellers' relationship to their neighbourhood forest. Landscape and Urban Planning 2010, 98:110-116.
39. Sokal R.R., Rohlf F.J. Biometry 1995, W.H. Freeman and Company, New York. third ed.
40. Stamps A.E. Demographic effects in environmental aesthetics: a meta-analysis. Journal of Planning Literature 1999, 14:155-175.
41. Stedman R., Beckley T., Wallace S., Ambard M. A picture and 1000 words: using resident-employed photography to understand attachment to high amenity places. Journal of Leisure Research 2004, 36:580-606.
42. 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.
43. Tyrväinen L., Silvennoinen H., Kolehmainen O. Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2003, 1:135-149.
44. Van den Berg A.E., Koole S.L., van der Wulp N.Y. Environmental preference and restoration: (how) are they related?. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2003, 23:135-146.
45. Ward Thompson C. Linking landscape and health: the recurring theme. Landscape and Urban Planning 2010, 99:187-195.
46. Wheeler K., Nauright J. A green game?: a global perspective on the environmental impact of golf. Sport in Society 2006, 9:427-443.
47. Yamashita S. Perception and evaluation of water in landscape: use of photo-projective method to compare child and adult residents' perceptions of a Japanese river environment. Landscape and Urban Planning 2002, 62:3-17.